Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wikipedia Games

Old Man Murray Entry Deleted From Wikipedia 432

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-miss-you-omm dept.
shoptroll writes "In what can be best described as an unfortunate interpretation of the 'notability standards' at Wikipedia, Rock, Paper, Shotgun reports that the entry for Old Man Murray, once a mainstay of PC Gaming reviews and commentary, has been deleted. A sad day for gaming journalism everywhere." This is notable both because Old Man Murray was completely and totally awesome, but also because it was notable and influential on countless writers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Old Man Murray Entry Deleted From Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • by Winckle (870180) <mark@winckle.c o . uk> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:24AM (#35369114) Homepage

    The deletion of OMM was instigated by Ben Schumin, a sad man who still holds a grudge against Erik Wolpaw, a writer at OMM, now working for Valve as a writer for games such as Portal. The fact that some sad sack like him can point at an article and say "this should be deleted" and the circle jerk of deletionist admins ignore the salient points made by users and experts of games journalism such as Kieron Gillen, delete the article and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

    Barnstars all-round you deletionist creeps, keep ruining Wikipedia one kangaroo-court AfD at a time.

  • by TheDarkMaster (1292526) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:25AM (#35369130)
    I wrote some time ago that Wikipedia should allow any content that could be interesting / informative to someone, after all she did not have the space limitation of a physical encyclopedia. I honestly can not understand why something has to be "remarkable" to be included in Wikipedia, especially when the criteria of "outstanding" is usualy being cited in news sites and the like that are not always have ethical criteria to decide what he saw or not "remarkable." or public interest.
  • Bias in Wikipedia (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:31AM (#35369202)

    This is why I quit writing for wikipedia. I would spend hours writing and posting reference links only to be told my references weren't good enough.

    I've had "editors" tell me Foxnews was biased and not a good citation, and then two months later tell me CNN was biased and not a good citation. Wikipedia is the most unreliable source of information on the internet IMHO.

    I've also had articles and updates deleted because the citation website had removed the content or completely shut down.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:32AM (#35369232)

    The review itself cited some good sources. Edge magazine, which is pushing 20 years old itself, has extolled the site's historical relevance. The bother is that the admin in question judged those arguments as unacceptable. It should do better at deletion review, assuming it's been passed there.

  • by Winckle (870180) <mark@winckle.c o . uk> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:36AM (#35369258) Homepage

    Deletion is supposed to be the last resort [wikipedia.org] No notices were put up to improve the article, no messages sent to a relevant wikiproject for volunteers to help out. Just Ben Schumin (a man a writer of OMM made fun off a decade ago) tying to pull a fast one. Schumin also removed references to Erik Wolpaw from several pages recently.

  • by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:42AM (#35369326) Homepage Journal

    Yes, because PCGamer, Kokatu, Wired & the UGO Network are completely irrelevant when it comes to the gaming community.

  • Google Cache (Score:4, Informative)

    by Roary (1027566) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:42AM (#35369338) Homepage

    For those who may be wondering what Old Man Murray is:

    Wikipedia Google Cache [googleusercontent.com]

    Oh the irony

  • Re:Notability (Score:5, Informative)

    by canajin56 (660655) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @11:54AM (#35369468)
    Actually, outsiders are hated and despised. If any of the wiki admins finds out that YOU have been encouraging people to contribute, expect a lifetime ban.
  • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @12:01PM (#35369546)

    You'd have more of a point if "Wikipedia" was a person. It's not. The clique that handles anime articles has different standards than the clique that handles this, that, and the other. You can impose consistency but at the cost of causing people to complain about this or that article being left in or deleted.

  • by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:08PM (#35370336)

    Interesting/informative isn't the defining characteristic of an encyclopedia, though. I mean, my PhD thesis is interesting, but it's not going up there. Encyclopedias are about a different kind of content, specifically a review of a subject. They've at least reached a useful metric for suitability with the guideline that articles should have proper secondary sources. That, IMO, should be the sole criterion - "can you write a properly referenced review of this subject?".

    I agree with you. And I would have absolutely no problem with the conclusions from your Ph.D thesis being placed in the relevant entry for the topic your thesis deals with. Then your thesis would be cited as a reference.

    The problem is that the deletionists are trying to put limits on the subject matter. I don't give a shit whether the topic of your dissertation is in Quantum Theory or Buffy Studies [wikipedia.org], as long as it follows your criteria of "properly referenced review of the subject." They want to be able to say, "this topic isn't important enough to be part of the encyclopedia," and they have no reason for doing that. It's not like they have some sort of space limit. Subject importance is relative. If I'm searching for it, it's important to me.

  • by I Like Pudding (323363) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:23PM (#35370480)

    Disclaimer: I'm Entropy Stew in the wikipedia deletion discussion

    Sources found included PC Gamer, Gabe Newell, RPS, Kotaku, Wired, MaximumPC, Edge Magazine, Quake 3, Postal 2, Serious Sam, the UGO network WHICH OMM WAS A MEMBER OF and a host of others. All were ignored. RPS reacted immediately to the news because it's insane, and their article being directly about OMM should assuage even unreasonable demands. Wikipedia absolutely loathes outsiders [wikipedia.org], though, so who knows if it will be restored?

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @03:39PM (#35372024) Journal

    Uhhh..WTF? Several games plug OMM directly in the game, such as the monitors in Postal2 or the developers hidden in Serious Sam which follow Sam when freed and call out "Old Man Murry!" Hell it is common knowledge that the reason you see a crate so early both in the original Half Life and Half Life 2 is because the developers tried to beat OMM's "Start To Crate" (which I still do to this day when playing FPS) and finally said "fuck it" and threw in a crate at the front to basically hang a lampshade on it.

    OMM seriously affected games of the late 90s/early 00s because OMM was THE review site because if you could get OMM on your side there was serious buzz to be had. I know I bought Serious Sam as soon as I could could and would have never heard of the game otherwise if it weren't for OMM. So yeah, I gotta call it as I see it, another case of delentionism which the Wiki has waaaay too much of as of late.

  • The article's been restored. Looks like the Deletion Review process did what it was supposed to do.
  • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @08:50PM (#35375550) Homepage

    Normal users can't undelete articles, they can not even view them. A delete is something very different from an edit.

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...