Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

If there is a real demand for this I could do it here, but would want to be personally "hands off" on it other than setting it up - would we end up with the same control issues over time?

Would probably use Twiki as that is the one I have the most personal experience with, unless others feel strongly there's a better option?

Incidentally, I own the domain 'mudwiki.com' which was redirected to mu.wikia.com but the domain itself was never used, so reassigning it to something else would do no harm.

We've never had a code repository here and twiki has good handling of attachments so that's another benefit - being able to attach the code to the article covering it.

In terms of data backup, for what it's worth TMS is backed up and ftped off-site nightly.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

What would happen with the wiki if TMS for some unfortunate reason was closed?

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I can't imagine a reason why TMS would close period. I can imagine scenarios in which I personally no longer want to run it, mostly related to the fact that I just haven't had the time to make TMS what it could be, but to just shut it down and not let someone else run with it would seem like an awful waste. I never understand MudMagic closing that way, but Kyndig must have had his reasons.

When I picked up TMS it was on a domain forum (namepros.com) implying that there was probably more value in farming the URL for traffic than there was in actually running the site. That implication is probably true, the domain has enough "authority" and backlinks that even if the actual MUDs removed their links to it, all those mentions on more general sites would provide traffic for a long time which could be valuable to many other sites. Think of it in the context of what they pay per click on adsense for similar traffic. That was the reason I picked it up at all, to make sure it pretty much stayed as it is - true to MUDs.

Redoing the forums and rewriting the voting was fun but way too time consuming. I like the way the forums turned out, but just never got to doing the same for the reviews and articles, adding graphs for voting history (I have it by day since the rewrite), etc.

I've considered selling it, but not a week goes by that I don't turn down ads from non-MUD sites, usually growing MMOs, gold/power leveling "services" (we actually ran ads for a couple of those for a brief while but I cancelled/refunded them) and arcade sites. It would not seem reasonable to try to sell it with any kind of restriction on that because that's where the money is and presumably anyone buying it would do so as a business opportunity, so options are limited. I've also considered going in the other direction - trying to make it more relevant to MMO players so they also get exposure to MUDs while here. Have also considered taking on a "partner" to develop it out further, but it's not a big money maker and never will be while it is MUDs only, so anyone talented enough to make it work can already either (a) start their own site or (b) focus on a more lucrative subject.

Not to make out that I'm being some kind of martyr in all this, it has been a good source of traffic for many MUDs, mine included. So, while people have an (understandable) concern about conflict of interest, hopefully there's also a little comfort from the flip side of that - vested interest in keeping it about MUDs.

Hmm, I just spent a whole lot of time answering a question you didn't ask :) As for a wiki itself, haven't really thought about it. Wikis tend to get mirrored all over the place by content scrapers whether you like it or not anyway. I haven't thought this through, but don't see a big problem with making the wiki part of the site available as a download, either as a public download or just to a few key members/editors. How do other wikis handle this?

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I recall seeing those WoW gold farming adds on TMS a while ago, I personally think you made the right choice by removing them because adds like that make a site look cheap.

Once you have enough responsible editors with a vested interest and administrative powers a Wiki pretty much runs itself. It could grow out to become a valuable resource and bring in some revenue, and I doubt anyone will mind if it's 1 banner per page like on this forum. There might still be room for growth if MUDs manage to advertise themselves on text-based MMORPGs like Utopia.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I have no problems supporting any or all of the Wikis proposed. I've already started working heavily on Threshold's MU*Wiki entry (simply out of respect for Brody who's been advertising it for some time), and I had planned to copy it over to Mud Wiki (out of respect for Fred).

In the end, it'd be best if we could decide (or vote) on which one to support fully. That way, once I'm done with Threshold's I can slowly begin working through other muds, and I suspect others will help as well.

To be honest, I prefer an independent Media Wiki wiki. That is, someone hosts it, downloads a copy of Media Wiki, and it runs excactly like Wikipedia (no ads) except for the lack of all templates. Threshold and I had thought to volunteer to set this up for the community, but we wanted to make sure that we didn't step on any toes.

