[game_preservation] Wikipedia thoughts?

[Andrew Armstrong]

Hehe, pacman stuff :) I remember how vague all that stuff is.

Devin Monnens wrote:

> Unfortunately, because game history is often founded on such poor 

> foundations, references go back to sources that were simply false, 

> untrustworthy, or doubtful. This means we need real peer-review or 

> cross-checking of sources, something that is kind of tough to do...

All of history can be revised with further evidence. The great thing is 
that, despite the sources possibly being self-centred or just not good 
at remembering things, it's a damn sight easier to get something off 
those people then, as for most historians that deal with anything 
earlier, dead people :)

One thing the SIG needs to do is press forward with the Oral Histories 
suggestion. At GDC I intend to speak frankly about doing such interviews 
via. Skype or somesuch, to at least get *something* (Because while I 
would love to have the money, time and visa to do what Jason Scott has 
done for BBS's and now Text Adventure games, I don't ;) ). Once there 
are sources available, it'd make finding the historically accepted, 
probable truth much easier.

Peer reviewed stuff would be nice. I wish I knew more about how to "do" 
history, the SIG could help facilitate something of that sort once we're 
more organised, or have people willing to put time into peer reviewing 
items put forward (and we have a place to put said items! A journal 
might be nice, a normal website or Mobygames is another possibility).

Bring these things up in other topics and we'll get on discussing them. 
I'm interested in hearing on how peer reviewed history goes if there are 
any historical experts on the SIG list.

Andrew