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

Lasher · 01-04-2009, 01:45 PM

I understand Wikipedia's position on this, but there is a fine line between "canvassing" and notifying MUD players on a MUD forum that they may be interested in the article, particularly with the Wikipedia trend of removing a number of MUDs over the past couple of years.

It seems somewhat of a no-win situation - "not enough MUD hobbyists are active here to verify 'authority' for MUD sites, but if you point out the issue on a forum where they will be, you are canvassing."

I am admittedly biased in this, so remove Topmudsites from the equation. My main concern is not the listing of any individual mud (my own long since removed from Wikipedia) but the notion that TMC (and similar) are not considered authorities on MUDs. They are authorities on MUDs.

Some MUD players may have discovered the genre by the occasional mainstream reference, but no active MUD player is going to Computer Game Weekly or Gamespot for information about MUDS, they are going to the Mud Connector, MudBytes, previously MudMagic and all the other niche MUD sites. The very fact that these are the sites MUD players go to are the same reason MUD owners have focused on their visibility on those sites rather than a mainstream press that doesn't care.

So now we're in the situation where, for example, Mudconnector which has been around for well over 15 years is not considered authoritative for MUD information and history but a game magazine that heard about MUDs last week and writes an overview on them this week, is. It also does not bode well for most other MUDs that will have to rely on their "references" on MUD sites as their own listings come up for review over time. Bottom line seems to be that "notability" comes down to chance and whether or not a mainstream publication noticed you while sites that have focused exclusively on MUDs for over a decade are discarded.

You have to at least understand why those involved with MUDs (and we're a passionate group) would be frustrated by this?

Either way, thanks for dropping by and giving us a look at this from the other side. It's appreciated.

01-04-2009, 01:45 PM	#28
Lasher Administrator Join Date: May 2005 Name: Derek Location: Orlando Posts: 357	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. I understand Wikipedia's position on this, but there is a fine line between "canvassing" and notifying MUD players on a MUD forum that they may be interested in the article, particularly with the Wikipedia trend of removing a number of MUDs over the past couple of years. It seems somewhat of a no-win situation - "not enough MUD hobbyists are active here to verify 'authority' for MUD sites, but if you point out the issue on a forum where they will be, you are canvassing." I am admittedly biased in this, so remove Topmudsites from the equation. My main concern is not the listing of any individual mud (my own long since removed from Wikipedia) but the notion that TMC (and similar) are not considered authorities on MUDs. They are authorities on MUDs. Some MUD players may have discovered the genre by the occasional mainstream reference, but no active MUD player is going to Computer Game Weekly or Gamespot for information about MUDS, they are going to the Mud Connector, MudBytes, previously MudMagic and all the other niche MUD sites. The very fact that these are the sites MUD players go to are the same reason MUD owners have focused on their visibility on those sites rather than a mainstream press that doesn't care. So now we're in the situation where, for example, Mudconnector which has been around for well over 15 years is not considered authoritative for MUD information and history but a game magazine that heard about MUDs last week and writes an overview on them this week, is. It also does not bode well for most other MUDs that will have to rely on their "references" on MUD sites as their own listings come up for review over time. Bottom line seems to be that "notability" comes down to chance and whether or not a mainstream publication noticed you while sites that have focused exclusively on MUDs for over a decade are discarded. You have to at least understand why those involved with MUDs (and we're a passionate group) would be frustrated by this? Either way, thanks for dropping by and giving us a look at this from the other side. It's appreciated.