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

Kylotan · 08-10-2010, 04:09 PM

As I understand it that won't help keep things on Wikipedia, because you have to reference a source which can't just be edited by a user as 'self-publishing'.

We need something with actual editorial oversight which covers the area a bit more critically.

To be honest I don't really see anything on the Arctic MUD Mudpedia page that tells me it's important enough to have a page of its own on Wikipedia, more like a mention on the Diku page under 'Notable examples' or something.

08-10-2010, 04:09 PM	#226
Kylotan Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nottingham, UK Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc) Posts: 174	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. As I understand it that won't help keep things on Wikipedia, because you have to reference a source which can't just be edited by a user as 'self-publishing'. We need something with actual editorial oversight which covers the area a bit more critically. To be honest I don't really see anything on the Arctic MUD Mudpedia page that tells me it's important enough to have a page of its own on Wikipedia, more like a mention on the Diku page under 'Notable examples' or something.