[game_preservation] Wikipedia thoughts?

[Andrew Armstrong]

Oh, yes, yes, this was something major that Raph kept bringing up - that 
he would NOT be allowed to be an expert, and that historical articles 
are frowned upon in general that is, since it isn't pop culture so 
hasn't got the generally newer "sources" and experts. The reason for not 
being allowed is because they made it - it's not a neutral point of view 
(sigh).

That seems a major oversight, and I'm not exactly flawing the whole here 
(it's a diamond in the rough of user generated sites), there are some 
experts on there, but there is no a standard to be an editor/admin. A 
few other sites do much better on this front, but usually only 
specialised sources of information already (Mobygames, for instance, 
checks changes with an editor who, hopefully, is better trained in 
videogame history then most). Admins also seem to roam around getting in 
on things they have no clue about, as might have been in the case of 
this MUD. There is a definite need for this.

I wish they had a formal system to have experts brought on board to, 
basically, edit or at least say what is right and wrong, notable or 
whatever. It's not like having a few days in limbo is difficult for any 
historical or scientific topic. Unless it is a person or new event, 
there is no real reason for real time editing. Either that or at least 
make sure articles noted as being important by said experts are not 
deleted, so can always be amended if bad data is added but not removed 
from the site entirely.

Andrew

Henry Lowood wrote:

> Andrew,

>

> Well, a lot can be said about this controversy and about Wikipedia in 

> general.  My interest is in what seems to me to be a rather arbitrary 

> set of criteria imposed by -- hmm, who? -- at Wikipedia with regard to 

> what counts as documentation.  If the argument for Wikipedia is open 

> to all, then fine, open to all. If the argument is that the content 

> needs to be filtered and vetted, then who are these guys?  Maybe it 

> would make sense to ask historians or game developers or members of 

> our SIG or somebody knowledgeable in a particular field to act as, 

> shudder, /editor./   And, by the way, as the criteria are applied, is 

> any information transparently available about why they are applied, 

> what historians would call historiography or archivists might call 

> documentation strategy?  It just seems very odd to me, a vetting 

> structure without any stake in the field that is being discussed, such 

> that someone like Bartle or Koster could be dismissed as an being 

> competent to write on the subject.

>

> Henry

>

> Andrew Armstrong wrote:

>> When you've read the notability and research sections, give us your 

>> thoughts :D

>>

>> I'm interested in the discussions revolving around the misuse of 

>> supposedly good policies, the horrible politics and internal people 

>> just wanting to destroy rather then create, and the gist that no one 

>> can get into it unless they have hours of time even if they are an 

>> expert, because it's more work then it's worth.

>>

>> I know how to edit a wiki, I know why certain rules exist for 

>> wikipedia, but some of it is still a bit too much into political 

>> territory, not actual editorial territory for my liking.

>>

>> Oh, and I do remember the earlier days - yes, such a time when there 

>> were not multicolour signatures, and articles could have trivia, and 

>> I must say remembering it might be rose tinted, but it didn't seem 

>> half bad back then despite the lack of some content :) Maybe this 

>> Phoebe would agree, maybe not.

>>

>> And feel free to raise discussions here too, I've been a bit too busy 

>> to go digging into other topics, we kinda need more action around here.

>>

>> Andrew

>>

>> Bernadette Daly Swanson wrote:

>>> Hi Everyone, I have been on the list for a while and am learning a 

>>> lot from the discussions.

>>> I work with one of the earlier editors of Wikipedia, Phoebe Ayers, 

>>> and she and two others from Wikipedia have written this book that 

>>> may give some more insight in how best to use the site as a content 

>>> developers/editors.

>>> I have just bought it so I don't yet have any suggestions, other 

>>> than millions upon millions of us use it.

>>>   I will provide the link to the table of contents in case that 

>>> helps in terms of using Wikipedia and dealing with such issues:

>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/159327176X/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

>>> (the arrow at the bottom right of image will advance it)

>>>

>>> Ben

>>> ____________________________________________

>>> Bernadette Daly Swanson Reference Librarian

>>> Carlson Health Sciences Library

>>> University of California, Davis

>>> 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA  95616-5292

>>> Phone: (530) 752-7637

>>> http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/hsl/

>>> HVX Silverstar in Second Life

>>> http://www.youtube.com/hvxsilverstar

>>>

>>> ----- "Andrew Armstrong" <andrew at aarmstrong.org> wrote:

>>>

>>>  

>>>> From some recent curfuffles on Wikipedia deleting MUD article(s):

>>>>

>>>> http://www.igda.org/preservation/archives/2009/01/losing_the_thre.html

>>>> http://www.igda.org/preservation/archives/2009/01/more_on_thresho.html

>>>>

>>>> I wanted to know if anyone on the list had thoughts on Wikipedia - as

>>>> a resource, as a solution or problem, or whatever. I'm just 

>>>> interested,

>>>>

>>>> I've not investigated it much myself, and only ever use the 

>>>> encyclopaedia for general reading, but the quality of some subjects is

>>>>

>>>> pretty poor (or, as we can see, not even there now).

>>>>

>>>> Hopefully the situation will improve over time. I was also going to

>>>> see what perhaps Mobygames were doing to expand their database (if 

>>>> they

>>>> were going to) - there is a lot of credits, covers and screenshots, 

>>>> but not

>>>>

>>>> much actual written content about the games in the database, which is

>>>> a shame really.

>>>>

>>>> Andrew

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> game_preservation mailing list

>>>> game_preservation at igda.org

>>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>>>>     

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> game_preservation mailing list

>>> game_preservation at igda.org

>>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>>>   

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> game_preservation mailing list

>> game_preservation at igda.org

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>>   

>