Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Threshold · 08-26-2010, 05:03 PM

That never ceases to amaze me, since Wikipedia is itself, obviously, a "web source."

One thing that is interesting is that the page you linked to does not explain much about what is a reliable source. Instead it just talks about what are an unreliable source. That fact right there seems to indicate they care more about finding loopholes to invalidate sources rather than provide ways for people to understand, in advance, that a source IS reputable.

For gaming information in particular, mainstream media RARELY covers it. Most gaming related news and analysis is going to be on the web. And by gaming I mean not just MUDs but everything.

So in that case, what makes a web source reputable? Editorial oversight? Not being self published? Professional controls that monitor legal issues for the site? Am I understanding the criteria?

08-26-2010, 05:03 PM	#280
Threshold Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Threshold RPG Posts: 1,260	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. That never ceases to amaze me, since Wikipedia is itself, obviously, a "web source." One thing that is interesting is that the page you linked to does not explain much about what is a reliable source. Instead it just talks about what are an unreliable source. That fact right there seems to indicate they care more about finding loopholes to invalidate sources rather than provide ways for people to understand, in advance, that a source IS reputable. For gaming information in particular, mainstream media RARELY covers it. Most gaming related news and analysis is going to be on the web. And by gaming I mean not just MUDs but everything. So in that case, what makes a web source reputable? Editorial oversight? Not being self published? Professional controls that monitor legal issues for the site? Am I understanding the criteria?