[WikiEN-l] MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

[Alvaro García]

Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.


--
Alvaro

On 10-01-2009, at 15:35, toddmallen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>> The explosion of comments from outright reliable sources (Raph Koster
>> and Richard Bartle, even when blogging, are reliable secondary
>> sources) makes this a clear-cut notable article at present. I may
>> recreate, using Bartle and Koster exclusively as two sources.
>>
>> But yes - the point stands. Contentious AfDs - including ones that  
>> got
>> wide attention off of Wikipedia - should be closed by someone with
>> knowledge about the subject, or at least a consult. Go talk to an
>> editor in the area. Hell, go to WikiProject Video Games, ask for a
>> consult.
>>
>> If you don't know the topic and it's a controversial AfD, don't close
>> it.
>>
>> -Phil
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> "Wikipedia editors should really have enough knowledge about their
>>> subject matter to make choices based on good judgement rather than
>>> strict
>>> adherence to flawed guidelines. Any guideline, law or contract  
>>> doesn't
>>> absolve one from using one's brain — these things are just
>>> frameworks for
>>> handling worst-case scenarios better.
>>>
>>> http://www.unwesen.de/articles/wikipedia_on_mud_history
>>>
>>> This is what is frustrating to me. Although I am not recognized
>>> expert on
>>> MUDs, I know enough that the decision made is obviously wrong, while
>>> those making the decision seem entirely innocent of the subject.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
>>>>> http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>
>>>> Gah. What's bothersome here is that it has a Computer Gaming  
>>>> Magazine
>>>> reference and a quote from Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD
>>>> design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference
>>>> was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was
>>>> unverified.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and
>>>> hostility. Fucking brilliant.
>>>>
>>>> -Phil
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> Blogs do not become reliable sources because someone suddenly wants to
> write an article on something, and they certainly do not establish
> notability. Anyone can blog about anything, so that doesn't establish
> any significance whatsoever.
>
> -- 
> Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l