Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.
-- Alvaro On 10-01-2009, at 15:35, toddmallen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
