Comments on: Wikipedia’s Notability Questioned Again

By: Wikipedia Notability Sucks « Jess C Scott :: Author, Non-conformist, Artist

Wikipedia Notability Sucks « Jess C Scott :: Author, Non-conformist, Artist — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:23:10 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Darren

Darren — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:39:25 +0000

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.

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:17:31 +0000

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 ^^

By: sdfglksdfgh

sdfglksdfgh — Sun, 30 May 2010 01:05:23 +0000

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

Those Aspergers will keep it then.

By: RaideR

RaideR — Thu, 06 May 2010 13:19:48 +0000

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!

By: Tei

Tei — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:25:08 +0000

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

By: chris

chris — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:30:12 +0000

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

By: ara

ara — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:24:25 +0000

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.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:45:16 +0000

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

By: ara

ara — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:20:36 +0000

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.