Jan 13 2009
Writing for Wikipedia - To Do or Not to Do?
One of my favorite starting points for general research used to be Wikipedia, but by now, many of you in the gaming industry may have heard all the hooplah about the entire Threshold RPG vs. Wikipedia incident. (That’s a bit of a misnomer. I should say the incident is really between Threshold RPG and a few pompous, arrogant, and, ultimately, ignorant editors and administrators who definitely like to get together to gang-bang vulnerable articles. You can read more about it here .
Now, I love to write, as anyone reading this blog would know, and the idea of writing something that would be really useful to someone else is a bit seductive. That’s probably why I started this blog. Imagine how seductive it must be to write for Wikipedia then. There’s only one big problem, and it’s a doozy. Anything you write can be changed or outright deleted by someone who very possibly has not not even finished high school yet. Most of the people running around submitting articles for deletion (and arguing until they get deleted) obviously have not done a day of research in their life. They have very little knowledge about how to write and how to cite, and their defense is the wikipedia policies and guidelines that have obviously been written for a more intelligent and educated crew. They, however, love the power of being able to bludgeon people with their misinterpretations and ridiculous logic that would never fly in any kind of an academic setting.
So, that brings us to the question of whether or not writing for Wikipedia is a good idea. In general, if the writer has some free time and just wants to get some thoughts down, writing for Wikipedia is fine except for the fact that most writing for Wikipedia should be well sourced. That, of course, requires some time and effort. So, perhaps the best way to get started is to find some lonely stub and at least add some pertinent details. If you really care about something, though, and it just happens to be a niche topic, go into it with the very strong possibility that a deletionist might happen by and want to add it to his deletion resume while he’s on his way to getting admin powers. (For example, I happened to notice that one of the guys who was pretty rabid about getting rid of Threshold’s article - a Cameron Scott - is up for an administration vote. The scary thing is that he may very well get it. Then articles should beware! On the other hand, once he’s got his administration powers, maybe he’ll quit hatcheting articles.)
I’ll continue to write a few things here and there on Wikipedia, not that I have a lot of time to do so, but some articles really should be there, even if Threshold disappears. (Yep, it’s up for another AfD. In fact, once the deletion review was over and the new article had been created by someone who protested the deletion of the first one, the article has been nominated for deletion twice and a speedy deletion as well. That was 3 nominations for deletion in approximately 28 hours.) For most people, though, I would say that writing on Wikipedia is just a bunch of headaches and heartaches waiting to happen.
- The IRONY (or: What NOT to Do While Participating in a Writing Workshop)
- 3 Useful Things to Do When You’re Not Writing Blog Posts
- Not sure what to do?
- To Do or NOT to Do: Letting Your Cat Roam Free
- “But that’s not the way MOM used to do it”- A dedication to all of HIS moms on Mother’s Day and all the joy they have brought women across the nation.
Someone asked me to list some of the Editors to beware of, but I wanted to list Editors that have seem incredibly fair and unbiased to me, regardless of how the viewed the situation.
Protonk - This guy is calm, cool, rational, and will tell you what’s what without being a dick.
Scandum - Knows his stuff. Doesn’t take shit. Willing to do some tough researching. Tends to be very careful about deleting anything and pretty bold about adding things.
Phil Sandifer - Zealous about defending games in general, and he’s serious about good sourcing.
Fred Bauder - Another person willing to defend the obscure and slightly off the beaten track. Calm, cool, doesn’t fly off the handle or get overly invested.
J.delanoy - Never really got involved in the Threshold thing, but one of the most patient and helpful admins out there. He seems like a very behind the scenes guy, but definitely a defender of the weak.
Neurolysis - This guy is pretty passionate about Wikipedia and never really got involved in the Threshold thing either except to listen with an open mind about the banning.
I’ve left out some good people here, I think, but I could really only discuss the ones I had serious interactions with. I don’t count them as helpful because they were “on our side”. I simply believe their attitude is one of inclusion and production rather than deletion.
I’ll update with a list of “Run for your life” admins at a different time. Their sketchiness continues to manifest itself in bizarre ways.
My thesis adviser told me that he tended to recommend putting conclusions from one’s thesis on Wikipedia once it was finished. I never got around to it because I had a rather odd topic, and given the hostility I’m seeing from it, I think I’m going to keep my work on my computer where it belongs.
(Besides, “Why Silicon-based Life is Unsustainable” would make a sweet blog topic.)