View Single Post
Old 01-04-2009, 09:07 PM   #46
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Well, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Sheer number of votes isn't going to do it. That has been stated time and again. What will do it is good arguments and logical reasoning as well as people going to cite the rules of Wikipedia. Notice that when someone is banned, not only is their vote struck, all of their input is collapsed. Many of the arguments that have been collapsed are not inflammatory nor are they unreasonable. Additionally, they are on point and explain Wikipedia's policies more fully rather than in the cursory and superior manner that is used by some of the administrators and long-time editors.

There's been no spam. The problem is that there's no way of cutting off a slew of prejudiced votes from someone going to rally the administrators and people on #wikipedia. You can see the examples of this from many of the logs of #wikipedia. How is it not prejudiced and meatpuppeting to go and rally the Wikipedia community against an article as opposed to opening a topic this forum? Please keep in mind also, that this is now our only recourse to even have a discussion on this issue. Almost everyone who had a strong say in this has been banned, ridiculed or summarily dismissed. When you leave people no options to actually deal with this in Wikipedia, it's no surprise that they go somewhere else where they're less likely to be bullied and can discuss this without being buried in Wiki-politics. Where else can people turn for help or advice? Definitely not at the place they were originally being abused.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote