[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Kylotan You seem to think there's some sort of overarching grand plan to eradicate certain things.

But there is. That's how loser wanna-be admins "score points" so they can level up and make admin.

The original core group of Wikipedia admins earned their stripes by WRITING stuff, researching topics, and doing their level best to make Wikipedia a useful source of information. These are the same people who deliberately rejected "notability" as an official policy, and instead opted for things like "Wikipedia is not paper" and tended towards inclusiveness over deletionism. After all, once information is gone, it tends to stay lost. Irrelevant information on a giant web site like Wikipedia hurts nothing.

But over time, all the easy stuff to write on got covered. So now these no-lifers who care more about the title and "power" of being a Wikipedia admin have to find things to delete to earn "points" and credibility towards earning adminhood.

Unfortunately, a lot of the early admins have moved on and have other commitments in life. These well meaning, hard working folks who care about the founding principles of Wikipedia are being drowned out and dominated by the new crowd who are just in it for the power trip.

This is one of the many serious problems that plagues Wikipedia right now. Sadly, nobody has come along with a decent alternative.

[Milawe]

Ah, sadly, Arctic Mud's listing was deleted. 2 weeks really isn't enough time to try to comb through paper sources, honestly.

[Newworlds]

This is an all too often seen reason why Wiki blows harder than a hurricane:
User:Orangemike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Atyreus]

Originally Posted by Newworlds This is an all too often seen reason why Wiki blows harder than a hurricane: User:Orangemike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This.

I've never quite understood the deletionist tendency. Inclusiveness is what makes Wikipedia not Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica. Besides, where the hell else am I suppopsed to go to find biographical information on obscure porn stars?

I also find it amusing that he links to the article on the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum, an article which to the general readership of Wikipedia is probably no more relevant or useful than some of the types of articles he seems to think violate Wikipedia's standards.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Milawe Ah, sadly, Arctic Mud's listing was deleted. 2 weeks really isn't enough time to try to comb through paper sources, honestly.

It's fine. If the sources turn up we can just re-create it.

[Milawe]

Ah, excellent! I'm honestly still a little gun shy on Wikipedia since it records any mistakes you make as well. I'm pretty good at finding sources, though. Would really appreciate help adding them to entries. I noticed the sources I found for DR ever got added, so I'll have to try to do it again!

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Atyreus I also find it amusing that he links to the article on the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum, an article which to the general readership of Wikipedia is probably no more relevant or useful than some of the types of articles he seems to think violate Wikipedia's standards.

I found his entire biography comical like this and he is the rule not the exception. Reminds me of Comic Store Guy from Simpson's finding self importance.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Milawe Ah, excellent! I'm honestly still a little gun shy on Wikipedia since it records any mistakes you make as well. I'm pretty good at finding sources, though. Would really appreciate help adding them to entries. I noticed the sources I found for DR ever got added, so I'll have to try to do it again!

Most Web sources are pretty useless, unfortunately. I'd recommend peeking through the reliable source docs. Learning how to add them was a huge step for me; the main thing is getting comfortable with the citation templates (take a look at any of the articles I created for reasonably easy-to-read examples). The best help for the embarrassment issue is the "show preview" button.

[Milawe]

Thanks. Hopefully, I'll pick it up quickly again.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by chaosprime Most Web sources are pretty useless, unfortunately. I'd recommend peeking through the reliable source docs.

That never ceases to amaze me, since Wikipedia is itself, obviously, a "web source."

One thing that is interesting is that the page you linked to does not explain much about what is a reliable source. Instead it just talks about what are an unreliable source. That fact right there seems to indicate they care more about finding loopholes to invalidate sources rather than provide ways for people to understand, in advance, that a source IS reputable.

For gaming information in particular, mainstream media RARELY covers it. Most gaming related news and analysis is going to be on the web. And by gaming I mean not just MUDs but everything.

So in that case, what makes a web source reputable? Editorial oversight? Not being self published? Professional controls that monitor legal issues for the site? Am I understanding the criteria?

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Threshold So in that case, what makes a web source reputable? Editorial oversight? Not being self published? Professional controls that monitor legal issues for the site? Am I understanding the criteria?

Sounds like you are. I haven't yet participated in a deletion debate where web content was being considered reliable, but editorial oversight is important, as is not being "self-published". Some kind of feeling that somebody's fact-checking and has a fiduciary stake in the content's accuracy that they're trying to protect comes into it. If the context is one where any yahoo can just toss up whatever he likes, like a forum post or a MUD listing or some random dude's blog or whatever, then Wikipedia doesn't want material from it. I assume the reasonableness of this position doesn't really need to be defended.

It's on the basis of editorial oversight and what I hope isn't too much of a belief that there's fact-checking going on that I've been supporting treating TMC Mud of the Month articles and staff reviews as reliable. I haven't seen this seriously tested in a deletion debate, though, and I haven't yet mustered the energy to try to get the concept reviewed for inclusion in the main WikiProject Video Games reliability guidelines. I may be hoping for a bit too much.

