A lot of the early internet stuff isn't well documented by today's deletion
discussion standards. Websites that were well known (in certain circles) in
the 90s are gone now or look quaint and hobbyish today. I think a Wikia wiki
might be perfect for collecting and maintaining the history of the
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Falcorian
alex.public.account+enwikimailingl...@gmail.comalex.public.account%2benwikimailingl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually, the new version is out and allows us to start dual
On 10/01/2009, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting... But the actual point of this thread remains unanswered.
- White Cat
The real underlying problem is that no one has any defensible bright
line as to what the scope of an encyclopedia is.
Somebody clever may be
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
Sigh.
http://www.zenofdesign.com/2009/01/06/wikipedia-is-what-it-is/
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
The only hit MUD gets on Wikia now is
http://dragonheart.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Dragonheart, a MUD created in 1995, but the wiki is completely neglected.
I'll go ahead and ask for a Wikia site.
Fred
A lot of the early internet stuff isn't well documented by today's
deletion
discussion
The only hit MUD gets on Wikia now is
http://dragonheart.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Dragonheart, a MUD created in 1995, but the wiki is completely neglected.
I'll go ahead and ask for a Wikia site.
Fred
http://requests.wikia.com/index.php?title=Mudaction=purge
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
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 doesnt
absolve one from using ones brain these things are just frameworks for
handling
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
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 —
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@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
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:35 PM, toddmallen wrote:
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.
A blog
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes,
his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmal...@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
This is the hairdresser argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That you are being deliberately dense is not a reason to play up to you.
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmal...@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
This is the hairdresser argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A is a
previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is the case.
The burden of proof that someone is a previously published (by a third
party) author/expert is on the contributor, not the deleter.
So. Is
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, toddmallen wrote:
Yes, anyone can blog about anything. What is more interesting,
however, is what Richard Bartle, one of the most significant figures
in MMOG design and commentary, has opted to blog about.
And oh look. He's opted to blog about Threshold.
That
In a message dated 1/10/2009 11:09:51 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
and...@soschildren.org writes:
only need to
give five principal authors of Wikipedia, not of individual articles -
no real section Entitled History, so no requirement to copy that
Five principal authors of Wikipedia.
I can
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
When challenged, a contributor, must not only *state* that person A
is a
previously published expert in this area, but *show* that that is
the case.
The
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:52 PM, toddmallen wrote:
There is no question as to his expertise. The question is Was his
expertise important enough that someone who's -not him- fact checked
and published what he had to say on this matter? The answer appears
to be no. Self-published sources, even by
No, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It is not notable, just one of the
thousands of failed, or infrequently used MUDs on the web. Threshold is
quite different. It has, and had, a nice player base and notable
characteristics.
http://blog.dillfrog.com/?p=46
Fred
Hello,
When it became clear that
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen was popular culture for teenage girls.
Four centuries ago, Shakespeare was popular culture.
A lot of scholars today would be happier if their contemporaries had kept
better records about either of their lives. When Austen's nephew finally
wrote up his
Ah, the irony. This entire episode has produced articles like this:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/01/08/wikipedia-muds-and-where-the-sources-are/
Lots of information there for Wikipedia.
2009/1/10 Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com
Two centuries ago, Jane Austen was popular culture for teenage
The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
impossible. One or two anytime in the future will permit reinstating
the article.
If some Wikipedia
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
25 matches
Mail list logo
