Hedgewars deleted from Wikipedia

Wikipedia Deletionist Katamari

Welp. Page is gone. An admin said it would need to be cleaned up to meet his standards, although there once again seems to be ambiguity over whether the game is notable (plenty of links/articles presented to show that) versus whether the existing page for the game was of adequate quality.
Oddly, the solution to a page being of low quality is to delete it, and erase all history, making it rather hard to improve the page further...

If anyone here is from Wikipedia and feels like assisting in a resurrection perhaps you could try contacting the person who made the decision here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_Februar...

About getting the page and its history put somewhere.
If anyone wants to improve the page (assuming the wikipolitics allow it at some point), or the dozen or so pages in other languages that still exist, please read the comments on the link above, where you could find useful resources for 3rd party references.

I attempted to contact the admin about hosting a copy of the deleted page for improvement and inclusion, something he'd offered to do in his decision.
I tried asking this directly below his decision on the deletion page, then on his own page, but he seems to have ignored this so far. Perhaps if someone else tried too.

Sorry to those fans who took an interest.

*sigh*

Whatever, Wikipedia is not the only wiki.

Someone may copy the old page and put it on other wikis.

A good candidate is the LibreGameWiki. The LibreGameWiki has a page about Hedgewars, but it is very poor at the moment. https://libregamewiki.org/Hedgewars

Edit:
Damn it! We can forget the LibreGameWiki. I just noticed the following note on LibreGameWiki:

Quote:
Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL 1.2 and CC-BY 3.0-compatible license. Do not copy from Wikipedia.

Bullshit like this is why I hate copyright and copyright enforcement. “Free” licences my ass.
Aghh

Wikipedia is just plain weird. You can`t shake your had as often as they just smash the whole idea.

That Hedgewars got deleted there just shows how absurd and elitary Wikipedia tries to become over and over again ... pity that most people still treat it like a (no, THE) reliable source.

It should help to speak against the deletion in the commenting section; if some people with accounts at Wikipedia do so, they might (probably) see the error in their ways ... or not. Power is such a nice toy.

EDIT A short review at Uhus Droppings.

@Hoot: Wikipedia’s policy page on reliable sources states the following:

Quote:
Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERG#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources

Since it is stated on Wikipedia itself that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it would be foolish to use Wikipedia as the source.

@nemo: lol

Wuzzy wrote:

*sigh*

Whatever, Wikipedia is not the only wiki.

Agreed. After all the project seeks to create an encyclopedia and not a list of things you find on the internet. It is actually not the best place to search for software in the first place. Just move it to http://software.wikia.com/wiki/Hedgewars whose semantic features are superior anyway.

Matt wrote:

Wuzzy wrote:

*sigh*

Whatever, Wikipedia is not the only wiki.

Agreed. After all the project seeks to create an encyclopedia and not a list of things you find on the internet. It is actually not the best place to search for software in the first place. Just move it to http://software.wikia.com/wiki/Hedgewars whose semantic features are superior anyway.

So, I think it is misconceptions like that that drive the deletionist faction. Wikipedia is far from a traditional encyclopedia. Those are linear, highly limited in scope, constrained by the cost of print, and feasibility of indexing.

When you're on wikipedia, you can dig down ever deeper into rich layers of subculture, and none of this interferes with other articles (unless people are deliberately abusive).

The only place that could be hurt is disambiguation pages, and possibly list pages if things are badly tagged.
Disambiguation page clutter can easily be handled technically.

http://www.cheatmasters.com/blog/2013/11/23/new-game-releases-and-news-wrap-up-news-101/

Find the co-op gaming study, This actually proves Hedgewars was used in science.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars

My english is very poor, so I decided to do a sketch on Wikipedia in Portuguese.

Káspy wrote:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars

My english is very poor, so I decided to do a sketch on Wikipedia in Portuguese.

Heh yay, also: "em 01 de fevereiro 2014." - didn't you mean março? Smile

Also I noticed that all sources are official hedgewars pages - not 3rd sources. The english wiki page was deleted because of a similar situation there :/

Know any other site where I could get information?

Fix this month.

I did not find the last page in Wikipedia. I found here http://web.archive.org/web/20131209222739/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars

sheepluva wrote:

Káspy wrote:

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars

My english is very poor, so I decided to do a sketch on Wikipedia in Portuguese.

