MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
82 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/

Sigh.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Alvaro García
Well, there are many articles and statements that can't or don't need  
to be verified. Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters  
interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus  
didn't need sources nor they could be put. Two days later, my  
substantial contribution was deleted.
Wikipedia should really stop making blind decisions and actually take  
a small time to read at least a couple of sentences of the article/
contribution and then think if they need sources.


--
Alvaro

On 10-01-2009, at 11:54, "Michel Vuijlsteke" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
> http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
>
> Sigh.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
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 mudding
world., and now would be a good time to do it - even the most popular muds
are dead now by the standards of some cookie cutter DIKU muds of 10 years
ago.

Nathan

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
>
> http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
>
> Sigh.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
> 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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
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 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
> mudding
> world., and now would be a good time to do it - even the most popular
> muds
> are dead now by the standards of some cookie cutter DIKU muds of 10 years
> ago.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
>>
>> http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
>>
>> Sigh.
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
> today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Fred Bauder-2
> 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=Mud&action=purge


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2

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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Fred Bauder-2
"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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
2009/1/10 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>

> "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.
>

Oh, we shouldn't worry that there's a hole in Wikipedia MUD coverage where
Threshold used to be -- from the AfD:


   - *KEEP*. Read all other MUDs in category, Threshold is definitely most
   notable of them all with the most independent press coverage. [...]
   - *Comment* WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS>,
      for one; we'll get to deleting those other MUD articles in due
time, if it's
      merited. [...]


I don't know know about any of you, but when the first thing on the closing
admin's talk page is "I have deleted over 1,700 pages on Wikipedia, through
C:CSD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C:CSD> and
WP:AFD<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFD>.
A very small percentage of that, 2-3%, have been listed at deletion
review<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV>,
and only a handful have been overturned -- and not a single one has been
because of "corruption" or bad
faith<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF>.",
I get a really bad feeling.

Michel
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
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
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Todd Allen
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer <[hidden email]> 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
>>> [hidden email]
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

David Gerard-2
2009/1/10 toddmallen <[hidden email]>:

> 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.


Conversely, statements from acknowledged experts do not become
unreliable sources because some Turing Test failure goes "O NOEZ
BLOG."


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen

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 is a medium. Contra McLuhan, the medium is not the message.

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 does establish significance.

-Phil

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen

>
> 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.

Blogs by recognized experts are reliable sources.

Fred


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Alvaro García
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.


--
Alvaro

On 10-01-2009, at 15:35, toddmallen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer <[hidden email]
> > 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
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> 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
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Brian J Mingus
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Hello,
When it became clear that my beloved MUD of many years would be taken down,
I contacted everyone I knew, got every bit of original source material, the
source code etc... and put it on a wiki on SourceForge.

http://rockserv.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Of course, I forgot to pass-protect the wiki and I fear the spammers have
gotten the best of it. But still, it's all there.

I can't say that any of that material belongs on Wikipedia. Probably not
even a mention.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Nothing exceptional about this, of course:
>
> http://www.massively.com/2009/01/06/mud-history-dissolving-into-the-waters-of-time/
>
> Sigh.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
You have successfully failed!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Philip Sandifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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 is a medium. Contra McLuhan, the medium is not the message.
>
> 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 does establish significance.
>
> -Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Philip Sandifer-2

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  
that.

-Phil

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
2009/1/10 toddmallen <[hidden email]>:

> 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.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MUD history dissolving into the waters of time

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer <[hidden email]> 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 expertise, then yes,
> his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of
> that.
>
> -Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog
trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a
reason for an article on that dog.

Fact-checking and publication by someone other than oneself are
required for good reason.

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345