news forum discuss wiki

___

Wikipedia’s Notability Questioned Again

Posted on January 4th, 2010 by TimeDoctor

Once again Wikipedia has decided that ioquake3 isn’t notable. Just like the last time, the argument against the ioquake3 wikipedia entry is without merit:


11 Responses to “Wikipedia’s Notability Questioned Again”

  1. Greg Says:
    January 5th, 2010 at 4:34 am

    You realize that this doesn’t actually help the situation, right? We sound like whiny little girls now. Thanks.

  2. ara Says:
    January 5th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Isn’t the whole point of a game engine to provide a foundation for a game, or other projects?
    If this is so, then shouldn’t mere mention of its use provide notability?

    If it was to be deleted, the articles on wikipedia for those projects that use ioquake3 would then say “this project is powered by the ioquake3 engine, etc” without a link, and someone, wanting to know more about it, would request an article. It provides information about the base that these other projects were built on.

  3. chris Says:
    January 6th, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    so, he says it isn’t notable, yet he contributes a rather lengthy list of zx spectrum games, that are no where near as noteworthy, it just don’t seem right

  4. ara Says:
    January 7th, 2010 at 1:24 am

    ZX Spectrum
    “The ZX Spectrum (Pronounced: “Zed Ecks Spec-trum” in its original British English branding) is an 8-bit personal home computer released in the United Kingdom in 1982 by Sinclair Research Ltd.”

    I didn’t know that even existed. The more you know. I suppose it has historical significance.

  5. chris Says:
    January 15th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    i say we delete his list of ZX Spectrum games, i mean, who actually used the ZX Spectrum to play games?, Everyone was using the Commodore or Atari computers, and if not that, the Atari or NES

  6. Tei Says:
    March 31st, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Non true, lot of people played the Spectrum games.

    What I doubt, is that lots of popular Spectrum games can pass the notability system. Since some of these got distributed in digital medium (tappe) and not printed on magazines and stuff.

    Wikipedia is broken, but is a brokeness I may eventually be apparent to all, even the more stubborn bureocrat. Lets wait and see :-)

  7. RaideR Says:
    May 6th, 2010 at 5:19 am

    What a load of crap lol.

    I think these people need to get a life. I mean, why remove an article when its a real life active project. Surely information on the project is useful.

    If that is the case does that mean that Urban Terror should be a mension under ioQuake3 based games.. LOL insane!

  8. sdfglksdfgh Says:
    May 29th, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Why don’t you ask Wikipedia to delete the article?

    Those Aspergers will keep it then.

  9. Robin Says:
    July 23rd, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    LOLOLOL they merged it ! They merged it inside Id tech 3 ! I’d just like to point out that most of the people said keep inside their “discussion”, and that they MERGED IT BECAUSE 1 PERSON SAID SO ! WHAT THE FUCK !
    So now, all I gotta say is, screw wikipedia, it sucks and the servers should burn in hell ^^

  10. Darren Says:
    August 25th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Wikipedia’s policies are fundamentally discriminatory in nature. Who decides what is notable and what isn’t. Notability is based on opinions or perspectives not on facts. What makes discovering a protein CREB binding protein more notable than anything else (Not that I am against the advancements of science) but who decides that what that person discovered is more notable than any other task, discovery, art, occupation, etc… All advancements whether good or bad; popular or unpopular; known or unknown; are all notable. Albert Einstein is notable but look what his unintended consequences led to. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that doesn’t factually mean it is not notable. No wonder why wikipedia isn’t accepted in academia as quality research and we are told to never cite garbage from this site. Wikipedia professes neutrality but they obviously aren’t.

  11. Wikipedia Notability Sucks « Jess C Scott :: Author, Non-conformist, Artist Says:
    November 19th, 2010 at 11:23 am

    [...] To Get In Wikipedia: Get An Article Written About How You Aren’t In Wikipedia (Techdirt.com) Wikipedia’s policies are fundamentally discriminatory in nature (ioquake3.org) David L Rattigan (A non-fascist Wiki admin who’s against Wiki’s policy of [...]

Leave a Reply