Wikipedia:Historical Wikipedia pages/Talk/Gamefoolz

related topics
{work, book, publish}
{film, series, show}
{theory, work, human}
{law, state, case}
{company, market, business}
{system, computer, user}
{style, bgcolor, rowspan}
{war, force, army}
{rate, high, increase}
{church, century, christian}

A discussion of an entry put up by someone about their own site, which broadened into m:Policy discussion/Articles on commercial enterprises.

Ok, I'll bite: why is this page being restored? Are we going to allow everybody to drop by and plug their web sites? --Stephen Gilbert

Stephen: Gamefoolz is for the bettering of humanity with it's humorousness. So this resource is --in the process of-- explains why you should have humour, and a site where to get it.

The /Talk page would be the place to try your best to resolve the "should this page exist?" dispute amicably.

My view on this--I don't think it does any great harm to have a page devoted to Gamefoolz. We wouldn't want to have a page about every website that comes down the pike; Wikipedia Is Not A Web Directory (see what Wikipedia is not). But Gamefoolz is a big site, and we should be able to humor them even if some (or even most) of us think there's no point in including articles about large-but-not-famous websites.

Approximately the same thing would go for articles about companies. Eventually, when Wikipedia has a million articles, every-friggin-body is going to want to have articles about their businesses. Your Mom and Pop shop might not merit a mention even at that point (although, at that point, we might be set up to have an encyclopedia-style business directory; who knows?), but some mid-sized retailer, for example, probably would. If it made them happy, let 'em.

I don't feel strongly about this, by the way. I could easily be convinced otherwise. --Larry Sanger

I feel more strongly. Wikipedia Is Not A Web Directory, or a review forum, or a place for what is, essentially, content that belongs on the About page of a website. That's the point of having web space -- you can say whatever you want about your site, on your site. Wikipedia is not the place for meta-information on websites; that role is well served by web directories and the websites themselves.

I don't see that the corporations analogy is entirely appropriate. An encyclopedia article about a corporation is useful because people will not necessarily expect to get information about the corporation from the corporation itself; a corporation is not necessarily a place to get information. A website, on the other hand, is technically nothing but information; if it has something to say about itself, it can be said on the website, and people will more readily look to the website itself than to an encyclopedia article about the site.

Please, let's make this clear (perhaps in Policy, if it's not already). -- Bignose

But you concede, surely, that we should have articles about Yahoo, Excite, and Slashdot. So...? --LMS

Here are my 2 cents-

1. Why are you discussing this here? Surely actual information about Gamefoolz would be much more relevant/informative than this argument.

2. They do seem to be a large website, but perhaps it needs just a little push to make it big. So what if we make 1 little entry about a webpage? If it does grow huge, then it would warrant the same attention as a Yahoo or a Google. I say, why not? What harm does it do? Don't give me crap about how "this isn't a directory" and such, give me reasons.

Full article ▸

related documents
Playboy
The Onion
Zine
Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition
Wikipedia:How the Current events page works
New Scientist
Galaxy Science Fiction
Autograph
Brian Aldiss
Haaretz
Wikipedia:Wikipedia NEWS
Wikipedia:Wikipedia NEWS/June 13 19 2001
Stephen Ambrose
Piers Anthony
Wikipedia:Wikipedia NEWS/June 20 25 2001
Donald Knuth
Wired (magazine)
Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia
Wikipedia:FAQ/Miscellaneous
The Irish Times
Quotation
Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers
ArXiv
Pen name
Dragon (magazine)
New York Post
About.com
The Washington Times
Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview
The Inquirer