Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
As I understand it that won't help keep things on Wikipedia, because you have to reference a source which can't just be edited by a user as 'self-publishing'.
We need something with actual editorial oversight which covers the area a bit more critically.
To be honest I don't really see anything on the Arctic MUD Mudpedia page that tells me it's important enough to have a page of its own on Wikipedia, more like a mention on the Diku page under 'Notable examples' or something.
|