Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
I have scientific research published and presented in my name on perideridia americana among other things. Threshold has tons of scholarly writings as well as legal briefs written by him. I would venture to guess that I've probably had more scholarly papers published than several people who contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. It doesn't really matter, though, since Wikipedia doesn't require you to have jack squat in order to edit on their site. That's, in fact, a huge criticism of Wikipedia from academia and why they are NOT considered on par with an encyclopedia. (An encyclopedia is an accepted source for the beginning of research. At most schools, Wikipedia is not.)
Please keep in mind that this deletion based on notability is a pretty recent trend in Wikipedia. Originally, you only needed to have verifiability, and notability determined the length of your entry. It's pretty easy to verify that most of these muds exist. Whether they are notable or not is a very much up to debate but is not grounds for deletion at least not by the written policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The current trends may be other than what is stated, but then the guidelines and policies should be updated.
|