[game_preservation] U.S. Crash was Re: Generations standards?

[Martin Goldberg]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Devin Monnens <dmonnens at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, Wikipedia is kind of funny. Lots of people go there as a first stop

> for information (heck I use it a lot, too). But I think there needs to be a

> big ol' graphic at the top of the page next to the article title to let

> people know the quality of the article.


There is but it's on the talk/discussion page.  There's usually a tag
at the top that states it's current status (importance ranking,
whether it's GA, FA, or former GA or FA).


>This way, users can easily judge

> what the quality of the content is.

> I also find it very amusing what Wikipedia users generate articles on.......I think the only

> reason this game has its own article is because it was made before Pong, and

> apparently, that immediately makes any game worthy of a wiki article.


Actually, a lot of articles exist simply because someone created them
and nobody has challenged it for "notability".  I.E. a subject has to
be considered notable enough to have extensive coverage or references,
to remain on Wikipedia.  If not, it can be tagged and requested for
deletion.  If you were to create an article about one of the many pong
clones (arcade or console) it would be considered non-notable, unless
you could demonstrate significant coverage either in the media or
resources of the time, or in present (books, articles discussing it,
etc.)  The irony - if someone from this SIG wrote an article for the
IGDA site, Gamasutra, or even presented a paper and included that
clone as some sort specific noteworthy example, it could then be used
to partially establish notability on Wikipedia.  As long as someone
else referenced that paper other than the authors of course - there's
policies on conflict of interest as well.



> Regardless of the fact it was ONLY played on one school network for a short

> period of time and then filed in this dude's closet for 40 years until it

> was rediscovered. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great and a good example

> of the kind of work that was being done, and I'm glad I learned about it,

> but does it really need a full article on Wikipedia?


No.  If you want I can go request it for deletion on grounds of lack
of notability  Or you can. ;)


> And while we're on the subject, the history of games information is in no

> way organized.


Take a look at the edit history, it's a mishmash of a good 6 years
worth of editors.



> Incidentally, where are you getting your Atari books published?


No idea yet.  It's a 2 volume set, and there's just so much more
information being covered on a daily basis.  Currently working on the
whole transition buyout period yet, and the very very early days -
specifically right now on the arcades Atari had opened in California
from '73-'76 (that appear to have them morphed in to Chuck E. Cheese).



>I just got a

> book offer from another publisher at a conference I went to (McFarland,

> actually) about my work in games from 1962-1973.


Congrats!


>I'm kind of torn about how

> to go about publishing/disseminating this information. I don't think

> Wikipedia is the right place, but I think a living document like a Wiki

> would be great for it.


Book might not be a bad idea.  Wiki we'd be more for if you want
additional input on it, vs. just a general living document that you're
going to continue to update on your own.

As far as the format for our three books, we decided from the
beginning to make it more entertaining rather than just a dry read of
facts and figures.  I.E. to balance it.  So they're going to read more
like a style cross between "Dealers of Lightning" and Cringley's
Accidental Empires.

Marty