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

chaosprime · 08-26-2010, 05:28 PM

Sounds like you are. I haven't yet participated in a deletion debate where web content was being considered reliable, but editorial oversight is important, as is not being "self-published". Some kind of feeling that somebody's fact-checking and has a fiduciary stake in the content's accuracy that they're trying to protect comes into it. If the context is one where any yahoo can just toss up whatever he likes, like a forum post or a MUD listing or some random dude's blog or whatever, then Wikipedia doesn't want material from it. I assume the reasonableness of this position doesn't really need to be defended.

It's on the basis of editorial oversight and what I hope isn't too much of a belief that there's fact-checking going on that I've been supporting treating TMC Mud of the Month articles and staff reviews as reliable. I haven't seen this seriously tested in a deletion debate, though, and I haven't yet mustered the energy to try to get the concept reviewed for inclusion in the main WikiProject Video Games reliability guidelines. I may be hoping for a bit too much.

On the other hand, I don't support using any kind of user-generated information from TMC or TMS on Wikipedia, emphatically including rankings. Any affiliate traffic metric is the purest grade of BS imaginable, and I'm gonna put my foot in Cambios's ass if he puts Threshold's TMS and TMC "vote" rank back in that article one more time.

08-26-2010, 05:28 PM	#281
chaosprime Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Home MUD: Lost Souls Posts: 199	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. Sounds like you are. I haven't yet participated in a deletion debate where web content was being considered reliable, but editorial oversight is important, as is not being "self-published". Some kind of feeling that somebody's fact-checking and has a fiduciary stake in the content's accuracy that they're trying to protect comes into it. If the context is one where any yahoo can just toss up whatever he likes, like a forum post or a MUD listing or some random dude's blog or whatever, then Wikipedia doesn't want material from it. I assume the reasonableness of this position doesn't really need to be defended. It's on the basis of editorial oversight and what I hope isn't too much of a belief that there's fact-checking going on that I've been supporting treating TMC Mud of the Month articles and staff reviews as reliable. I haven't seen this seriously tested in a deletion debate, though, and I haven't yet mustered the energy to try to get the concept reviewed for inclusion in the main WikiProject Video Games reliability guidelines. I may be hoping for a bit too much. On the other hand, I don't support using any kind of user-generated information from TMC or TMS on Wikipedia, emphatically including rankings. Any affiliate traffic metric is the purest grade of BS imaginable, and I'm gonna put my foot in Cambios's ass if he puts Threshold's TMS and TMC "vote" rank back in that article one more time.