[KaVir]

I noticed the task force has a list of commonly cited MUD-related sources along with their reliability.

In the Top Mud Sites section it states that the reviews, forum posts, database listings and vote rankings are unreliable, but that the articles "have some level of editorial vetting and may be reliable, but likely require consideration on a case-by-case basis".

If we could establish exactly what is required to make an article reliable, it might be possible to create sources that are deemed acceptable. This doesn't necessarily mean writing an article about a specific mud - it could be an article about a particular feature, with a few names dropped here and there as notable examples of said feature.

I think most of us accept that Wikipedia is a metagame. But like all games, it has rules, and even the high-level players can only bend those rules so far.