Post by robertthebald on Mar 16, 2008 11:43:46 GMT -6
I was looking at the entry for Blackmoor in Wikipedia and noticed that it has been tagged as possibly not meeting their standards for notability. This means, among other things, that it could be deleted. I imagine in time the original Blackmoor will disappear entirely, and people will remember only the more famous Greyhawk.
I've used wikipedia, but am not familiar with the "behind the scenes" stuff pertaining to it. How does one achieve "notability" enough to have an entry not be deleted? If it's a matter of content, one would certainly think there could be enough to fill a decent wikipedia article. * History of the campaign * Blackmoor and its relationship to OD&D * Major characters of Blackmoor * Blackmoor and Dave Arneson in general and so on.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) S&W WhiteBox author (2009) C&C playtester (2003) Builder of the TrollBridge for T&T; Amber Diceless player since 1993 OD&D Player since 1975; Metamorphosis Alpha since 1976
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
The "notability" criterion = "is this actually important enough to the world at large to warrant its own entry?" To establish notability, you'd want to add information that shows how the Blackmoor campaign was seminal in the creation of D&D and the establishment of the RPG industry.
I steer way clear of editing wikipedia because their dippy little catfights make the Edition Wars look like, well, I guess the Edition Wars were dippy little catfights, too. But wikipedia arguments are worse.
This is likely the work of one or two guys. These two guys do nothing in the way of actual editing past tagging RPG and fantasy fiction entries with the notability template because they, as non-gamers or readers of fantasy fiction, haven't heard of X RPG or Y Fantasy Novel before -- and because they haven't heard of it, it must not be notable. Alternately, they propose deletion because they hate RPGs (one of them links to the perjorative slang "fancruft" in in all of his arguments for RPG entry deletion).
Why these people are allowed to stay on as Wiki editors, I'm not certain. I'm 100% certain that this total lack of professionalism and the choice of Wikipedia owners to sanction such biased editing as official cost them money every time that they have a funds drive. I, for one, won't give them a dime until somebody in charge starts policing their staff members more closely.
Some yahoo has been going through Wikipedia and marking anything RPG related as "lacking notability," apparently because he personally thinks RPGs aren't notable.
This is one of the reasons I'll have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Back when I was working at F+W, my boss had us put our magazines and ourselves up on Wikipedia... and I am still up there. So yeah, it all comes down to whatever "wiki editor" has a burr up his butt as to whether something is notable, not as to whether it is actually something important...
Last Edit: May 22, 2008 14:46:00 GMT -6 by Deleted
This article may not meet a proposed guideline for notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)). If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This article has been tagged since February 2008.
I like Wikipedia, but it has its bad points. One is the number of people who do nothing but slap templates on articles. You see, saying "this article is less than perfect" is *so* much easier than doing anything constructive that would actually, like, make the encyclopedia more informative or more useful!
Anyway, all that needs to be done is to include an article on Blackmoor in a future edition of Fight On!. Then someone can reference the article as a published, third party source, and Blackmoor's notability will have been established.
Wikipedia seems to always be caught up in arguments about what should and shouldn't be included. I personally wish they'd all accept the great resource on just about everything it has become, and forget about being the more strict encyclopedia they originally intended it to be.
That's actually a big "battle" on wikipedia right now, which articles are "notable" enough to be included. It would suck if Blackmoor was a casualty.
Did James Burke and "Connections" teach us nothing? What they seem to be forgetting is there is a huge difference between "what looks important now" and "what is ACTUALLY important." The former is determined by the popularity of a fickle public. The latter can only be determined in hindsight, long after the events. They would serve posterity better by preserving everything, and let the future weed through the entries.
(Just as a f'erinstance, who could have imagined in 1951 that an actor most notable for being upstaged by a chimpanzee would end up as the President during a crucial period of the Cold War?)
Happily chasing game systems down dark alleys, clubbing them senseless, and rifling through their pockets for loose tables since 1978 Shameless plug