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

Milawe · 01-10-2009, 03:27 PM

I think the difference comes in because I extrapolate it much further than you might. In the field of science, there are many things that are extremely core and notable theories and terms that don't get written about much out of scientific journals and such. Even then, a single CONCEPT might not get more than a paragraph or two, which could easily qualify as "throw away". My examples before have been pedomorphism and perideridia americana. Is it really right for you or some random editor on Wikipedia who wouldn't begin to know the first things about how pedomorphism could relate to the formation of a spinal cord and thus all vertebrates get to determine what is or isn't notable about the topic?

I could apply this to many, many more scientific theories and phrases that the average person has never heard of, and I feel that has a serious tie-in here.

Our definitions of notability seem very diverse here just as it is on Wikipedia, and that's the problem with making WP:N (a guideline) the controlling factor rather than WP:V (a policy). Is notability objective? Is notability semi-objective? Or is notability completely subjective?

01-10-2009, 03:27 PM	#154
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. I think the difference comes in because I extrapolate it much further than you might. In the field of science, there are many things that are extremely core and notable theories and terms that don't get written about much out of scientific journals and such. Even then, a single CONCEPT might not get more than a paragraph or two, which could easily qualify as "throw away". My examples before have been pedomorphism and perideridia americana. Is it really right for you or some random editor on Wikipedia who wouldn't begin to know the first things about how pedomorphism could relate to the formation of a spinal cord and thus all vertebrates get to determine what is or isn't notable about the topic? I could apply this to many, many more scientific theories and phrases that the average person has never heard of, and I feel that has a serious tie-in here. Our definitions of notability seem very diverse here just as it is on Wikipedia, and that's the problem with making WP:N (a guideline) the controlling factor rather than WP:V (a policy). Is notability objective? Is notability semi-objective? Or is notability completely subjective?