View Single Post
Old 01-04-2009, 05:41 PM   #39
Neurolysis
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8
Neurolysis is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Completely incorrect. Wikipedia accepts citations from books, newspapers, websites... all kinds of places, as long as the source is reliable.

I can understand that people are upset, so I will take some time explaining one thing at a time (which might take a while, I have a ton of coursework to do):

Do not be afraid to name names, or I cannot help in achieving transparency.

It isn't a matter of 'not being good enough', it is a matter of 'not being reliable'. If you are the administrator of a site dedicated to MUDs, your fans love them and you know they want to hear nothing more than you write about them, then you are likely to be going to write about them from a biased point of view. This is not reliable. This is therefore inappropriate.

Again, incorrect. I have never seen a published entry removed simply for being in a non-digital format. Actually, I have, but the editor was warned shortly after, and reverted.

Whilst I see your motive for saying such a thing, it is highly ignorant to say that a 'cabal' decides what is going on. Everyone on Wikipedia thinks there is a cabal too, so there more than likely isn't one at all. I am frequently a participant in deletion discussions, and help to decide the final outcome of the debate, but if there is a cabal I have certainly not recieved my honorary membership as of yet. (Lost in the post, maybe)

Not so. We have deletion reviews every day, and a lot of the time the community decides to overturn the final decision.

We have, actually, the problem is that we can't see what is going on behind an IP address - could be a whole school, and we do get that all the time. It's all a matter of perception.

The problem here is that notability and verifiability usually come hand in hand.

We have a policy on ownership, and that policy is this - it cannot and will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. If you see it happening, you should report it to an administrator.

That's exactly the antonym of what you should be thinking about. The question is are there multiple sources of reviews for these?
Neurolysis is offline   Reply With Quote