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

Threshold · 01-25-2013, 02:32 PM

TRANSLATION: This is our widdle secwet cwub. You have to cwimb up into our widdle twee howse if you wanna partica-parta-particip- be involved.

Stuff like that is what gives Wikipedia the cultist, Jim Jones-like appearance.

If the goal is to ultimately produce a high quality source of information, then it shouldn't matter how people find out about an issue. If they show up and add meaningful, quality input, it doesn't matter how they found out about it.

Sorry Wikinerds, communicating by re-editing a page a thousand times over and over is not only unwieldy, but stupid and inconvenient. The rest of the world uses far more convenient and well designed communication tools like email, forums, twitter, and Facebook.

Trying to have a discussion on Wikipedia is one of the most painful things you can do online. It is archaic and makes absolutely no sense. BBSes did communication better than the whole "lets all manually edit the same page and somehow use that to communicate."

WORST THING ABOUT ALL THIS: Probably 99% of Wikipedia admins and editors work their butts off making it a great site. They do this for no pay and basically no recognition. The result of their hard work is an absolutely AMAZING information resource.

The 1% basement dwelling losers who are desperate for some kind of "status" are the ones who sully the whole. Its a shame.

01-25-2013, 02:32 PM	#314
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. TRANSLATION: This is our widdle secwet cwub. You have to cwimb up into our widdle twee howse if you wanna partica-parta-particip- be involved. Stuff like that is what gives Wikipedia the cultist, Jim Jones-like appearance. If the goal is to ultimately produce a high quality source of information, then it shouldn't matter how people find out about an issue. If they show up and add meaningful, quality input, it doesn't matter how they found out about it. Sorry Wikinerds, communicating by re-editing a page a thousand times over and over is not only unwieldy, but stupid and inconvenient. The rest of the world uses far more convenient and well designed communication tools like email, forums, twitter, and Facebook. Trying to have a discussion on Wikipedia is one of the most painful things you can do online. It is archaic and makes absolutely no sense. BBSes did communication better than the whole "lets all manually edit the same page and somehow use that to communicate." WORST THING ABOUT ALL THIS: Probably 99% of Wikipedia admins and editors work their butts off making it a great site. They do this for no pay and basically no recognition. The result of their hard work is an absolutely AMAZING information resource. The 1% basement dwelling losers who are desperate for some kind of "status" are the ones who sully the whole. Its a shame.