View Single Post
Old 01-05-2009, 07:06 AM   #52
Kleothera
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 50
Kleothera is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

I wasnt originally intending to comment on this thread as someone who has not at any time played Threshold, or referred to the Wikipedia for anything MUD related. I have been reading this thread for the last two days. I guess there are two undoubtedly related, but distinct issues- the actual entry and the reasons being given for the deletion. I had started by reading the comments first (and followed up with juicy stories which everyone had put up about how wikipedia operates), and only then moved to the raw wiki page.

1. About the Page. I agree with the comment made earlier about the fact that the article isnt very informative to someone who hasnt played the game and has very little interest. Nor is it written in an encyclopedic format. Perhaps its been deleted into meaninglessness, but as it stands right now, it makes little sense. (actually, went back to the version before the edits, and it still not very informative, albeit somewhat better)
2. The way that much of the discussion has shaped up on the Talk pages with every dissenting voice being systematically silenced without debate is what is what is raising the hackles of people here. Personally, I couldnt care less as to what happens to the article in question, but I DID find my hackles rise reading some of the comments being posted on the deletion discussion page. The discussion from both sides of the debate is no longer about the article (which wasnt particularly informative to begin with even before the vandalism) but about disregarding every single reference to anything MUD related as being not notable or reliable. In a setting where one cannot site a single notable reference to the game (because any references to its EXISTANCE and notability is disregarded), it becomes hard to find references to support anything about the game at all. If the discussion had stuck to the actual value of the article instead of questioning every single reference to anything MUD related and disregarding all the answers (dragging in TMS and TMC and their historical value to the MUD community), it would not have generated the kind of debate that it has and lmay have resulted in a silent rewrite, instead of an edit war (that has drifted here and been blown out of all proportion).

The tone of the discussion is what makes casual wikipedia editors like me begin to lose faith in the way that the wikipedia operates. I thought the comments (and the decision to keep or delete) would be about the value of the article, not about whether MUDs are sufficiently mainstream to be mentioned in one of the American mainstream papers/journals/magazines or not. If this is the treatment a niche (but still fairly popular) by and large western hobby receives, I shudder about the probability of anything based on traditional cultures of the oh east to be kept in the wiki. I ended up remembering all the shady and biased articles related to my country I had read in the wikipedia that I have been tweaking slowly (how they often continue to be slanted to a particular POV despite being questioned for bias repeatedly) and found myself losing faith in the Wiki. Most of us simply dont have time to keep editing and editing and editing every time we see something that looks weird, just wince and move on (maybe change it if it reaches the level of being ridiculous). I think after this exchange, I am less likely to do that (not being one of those whom "everyone knows").

Anyway, apart from the overall disenchantment, as someone said earlier, this discussion is beginning to sound like one of those cliche "evil imms"-vs-"freedom loving players" debates one has every now and then on many MUDs. Except that its the game admins who are the ones now opposing the evil dark "powers". As Tezcatlipoca said, sounds like some of the games I played.

And this turned into a really long and rambling post!
Kleothera is offline   Reply With Quote