User:B7T/newsubpage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So an article that I worked rather hard on at one point was finally deleted from Wikipedia, after 3 AfDs. I reworked it from the original, and it still seemed wrong somehow. But the style of the content was never what was in contention in the article, oddly enough. I think after some time has passed, I'll rewrite the article, first drafting it here, from a completely new angle. I'll try to give background information about its apparent creator, Joseph Rienstra, a man who is apparently deliberately mysterious, such that I could not find out much background information on him; his name isn't even mentioned, as far as I can tell, on the site I linked to in this sentence, although I am certain it is his site. I probably could have included information from GoKrida's current administrator, but since it is in the form of a blog, I wasn't sure it was considered a "reliable source". However, under the proposed WP:ATTR policy, it would likely be considered a "primary source" and allowable. I had also planned to add a link to the article from the Non-player character page, as GoKrida is rather unique in that it uses acted NPCs rather than automated ones. And the NPCs were apparently coached in terms of character style by a fairly well-known fantasy author, who has an article about her on Wikipedia. (Unfortunately, I can't remember her name at the moment.)

Like Mr. Rienstra, GoKrida is intended to be a bit of a mystery, so I was thinking of doing away with much of the detail included in the article originally, describing the style more generally, and perhaps including mention of major changes in the game design over time; and providing relevant external links instead. I got the impression that GoKrida was originally included in Wikipedia, based on a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and intending to promote the game rather than inform people who say, "What are you talking about?" Somewhere on Wikipedia is a set of links to gaming wikis, I believe as one of those informative boxes suggesting that the content would be better suited elsewhere; the article as it had been written might fare better on at least one of those sites.

Here's hoping for the future. B7T 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to have rescued the latest version of the article. I actually have mixed feelings about this.... :( B7T 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the article was a victim of a sort of systemic bias. B7T 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)