On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer <[email protected]> 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 Bartle and Koster exclusively as two sources. > > But yes - the point stands. Contentious AfDs - including ones that got > wide attention off of Wikipedia - should be closed by someone with > knowledge about the subject, or at least a consult. Go talk to an > editor in the area. Hell, go to WikiProject Video Games, ask for a > consult. > > If you don't know the topic and it's a controversial AfD, don't close > it. > > -Phil > > On Jan 10, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> "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 — these things are just >> frameworks for >> handling worst-case scenarios better. >> >> http://www.unwesen.de/articles/wikipedia_on_mud_history >> >> This is what is frustrating to me. Although I am not recognized >> expert on >> MUDs, I know enough that the decision made is obviously wrong, while >> those making the decision seem entirely innocent of the subject. >> >> Fred >> >> >>> >>> 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 Bartle, one of the iconic figures in MUD >>> design. Those are two significant references. But the CGM reference >>> was actually *ignored* in the deletion close because it was >>> unverified. >>> >>> Yes. Now we're treating print referencing with suspicion and >>> hostility. Fucking brilliant. >>> >>> -Phil >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
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. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
