September 4, 2004
I’ve been fascinated by the 18th-century French Enlightenment project, teleported into contemporary times and grafted onto the Web, that is Wikipedia. Although my contributions have been limited to a few minor and pedantic edits, I’ve not only looked up entries, but have also read some of the very involved discussions behind the articles. They can be quite interesting. What a crazy and fascinating plan: sum up the world’s knowledge by having anyone who wants edit or add anything at any point in time; keep the revision histories public; let controversy resolve itself through public discussion; keep a neutral point of view. And require that contributions be unencumbered by traditional intellectual property claims, available to all under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Ahem, well. My excuse for mentioning this is that there’s a reasonably recent, short article on game studies, highlighting the dread ludologist vs. narrativist debate and mentioning a few of the usual suspects — but not the prominence of formalism, any of the many programs in or conferences about the topic, First Person or Rules of Play. On the other hand, Britannica seems to lack a similar entry altogether. Of courst, I could go dink the existing game studies entry in Wikipedia a bit — but I mention it here because, so could you. Have at it, if you like.