Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Lasher · 01-03-2009, 07:17 PM

Aardwolf was removed in July 2007 as being "not notable", similar arguments given to those I see in your AFD page. In the overall scheme of the internet I suppose it really isn't notable, but in that case 90% of the stuff on Wikipedia needs to go.

Apparently it had been tagged for review for some time but we were not aware. On the same day we were made aware and contacted the appropriate Wikipedia editor, it just happened to be deleted. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but the timing was all too convenient. Maybe it was an administrative decision along the lines of "I don't want to deal with new information / having to actually verify this so delete it today" or maybe there was more to it. There were plenty of additional third party reviews of Aardwolf on non-traditional MUD sites, but the day we provided the links for them was the day it was suddenly "too late". I even offered to provide some documentation in which Aardwolf was used for a social science experiment in a joint venture with Cornell and DARPA. This was also dismissed as it would be "original research".

From your own AFD, the idea behind reviews written by players count for less is somewhat ridiculous. You can't play a mud for a day (or even a week) "only to review it" and really get a feel for its culture and community.

It seems TMS was also removed from the main Wikipedia page on "MUDS". Re-added it but no time or inclination to spend chasing Wikipedia edits. It is what it is, best advice I can give you is that it's not worth it, move on, unless you want to keep defending your entry over and over and over.

01-03-2009, 07:17 PM	#3
Lasher Administrator Join Date: May 2005 Name: Derek Location: Orlando Posts: 357	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. Aardwolf was removed in July 2007 as being "not notable", similar arguments given to those I see in your AFD page. In the overall scheme of the internet I suppose it really isn't notable, but in that case 90% of the stuff on Wikipedia needs to go. Apparently it had been tagged for review for some time but we were not aware. On the same day we were made aware and contacted the appropriate Wikipedia editor, it just happened to be deleted. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but the timing was all too convenient. Maybe it was an administrative decision along the lines of "I don't want to deal with new information / having to actually verify this so delete it today" or maybe there was more to it. There were plenty of additional third party reviews of Aardwolf on non-traditional MUD sites, but the day we provided the links for them was the day it was suddenly "too late". I even offered to provide some documentation in which Aardwolf was used for a social science experiment in a joint venture with Cornell and DARPA. This was also dismissed as it would be "original research". From your own AFD, the idea behind reviews written by players count for less is somewhat ridiculous. You can't play a mud for a day (or even a week) "only to review it" and really get a feel for its culture and community. It seems TMS was also removed from the main Wikipedia page on "MUDS". Re-added it but no time or inclination to spend chasing Wikipedia edits. It is what it is, best advice I can give you is that it's not worth it, move on, unless you want to keep defending your entry over and over and over.