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

Milawe · 01-07-2009, 12:46 AM

There is no "against Wikipedia". It's not a an entity. The entity of Wikipedia did not create this issue.

Its guidelines and policies being used as a corporal sword +15 by a few was the problem. I absolutely don't regret asking MUDders for help, though I definitely didn't ask anyone to go participate in the AfD discussion. We did ask for them to look at it and suggest to us what we could do. This resulted in Wikipedia administrators who were acting in good faith coming to actually telling us what to do, how to do it, and started me down the path of learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia.

If it's a pool of knowledge, then it doesn't hurt to have more knowledge. Whereas it does hurt to have less knowledge.

You're making me giggle with the KB comment. You DO realize how cheap memory is now, right? You can get a terabyte of storage for $99. That's 1,073,741,824 KBs, so it's $0.000000092 for 1 KB of space. That's the whole reason that one of Wikipedia's policy is this

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.

This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." (From WP:NOTPAPER)

Please also note that , the thing that was used to bludgeon Threshold's entry and likely many other mud's entries is a GUIDELINE rather than policy.

So, I find it amusing that a few people are declaring that Wikipedia is "not the place for MUDs" and that MUDders are abusing Wikipedia. A MUD entry is hardly different than a , an entry about some , or an entry about a fictional character such as Frodo Baggins (I gave up on trying to link it).

Lastly, if MUDs were not allowed, I don't see why ) would even exist. Lastly, if MUDs were not allowed, then wouldn't Wikipedia have a policy against it? They have a policy for everything else. WP:MUDSNOTALLOWED would have made this much easier on all of us.

(On a side note, Wiki-lingo is kind of fun. You can find all sorts of things to back up your arguments! WP:WTFPWN!)

01-07-2009, 12:46 AM	#114
Milawe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: USA Home MUD: Threshold RPG Home MUD: Stash Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar Posts: 653	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. There is no "against Wikipedia". It's not a an entity. The entity of Wikipedia did not create this issue. Its guidelines and policies being used as a corporal sword +15 by a few was the problem. I absolutely don't regret asking MUDders for help, though I definitely didn't ask anyone to go participate in the AfD discussion. We did ask for them to look at it and suggest to us what we could do. This resulted in Wikipedia administrators who were acting in good faith coming to actually telling us what to do, how to do it, and started me down the path of learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. If it's a pool of knowledge, then it doesn't hurt to have more knowledge. Whereas it does hurt to have less knowledge. You're making me giggle with the KB comment. You DO realize how cheap memory is now, right? You can get a terabyte of storage for $99. That's 1,073,741,824 KBs, so it's $0.000000092 for 1 KB of space. That's the whole reason that one of Wikipedia's policy is this "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below. This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." (From WP:NOTPAPER) Please also note that , the thing that was used to bludgeon Threshold's entry and likely many other mud's entries is a GUIDELINE rather than policy. So, I find it amusing that a few people are declaring that Wikipedia is "not the place for MUDs" and that MUDders are abusing Wikipedia. A MUD entry is hardly different than a , an entry about some , or an entry about a fictional character such as Frodo Baggins (I gave up on trying to link it). Lastly, if MUDs were not allowed, I don't see why ) would even exist. Lastly, if MUDs were not allowed, then wouldn't Wikipedia have a policy against it? They have a policy for everything else. WP:MUDSNOTALLOWED would have made this much easier on all of us. (On a side note, Wiki-lingo is kind of fun. You can find all sorts of things to back up your arguments! WP:WTFPWN!) Last edited by Milawe : 01-07-2009 at 01:03 AM. Reason: Did I fix it this time?