[Kylotan]

No, it stands because there is nobody systematically checking every single article. You seem to think there's some sort of overarching grand plan to eradicate certain things. I'm sure there are many individual editors on there who have vested interests and so on but you're completely deluded if you think that the existence of many bad articles alongside the deletion of several others means some sort of organised attempt to shut you out. It just means that some manage to fly below the radar for a long time.

I know a guy who had a page up on there for over a year which cited him as the author of a book that didn't exist. It didn't survive for that long because an admin created the article, because one did not. He created it himself as a laugh. It survived solely because nobody noticed that it needed taking down. That's how it goes.

There's no conspiracy. Just a bunch of opinionated editors on one side who only care about their idea of what constitutes 'improving' the wiki and a bunch of mudders on the other who want their largely irrelevant pages on individual games to survive in Wikipedia despite having little to no wider relevance.

We've had Kavir saying he's "actually had a number of players discover my mud through Wikipedia", which is all well and good, but not at all what Wikipedia is there for. Yet I can't help but think that is why several of you are all so angry about it - you want it to be a source of traffic to muds in general, and who cares if there's virtually no useful information on those pages?

Scandum and Parhelion have it exactly right. Wikipedia is a great site on the whole when used for its intended purpose - getting an overview of a subject and finding further sources to be able to dig deeper. You can say what you like about the editors but on the whole it's no less accurate than a normal encyclopaedia for the most commonly read articles. However, like a normal encyclopaedia, it's not there to provide poorly-sourced pages about fairly trivial things, like individual instances of a forked game code base. What might be more appropriate is a summary page with links to external entries on mud-specific Wikis. But there's little point everybody on here whining about the admins or the rules. Wikipedia is what it is, like it or not, and you have the choices of putting articles on there that are well-cited and which are useful information for everybody, or choosing not to and seeing them get deleted.