[Threshold]

I do not think those two sites by themselves single, or double-handedly establish notability. But I am inclined to agree with Dr. Bartle and Raph Koster that they are notable and reliable sources for information about MUDs. As such, they are legitimate sources for moving towards establishing notability of a MUD. Furthermore, the whole obsession with notability is ridiculous in a non-paper encyclopedia. Verifiability is what should matter. Let readers and users worry about notability by choosing to search for the topic or not.

You are obviously entitled to feel this way. There could be a lot of reasons why you don't care about situations like this whereas other people care passionately about it. I won't even begin to postulate.


I don't think anyone is overestimating anything. I believe MUDders are painfully aware that MUDs are a niche hobby that receives very little mainstream attention.

But I believe it is fact that MUDs played a significant role in the growth of the internet, and a tremendous, absolutely vital role in the growth of the MMORPG industry. For those two reasons alone, I believe MUDs are notable and it is important to preserve MUD history. Who knows where the gaming industry will go? In 20 years virtual worlds could be the dominant form of entertainment - dwarfing movies or television. That is not an absurd possibility. Science fiction has postulated as much for decades. If that happens, the importance of MUDs to entertainment in general would be enormous. What a shame it would be if that history was lost simply because 5-10 years after their heyday everyone just dismissed them as irrelevant.


I'm not sure where you were going here, so forgive me if I misinterpret. If you meant this incident will not spell the demise of Wikipedia, I agree. I don't think Milawe or anyone else was arguing differently. This situation is a symptom of the much larger, deep-seated problem with Wikipedia. It is neither the cause nor the most significant example.