Heh yay, also: "em 01 de fevereiro 2014." - didn't you mean março? Smile

Also I noticed that all sources are official hedgewars pages - not 3rd sources. The english wiki page was deleted because of a similar situation there :/

If you look at the discussion of the deletion on the english wikipedia that is linked from this post, there are a ton of sources listed there in a nice list, in print media and online. You can use those, and that wasn't the reason it got deleted.
The (stupid) reason it got deleted was the *existing* article needed improvement, and apparently the way to do that is to delete it, blow away the history and (possibly, haven't checked) prevent a new article from being created.

In that case, would not be appropriate for other administrators complain about the unfair exclusion?

Someone who has good English could chat with some admininstrador, display the page cited by marko.
I believe this is the most appropriate way to solve this problem.

BTW, for people who still want to see some wikipedia page about Hedgewars, here are the remaining ones (not created by us of course).
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars / http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%8B%AC%ED%94%8C_%EB%8B%A4%EC%9D%B4%EB%A0%89%ED%8A%B8%EB%AF%B8%EB%94%94%EC%96%B4_%EB%A0%88%EC%9D%B4%EC%96%B4
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgewars / http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%BA%E7%8C%AC%E5%A4%A7%E4%BD%9C%E6%88%98

I would encourage using some of those citation links on the wikis above just in case other languages also have deletionist factions, since clearly once it is nominated, it appears to be very hard to fix things, regardless of merits.

In the es.wikipedia (wp in spanish) Hedgewars got a page, I have written in it.

Wuzzy wrote:

Here’s the actual study (with PDF):
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078795

Using it in science does not mean it becomes notable. It is clearly not the subject of the article, but just a tool used to do neuro science. While it is cool and you should blog about it here(!) please don't try to disrupt the Wikipedia workflow. While hardware resources are not scare, a voluntary workforce to assure article quality and educational content certainly is. Better ask people to vote for you at sites made for it like http://alternativeto.net/software/hedgewars/ instead of begging in deletion discussions.

Matt, it is indeed only a tool in the study, but mentioned extensively in the study, and in the dozens of articles that covered it, including screenshots and comments on gameplay. I think that is notable.

In addition, in the deletion discussion, links to reviews (in print, video and online) were provided.

And, as noted before, repeatedly, the discussion seemed to shift from notability to quality of the existing article without offering an opportunity to correct that article ( in fact, was lectured on fixing the existing article in the discussion while simultaneously being told that I wasn't allowed to do fixes, but it needed to be someone else due to COI ).

Frankly, the whole deletion process is, IMO, broken. And I think my attitude was more "indignation" than "begging"

The deletionist viewpoint seems like BS to me, and a confusion of a website for a pile of printed paper. Well, that and some people just like to destroy, check out the ridiculously high counts for the top deleters. They'd have to work non-stop, as a full-time job, and still only consider each article for a few minutes.

To your defense it seems unfair that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_video_games exists with lot's of blue links, but only for few projects those notability and inclusion guidelines are applied. Especially considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmux is an identical case.

Okay, I asked for the original article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Hedgewars and moved it to http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Hedgewars with some small cleanups so not all is lost.

Matt wrote:

To your defense it seems unfair that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_video_games exists with lot's of blue links, but only for few projects those notability and inclusion guidelines are applied. Especially considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmux is an identical case.

Well, I've got a lot of things that annoy me about this, and since I kept ranting in long form, here's the bulleted version:

* Highly inconsistent application of rules. Article for Firefox is half mozilla.org links, and many of the external ones are similar to the sort of thing the Hedgewars article used. (ohloh, other stats stuff).

* Rules as applied make things very difficult in the FOSS world, where media coverage is low, esp for long-running projects. Even Wesnoth complained about this. And the FOSS reviews/references are not considered "notable" depending on the inquisitor in question.

* Deletionists are aggressive, reflexive, and apparently disinclined to review evidence. Their arguments for the deletion shifted as evidence was presented for retention to quality of existing article (while arguing for a purge that would make fixing it impossible). As far as I can see, deletionists have delete counts that far exceed those from a reasonable thoughtful review of a page before requesting a deletion (i.e, something more than a few seconds glance).

* The entire deletionist philosophy seems to imply a confusion of how a wiki works. See: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100002023/wikipedia-should-delete-the-deletionists/ There's no reason one shouldn't be able to dig endlessly down into subject matter, a fractal of content with ever greater detail. There's absolutely no cost, those who want to dive depths do. Those who want to swim on surface, stay there. There isn't a shortage of bits... There are technical fixes for places where a tree is not applicable (disambiguation pages, automatic list pages)

Что же Россия считает, что ваша игра заслуживает быть, в рядах Википедии) Что этот Админ обнаглел? Нормальная игра XD

User login

Server Stats

Rooms: 3
Players: 13
Copyright © 2004-2014 Hedgewars Project. All rights reserved.