[game_preservation] Should Wikipedia Be Responsible for Gaming's History?

[Martin Goldberg]

I know they usually don't accept wikis because they're freely
editable/contributable.  But certainly put it up there anyways - is it
the previous discussion here I was talking about?

I really think the SIG should come up with some kind of acceptable
categorization/organizational method on this that we can officially
promote for others to hopefully adopt.

BTW, they moved the convo over to here now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/RfC_on_video_game_console_grouping


Marty

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Andrew Armstrong <andrew at aarmstrong.org> wrote:

> Do you think the IGDA wiki would be a wikipedia source? :) If so and we do

> have such a discussion I can record the results on there, ho ho ho, meta! :D

>

> I read a bit of that discussion...just...wow...bizarre.

>

> Andrew

>

> On 29/01/2011 00:25, Martin Goldberg wrote:

>>

>> How very true, haha.  I actually tried turning it around and stating

>> that it should't be for Wikipedia to decide one method over another.

>> Rather this has become an organizational issue and that the video game

>> project should just form a consensus as to what sort of divisional

>> strategy (or combination thereof) fits it's needs.  Most likely nobody

>> will listen, as "dates" seem to be what the vocal minority is pushing

>> for.

>>

>> Probably as good a time as any for this SIG to maybe broach the topic

>> of era/generation/division again.  I know we had all done a discussion

>> on it previously, and I believe came the realization was a combination

>> of methods needed to occur.  But then the topic petered out and never

>> reached a conclusion.

>>

>>

>> Marty

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>