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

Threshold · 01-05-2009, 11:36 AM

I'm not talking about blog posts. I am talking about references from the most significant MUD related resources that we've ever had. Unless you want to argue MUDs are inherently not notable, and never were, you simply cannot declare TMC, TMS, TMJ, GameCommandos, etc. to be unrealiable. Those are the only sources that exist or existed in a significant form for information about MUDs. To whatever extent they are "inferior" to IGN, Gamespot, etc. is simply the result of the Web's evolution, commercialization, and technical polish.

But regarding blog posts: How can you dismiss them out of hand when they are the fastest growing source of journalism? Every argument you can make to disregard them could have been used 5-10 years ago to completely disregard the reliability/notability of all web sites - including the IGNs, Gamespots, etc.

And here's a fact that might be disturbing to Wikipedia: professors and members of academia are far likely to accept a BLOG as a legitimate source than a citation to Wikipedia. If academia considers blogs more notable and reliable than Wikipedia, then what business does Wikipedia have declaring them inherently unreliable and not-notable?

And there is no denying that a blog post from Dr. Richard Bartle is not just some 'ole blog post. He is far and away the most recognized and respected authority on online games. If an expert authority, who is paid by huge companies for his opinion on such matters, says a certain site or a certain game is notable in the context of online games, that pretty much guarantees it. Does it only count if he publishes the opinion in a book or academic review journal? That's not how the world works these days. People, including professionals, experts, and journalists, are conveying more information through blogs than they are through traditional published works.

I read the discussion there and it seems many of the people voting to delete think their personal opinions and (mis)interpretations of Wikipedia policy are more valid and carry more weight than the statements of ACTUAL EXPERTS in the field related to the article in question. That is arrogance and ignorance.

01-05-2009, 11:36 AM	#60
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. I'm not talking about blog posts. I am talking about references from the most significant MUD related resources that we've ever had. Unless you want to argue MUDs are inherently not notable, and never were, you simply cannot declare TMC, TMS, TMJ, GameCommandos, etc. to be unrealiable. Those are the only sources that exist or existed in a significant form for information about MUDs. To whatever extent they are "inferior" to IGN, Gamespot, etc. is simply the result of the Web's evolution, commercialization, and technical polish. But regarding blog posts: How can you dismiss them out of hand when they are the fastest growing source of journalism? Every argument you can make to disregard them could have been used 5-10 years ago to completely disregard the reliability/notability of all web sites - including the IGNs, Gamespots, etc. And here's a fact that might be disturbing to Wikipedia: professors and members of academia are far likely to accept a BLOG as a legitimate source than a citation to Wikipedia. If academia considers blogs more notable and reliable than Wikipedia, then what business does Wikipedia have declaring them inherently unreliable and not-notable? And there is no denying that a blog post from Dr. Richard Bartle is not just some 'ole blog post. He is far and away the most recognized and respected authority on online games. If an expert authority, who is paid by huge companies for his opinion on such matters, says a certain site or a certain game is notable in the context of online games, that pretty much guarantees it. Does it only count if he publishes the opinion in a book or academic review journal? That's not how the world works these days. People, including professionals, experts, and journalists, are conveying more information through blogs than they are through traditional published works. I read the discussion there and it seems many of the people voting to delete think their personal opinions and (mis)interpretations of Wikipedia policy are more valid and carry more weight than the statements of ACTUAL EXPERTS in the field related to the article in question. That is arrogance and ignorance.