Oct 4 2008, 6:09 pm
In response to Tiberath
|
|
I still say forget about Wikipedia. I really don't see how a two-bit website that publishes little one-page articles is of any concern to us. I'd rather not have a page there for BYOND than to fight tooth and nail to keep some half-axed article we could barely scratch together and which doesn't really do this community or it's developers and games any justice. Fce it, if we do find notable references, it's never going to cover the topics we want. It's clear that this is a fool's errand. If you want BYOND on Wikipedia so badly, start with getting the DM language on there first. Then a page about BYOND would almost be required.
|
In response to Xooxer
|
|
Agreed. Who care(d) about that article, anyway.
|
In response to Tiberath
|
|
Somehow I suspect this is the hijinks of a banned user like DarkWizard or BigBoiD, but really, it's not that big a deal. I gave up on the page -- and on Wikipedia -- a long time ago.
|
In response to Jtgibson
|
|
Jtgibson wrote:
Somehow I suspect this is the hijinks of a banned user like DarkWizard or BigBoiD, but really, it's not that big a deal. I gave up on the page -- and on Wikipedia -- a long time ago. It wasn't Kica (BigBoiD), I imagine he has better things to do with his time. I also doubt it was Dark Wizard. Although petty attacks appear to be his style. There wouldn't be much "lulz" in having a Wikipedia article deleted. I'm going with the Wikipedia Administration is just impossible to reason with. |
In response to Tiberath
|
|
Tiberath wrote:
I'm going with the Wikipedia Administration is just impossible to reason with. And inconsistent. If you look at the talk page for Game Maker's article near the bottom, you'll find out that the german wikipedia got rid of the article for the same reason of lacking notability. English one is still kicking though. |
In response to Tiberath
|
|
Tiberath wrote:
I'm going with the Wikipedia Administration is just impossible to reason with. I would go with a combo of all three. George Gough |
In response to KodeNerd
|
|
KodeNerd wrote:
Tiberath wrote: Yeah, but you don't know Kica like I do. Him and I have known each other for a long time, he just went through a little wild streak. Aside from the few things he did to annoy people, he's actually an alright guy. DarkWizard I can't speak for. I don't like him and I don't care to know him. And from what I've seen of Wikipedia Administration, they're impossible to reason with, inconsistent, and with those two downsides, that makes them incompetent. |
In response to DarkCampainger
|
|
"It has been used to create action games, puzzles, strategy games, multiplayer RPGs, board and card games, word games, and even online chat servers. "
I love the way it makes the easiest part of BYOND development, online chat servers, seem like they're so much more difficult than the aforementioned types of games BYOND can produce. =) |
In response to Tiberath
|
|
I agree.
|
In response to Jon88
|
|
It's not a conspiracy; if you feel the Game Maker article is likewise non-notable, you can propose its deletion the same way as any other user. (I feel it would probably just scrape through a deletion proposal because of the single CNN external reference, but it's marginal.)
Really, the guidelines for notability on Wikipedia are pretty transparent and easy to find. The BYOND article simply didn't meet them. The standard is basically, if you're notable, then it should be possible to show that someone independent has noticed you. I think there should be a BYOND article, and I'm surprised that nobody could find a reference from something like a PC magazine or even a checkable source for the famous Richard Bartle quote. (Edit: someone did find this, I see, but it was deemed not significant enough coverage. For the same reason, the Game Maker article would also probably not survive a deletion proposal.) The wikipedia admins and users aren't impossible to reason with, it's just that they (mostly) follow the rules, and since those rules have usually evolved for a good reason, it'll be hard to find a consensus to ignore or change them. The reason the notability guidelines are there is so that everybody and their dog's blog doesn't get an article. You can say that it wouldn't hurt to have an article about every conceivable thing (and some WP users would agree), but the general consensus is not to do so. If you don't like it, you can of course start your own website with any rules on notability you like. |
In response to Hobnob
|
|
I would say that notability in terms of 3,000 active users at any time, 20,000+ semi-active users would qualify. Anyone who says otherwise is arbitrarily imposing rules -- which is pretty much Wikipedia to a tee. I respect the "cite your sources" fascism, but requiring independent notability is just silly, particularly for things that expand to meet growth (as BYOND has done).
It almost seems as though the only way to get BYOND "notable" in their eyes is to close down half the site, to force the users to create pages independently. |
In response to Hobnob
|
|
Well as much I'm sure some won't like this, I'm glad you said it. To me, this deletion business is the full stop in the Community's recent discussions about a desire to expand the Community. While BYOND is obviously not some completely backwater site sporting a few hundred users, I would have to agree with Wikipedia's assessment that BYOND is not 'notable'. The term notable itself is rather unfair, seen as that would suggest BYOND has no particular redeeming features, but the notion that BYOND is not particularly large or known seems to stand. Naturally Game Maker starts to fall into that territory too, but that strikes me as a matter that isn't personally interesting, or terribly interesting to BYOND, aside from cries of "It's not fair".
It should also be fairly apparent why some people here at BYOND care about this recent business, Tom particularly. Firstly there is a web-presence thing, having an article on Wikipedia means an article on a site millions of people use, a site that is well indexed and well regarded by search engines. The chances of someone stumbling across the article may be a little slim, but it's much greater than no article at all. Further to that is a somewhat more personal matter, the use of 'notable'. For the individuals who've contributed to BYOND, Tom in particular, the notion that BYOND is not notable, it has not particular aspect that you'd feel worthy of comment, is naturally rather disheartening. Just thought I'd share my opinion on that, to attempt to give an answer to the "Who cares anyway" questions I've seen floating about. There are a few things we as a Community can do about this. The discussion held on how we can promote BYOND is good, even if it did get rather sidetracked by some back and forth about the BYOND Art Society. I've seen some potential with regard to the notion of forum signatures, banners, logos and the like, it'll be interesting to see how that progresses. I might put a few of my own ideas into action when I make suitable time. It's really a matter of moving on now, and focusing on getting out there and telling people about BYOND. |
In response to Stephen001
|
|
On the plus side BYOND does have an article at ED...
Ok, maybe that's not a plus :( |
In response to Stephen001
|
|
I'm not really bothered by the deletion, since the article that was there wasn't very good and hadn't been updated much. Nor do I find fault with the mods, who were just following the protocol. Wikipedia is an amazing accomplishment, if you think about it-- order out of (extreme) disorder-- and I have to believe this is due to those users nitpicking the site.
I do think that they should be more biased towards popularity, even if the results from Alexa et al. aren't 100% accurate. Something that is popular is notable, and distinguishes itself from the masses of blogs and wikis out there. I think this is more important than a solitary blurb in an obscure publication. That said, what's done is done. We should work towards getting BYOND on the map (and back on Wikipedia). I liked the earlier suggestion of a "press release"-- I actually discussed this with Gughunter some time ago but we never followed up on it. This upcoming 430 release seems as good as any to make waves in this venue. |
In response to Tom
|
|
Aye, definitely a press release should be done.
For tips on writing a good press release, check out: http://www.purposeinc.com/pwp/2008/02/07/ writing-a-press-release-72-hours-and-shoemoney-says-go/ |