I was just glancing at the Wikipedia interactive fiction article and noticed the “review of genre” subsection. Much of this section is uncited opinion that applies only to parser games and doesn’t conform to Wikipedia standards. Example:
“By its definition a puzzle is a problem that tests a person’s ingenuity or knowledge. Puzzles can’t be obvious or they are not a puzzle. However, puzzles need to be understandable, User-centered design implies that anything that is used should be self-explanatory, but many puzzles in Interactive fiction are not self-explanatory.”
Sadly, it’s been around since January. I’m not myself a Wikipedia editor, but I wanted to flag this in case anyone around here is and wants to take a look at it.
I added a tag saying “This section possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.”
I also added it to a noticeboard: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia … fiction.22
Not really sure of what the correct process is though.
Can’t anyone edit Wikipedia? (Even so, it does not necessarily mean anyone knows what to write, I suppose.)
Yes, everyone is a Wikipedia editor! Be bold! The IF Theory Reader should be a fertile source of citations, if anyone is so inclined: inform-fiction.org/manual/downlo … heory.html
There’s a difference between “everyone can be a Wikipedia editor” and “everyone has the available cope points and energy to be a Wikipedia editor”.
My personal cope and energy are in use elsewhere - I’m not going to tackle this problem, even if it persists. I wanted to raise awareness among other people who might have the cope points available.
Wikipedia editors with energy and available cope points: Baf’s Guide is listed as the first external link on that article. I don’t know how Wikipedia handles no-longer-functional links, but perhaps it ought to be marked somehow?
Everyone can be a Wikipedia editor, which means well meaning edits can be reverted by less well meaning others. So a bit of experience with raising issues on talk pages, with notice tags etc, can help with issues like this one.
I can’t imagine why a random editor would have cause to disagree with any changes made by someone involved in IF. Unless they violated house style or conventions.
I was thinking of the original person who added that section. Although it’s possible someone might just be concerned by the size of the deletion.
I’m a random person who has edited Wikipedia (I don’t consider myself an editor, that’s more someone in that community with a rep and perhaps able to edit articles that are edit restricted I think), I may somewhat disagree with the last few changes to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … ture_games which would appear to be people plugging their own works without regard for notatability.
It seems as though after you flagged that section, someone (who works for a Wikimedia spinoff) moved the whole thing to the talk page, so the original problem has been solved. Good work all!
Hooray! Thanks for jumping on this.