Our plan had been to create it, recruit experienced Wiki people to "police" it, and be the arbitrators. That way if someone sees something wrong (or inaccurate) about a mud listing, it could be investigated. I'll volunteer to set up the Wiki if we decide to go with any kind of Media Wiki type of software. (You can take a look at the Wiki I set up for our unreleased game at .)

Anyway, I guess this was kind of rambly, but we should kind of decide where we want this set up and which one we can support as a community. Hope that makes sense.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Somewhat off topic, but I found that might be interesting to find pieces of MUD history. It mirrors for example The Mud Journal.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

The enormous media attention? What enormous media attention? I haven't seen a thing in my local paper, or in the NY Times, or on the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today, People, The Post, Time, Newsweek, or the New Yorker. I see no mention at all on CBS, ABC, NBC, or HBO. If it ain't in at least ONE of those, then it ain't "enormous media attention." Sorry. You are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

The Wikia WikiMU* wiki appears to have a huge huge amount of roleplay logs and the like, which isn't really the area that I was picturing this Wiki focusing on. Given that another community seems to have adopted WikiMU*, it seems rude to take away their stuff for this purpose, hence the new WikiMUD.

Speaking just for myself, I DO want an encyclopedia-like resource, with facts and even analysis. There's other sites for mud ads and the like.

As far as moving it... it's there now. I wouldn't overthink it, personally. An advantage to Wikia is that articles from Wikipedia can be trivially copied over, they have a built in command for it.

Scandum, I am not editing Wikipedia, only WikiMUD. Frankly, I don't see any way for me to participate in editing Wikipedia on anything related to muds, virtual worlds, or even games in general, without a conflict of interest given my writings, profession, and presence on industry boards/etc.

So I can only help Wikipedia entries indrectly. I am, however, providing sources to people editing Wikipedia, if I happen to find them.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Wow, that is quite a find. It mirrors Imaginary Realities too.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Really? I don't watch or read any of those any more. They are a joke when it comes to news - only concerning themselves with sound bites and the next sex scandal. They chase each others' tails following the same sensational news stories I don't care about. There's a reason their news departments are either failing or in danger of failing financially.

When I speak about the media attention, I am talking about the attention for the general issue of Wikiepdia's "deletionism" - not just people talking about Threshold. Threshold got the story started, but the "main issue" is about gaming history in general, preservation of obscure topics, and Wikipedia's role in preserving non-mainstream information. 20+ gaming blogs. Multiple gaming news sties including Massively.com. I was interviewed by a radio station Monday. I have been contacted by a couple of print sources, but until they actually run a story I don't want to jinx it. That's massive media attention in my opinion.

Even the Wikipedia editors/admins noted the way they are deleting things like mad is getting a lot of negative media attention, and that they should be aware of it.

But hey, be a negative Nancy if you want. :) I'm just happy that a story starting out about a MUD can still generate interest and concern from news sources that usually wouldn't show us any interest. It means our shared hobby still matters to a lot of people out there. It also means if we work together as a community, we can still attract some positive media attention. Those are all good things.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

That is great! Thank you for finding that. And whoever is responsible for that site: massive thanks!

Hopefully some other folks around here can take this opportunity to archive that information as well for an additional backup (should that site every go down).

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Okay. That makes sense. I'll take a look at WikiMUD again, and maybe we should have some sort of statement/goals up.

Maybe very early on, then, we should have a system for fact checking. Just in case there's ever any contention. That would make it a bit different than just being a listing site that allows admins to pretty much put in anything they want. Or is that the goal? Do we allow admins to put in anything they want? Just something to think about.


Thanks for the help you HAVE given already.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

That would be the work of Ntanel Stormblade. He used to run MudWorld and such. He's actually among the first people I met when I started learning to build for MUDs and such. Very nice guy. Sadly, I don't think he is active in the commuity much anymore.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I am pleased to see Threshold is now official, and someone managed to actually find the old article quoted as a resource. I was also amazed at how the Proffessional / Impartial editors who joined in dealt with this. The comparison between those who clearly had a vendetta and those who were just doing a job was so painfully apparent.

