Comments on: Writing for Wikipedia - To Do or Not to Do? http://virtualfemme.today.com/2009/01/13/writing-for-wikipedia-to-do-or-not-to-do/ Exploring Gaming and Game Design Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:50:53 +0000 http://www.today.com/version-2.3.1 By: ravyn http://virtualfemme.today.com/2009/01/13/writing-for-wikipedia-to-do-or-not-to-do/#comment-3804 ravyn Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:07:19 +0000 http://virtualfemme.today.com/2009/01/13/writing-for-wikipedia-to-do-or-not-to-do/#comment-3804 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.) 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.)

]]> By: milawe http://virtualfemme.today.com/2009/01/13/writing-for-wikipedia-to-do-or-not-to-do/#comment-3574 milawe Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:06:12 +0000 http://virtualfemme.today.com/2009/01/13/writing-for-wikipedia-to-do-or-not-to-do/#comment-3574 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. <strong>Protonk</strong> - This guy is calm, cool, rational, and will tell you what's what without being a dick. <strong>Scandum</strong> - 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. <strong>Phil Sandifer</strong> - Zealous about defending games in general, and he's serious about good sourcing. <strong>Fred Bauder </strong>- 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. <strong>J.delanoy</strong> - 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. <strong>Neurolysis</strong> - 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. 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.

]]>