View Single Post
Old 01-04-2009, 09:41 PM   #47
J.delanoy
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1
J.delanoy is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Hi.

I'm on Wikipedia.

Neurolysis asked me to take a look at this thread.

A "reliable source", from my understanding, is a source that conducts independent, in-depth reviews of news items. The source generally has the resources to be able to purchase any necessary materials and/or items needed, as well as the prestige to be allowed special access to products or events. The Associated Press is a good example of a mainstream source that many, if not most, English newspapers, radio stations and TV stations use for their stories. For a reliable source more suited as an example for the topic at hand, IGN is a good choice, as they often obtain access to products such as video game consoles before the general public, and again, many, many other websites quote their stories.

Conflict of interest does not mean you don't have anything to do with a subject. If it did, nearly all editors on Wikipedia would be in violation of it, since I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily writing about a subject they did not like. In this case, the accusations of COI could possibly be somewhat justified, but I don't think so. If you were trying to get an article about this website, that would be one thing, but you aren't. So, I don't know where that came from.


I don't think that's the case here.

To draw an analogy, imagine a local election for mayor of a small town, small enough that pretty much everyone knows everyone else, or at least knows who they are. Now, imagine that anyone, anyone at all, can vote - with no residence or time requirements, and all ballots are submitted via postal mail.

How would the residents of that town react if suddenly many, many votes came in from people they had never heard of before, all voting for the same candidate? Does it seem unreasonable that at least some of the town's residents would assume that the votes were coming from one person, especially if some of the letters were postmarked in the same place?

I think that explains why some of you were blocked for being "sockpuppets". As far as the people who were blocked for being "meatpuppets", I do not know why Black Kite blocked accounts that were not implicated in the CheckUser report. This, to me, seems unnecessary, since as far as I can tell, none of you were vandalizing; you merely giving your opinion on the deletion request.


That is unfortunately correct, and even though I am an administrator on Wikipedia, I cannot just go around and unblock all of your accounts, due to policies in place there. I can, however, look at the circumstances surrounding your blocks and bring the case to the blocking administrator(s). If you will give me the names of your accounts on Wikipedia, I will do my best to get you unblocked, since I do not believe you are attempting to disrupt Wikipedia or to stack votes.


As far as the page's deletion itself goes, from what I can see, unfortunately, the game does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. From :

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.


From my own research, I do not think that Threshold meets this criterion. I was able to find one independent article on Google News about the game. It is already included as a citation in the article. Other than that, I did not find much else. If any of you know of other sources, I would be happy to add them to the article, and to make a note on the deletion request saying that the article has established notability.


I think those were the main issues, other than the problem of "The Cabal". It is, from my experience, nearly impossible to conclusively disprove a cabal's existence, since a group of people with similar thoughts will appear to be acting in coordination, even if they are not. (I will note that I cannot prove that they are not acting in concert, I just think it very unlikely) I do not relish the prospect of adopting an unprovable position, so if it is all the same to you, I would prefer not to comment on those discussions.

If there is something else significant that I missed, please tell me.
J.delanoy is offline   Reply With Quote