However, has anyone still got the link to the deletion discussion . final summary as I would love to read it.

and good grief, Mendaliv.. or whever he was called changed from Delete to Neutral so well done.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Yes, the difference was absolutely stunning. It just goes to show that Wikipedia has the POTENTIAL to be a great resource. It is the few self-serving jerks (Mendaliv, Crossmr, Cameron Scott and others) bucking for adminhood that screw it up.




I think his motives there are pretty transparent. He saw the writing on the wall and did everything he could to try and re-position himself as something other than a revenge seeking, deletionist, abusive editor.

Hopefully, if things stay like this, other MUDs can point to this 2nd AfD as a reference if they ever have to deal with the same problem. Things were also moving in a positive direction for the acceptance of TMC and TMS as reliable sources. So good news all around.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I was going to comment on this last night, but figured I'm too close to the subject. When I checked the page last night, there were 7 banners in total, 2 for a weight loss program, 2 for online brokers and the closest to anything MUD related was for WoW.

I'm not overly motivated to put work into content that will be financed by placing ads for WoW on MUD related pages. I do realize this is somewhat hypocritical too. After all, having a banner ad on a forum is just another way of making money from user generated content, but it's still how I feel.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Just as an unofficial announcement, the Operating Committee of The RPMUD Network has voted to eliminate the clicky-voting traffic device when we debut our revamped site. We'll be concentrating on providing articles, critical reviews, and an array of resources including a search engine, building school, and hosting a series of events with the intention of both recognizing games via methods other than popularity (bye-bye clicky votes) as well as providing outlets for informational discussion and education regarding a variety of topics relevant to and beyond the MU* community (hopefully we'll receive interest in assisting and participating in this).

In short, we'll be aiming at creating a third-party, critical resource regarding RPE(nforced) MU*s that is hopefully of citation-worthy quality. Questions regarding the site can be directed to staff (-at-) rpmud.net though feel free to email me personally at falco (-at-) rpmud.net or drop me a PM here as well. I've been a little distracted these past couple of days between the weather (my ankles get more and more sore with every degreethat the temperature drops; fortunately the arthritis I developed in my hip and knee as a result of my auto accident hasn't been too bad) and the issues with my server but I promise to get back to you as soon as I possibly can!

Jason

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Yeah, wow. That's pretty horrible. I definitely don't think a MUD Wiki should be spewing WoW ads at people. And some of the other ads were pretty scummy as well. Is there any way to reduce the number of ads, or somehow focus the ads so they are of a different type? I know some ad-supported networks have alternate options, like if people donated via paypal or something. I don't know what the answer is there, but I can't see people getting excited about working on a site with so many ads - particularly ads of that type.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I mean that the efforts of the community are best spent giving themselves a more respectable, professional approach to the field than spent complaining about Wikipedia. There was some merit to Wikipedia's objections, regardless of how they went about it, and the MU* community has been terribly delinquent in holding itself to any standards. I can't speak for everyone besides myself but I have been appalled at just how little the community attempts to demonstrate responsibility. True, many MU*s are operating as hobbies but that's no excuse. Hobbyists of all types around the world find ways to hold themselves and their participants to some semblance of responsible, critical standards. That has not happened in the MU* community for whatever reason be it immaturity, self-interest, insecurity, irresponsibility or anything else. Sure, some games are run as hobbies and some as commercial ventures. That doesn't relinquish the community of any responsibility in regard to honesty, appreciation for quality, and peer-recognition to say nothing of critical review and accountability. There have been a few measures taken in this regard but even those have been half-hearted. That's just not acceptable and the lack of outrage from the community over such failure needs to stop. We need to hold ourselves and one another to a higher standard across the board.

I'll be posting some suggestions in the upcoming days on ways to recast the community not only in a more responsible but also a more dignified light (want to run more of them by the RPMUD Operating Committee to determine the degree of assistance we can provide as a group so I can append the degree of involvement that more than just I can contribute to this effort).

Jason