[casual_games] Re: Casual Games Wiki Deletion

[Kim Pallister]

Another 2c worth on this:

>> -          Assymetrical balance between companies (Company A has 50
>> words, company B has 500 - Is B "more important" or did they just
take
>> the time)

> why does this matter? so one company has a posting and another does
not.

I was less concerned about "posting/none" than I was about "big/small
posting"

And why it matters is that if the wiki is believed by readers to be
(whether implied or not) a source of accurate information, it should
strive to be.

So, company A says "Company A is a publisher of casual games"
Company B says "Company B is a publisher of casual games. The offer the
highest royalty rates in the industry and have unparalleled distribution
with carriers".

Is the latter statement accurate? If I'm a knowledgable reader, I take
it with a grain of salt. Does everyone?

I do think that being a wiki, this kind of thing will straighten itself
out. I was just thinking that a policy would help people start out on
the right foot. I think the template is a great idea too.

>> -          "objective" voice likely to give way to "marketeer" voice.

>there are no objective voices ... [or maybe i just didn't drink the
'kool-aid' ...]

Yeah, good point. I just meant that a 3rd party was likely to be more
objective. I was searching for the appropriate analogy of Wikipedia's
"don't create an entry about yourself" policy. You at least cross the
threshold of "someone other than yourself has deemed your company worth
having an entry".

>> At the very least, there should a policy recommendation about what to
>> post, how much of it, and keeping it informational.

>eh- one page. that's the recommendation. a wiki is a more informal way
to share information. i know this is hard for you at microsoft, but

tsk tsk. No need to get nasty. I get it. Informal doesn't mean no
policy. It just means no heavy process. Again, Wikipedia has a policy,
and it seems to work well for them. 

No need for the Microsoft bashing dude!

Kim