On the other hand, I don't support using any kind of user-generated information from TMC or TMS on Wikipedia, emphatically including rankings. Any affiliate traffic metric is the purest grade of BS imaginable, and I'm gonna put my foot in Cambios's ass if he puts Threshold's TMS and TMC "vote" rank back in that article one more time.

[chaosprime]

In related news, MUME's article is finally back from the dead and better than ever, and Muddy Waters has an article now.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by chaosprime In related news, MUME's article is finally back from the dead and better than ever, and Muddy Waters has an article now.

CHEER!! Good work, CP. I noticed you were the main editor of the MUME article. It's extremely well sourced and reads well.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Milawe CHEER!! Good work, CP. I noticed you were the main editor of the MUME article. It's extremely well sourced and reads well.

Thanks, glad you like it. I didn't start it or anything, but I definitely took the most interest in it while it was in the Article Incubator. It really needed to get back into the encyclopedia; without ever having played MUME, I've been hearing about it regularly since '93, so I kinda feel like if it isn't notable, nothing is.

[Newworlds]

News Flash!

At 2:48 EST on the Nationally Syndicated Jim Rome Show, the Number 1 Sports Radio Show in the United States, Mr. Rome slams Wikipedia with the comment:

"Who are these morons? I don't need to go to Wikipedia to find the truth. When I want the truth, I go to the source."

You tell 'em Jim! Now, can we get Jim to comment on MUDs so we have a source? We'll see.

[chaosprime]

Latest new creations: Northern Lights (finally, an AberMUD), MorgenGrauen*, and Sociopolitical Ramifications.

* added to stop vBulletin from mangling the hell out of my URL because it finds the anchor text inside it

[Milawe]

Great sourcing on the first two. SPR still in the works?

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Milawe Great sourcing on the first two. SPR still in the works?

It definitely needs build-out, but I doubt I'm going to do it. The TMC Mud of the Month article has plenty of material to work from, though.

[chaosprime]

Going a little nuts today, I guess. Also new:

1. Nuclear War MUD
2. 3Kingdoms
3. Infinity (AberMUD)
4. Infinity (LPMud)

Note that the LP Infinity doesn't have enough sourcing to clearly demonstrate notability, so if anybody knows of any coverage I could use to shore it up, that'd be lovely.

I also got my first drive-by proposed deletion on an article I'd just created, where the proposed deletion reason made no sense to the point where the proposer couldn't possibly have read the article: here. Ooh, have I finally run afoul of a real live anti-MUD bigot? Guess we'll see...

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by chaosprime Ooh, have I finally run afoul of a real live anti-MUD bigot? Guess we'll see...

Who? Any chance of a link?

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Who? Any chance of a link?

There was a link, on the word here. It's Starblind, who I seem to recall having seen around before, but I'm not sure where.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by chaosprime It's Starblind, who I seem to recall having seen around before, but I'm not sure where.

Oh, right. Arctic MUD's deletion. Duh.

[chaosprime]

Hey, also, if anybody can come up with any sources for poor BattleTech 3030 MUX, whose terribly neglected article I just found, do speak up.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by chaosprime Oh, right. Arctic MUD's deletion. Duh.

How not suprising. Do you know if this cat is just against Arctic or is he anti MUDs in general?

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds How not suprising. Do you know if this cat is just against Arctic or is he anti MUDs in general?

I don't think he cares about Arctic or MUDs. His edit history is that of a common or garden variety deletionist. The only strange thing is that he thought prodding the Nuclear War MUD article was useful or appropriate when it already had three print sources, two of which are unambiguously significant coverage.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by chaosprime I don't think he cares about Arctic or MUDs. His edit history is that of a common or garden variety deletionist. The only strange thing is that he thought prodding the Nuclear War MUD article was useful or appropriate when it already had three print sources, two of which are unambiguously significant coverage.

Realized some of the problem there: Wikipedians are actually by and large unaware that MUDs are not Web content, so they tend to believe that one of the criteria for speedy deletion (A7, article about a person, animal, organization, or Web content that does not assert notability) applies to MUDs. Understanding the confusion there will probably help in the future.

Maybe I'll even get lucky and run into some jackhole who will assert that MUDs really are Web content because he says so, and I will get to invite him to compare the duration of the existence of the Web with the duration of the existence of MUDs. Good times.

[chaosprime]

New Wikipedia MUD articles today:

1. Empire (online game)
2. Dune II (MUSH)

[Newworlds]

Go Chaosprime! You are running this show.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by chaosprime New Wikipedia MUD articles today: 1. Empire (online game) 2. Dune II (MUSH)

Nice work Chaosprime. Keep it up!

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Threshold Nice work Chaosprime. Keep it up!

Okay. 1UP: AmberMUSH!