[Parhelion]

Regardless of what you, or anyone else here feels, Wikipedia is still a very commonly used "source" for breaking into a topic quickly and semi-reliably: while you can use Google, search engines do not provide a good introduction to ambiguous material (for instance, "MUD" is also dirty water, a mispelling of Mudd, and some sort of art institution). I use it when I need very quick and organized information, such as tables of comparable software, and I have noticed that instructors and teachers have begun linking to particular articles that they link in classrooms because it's a good place to find support material. While you cannot CITE Wikipedia, the articles are often well-cited enough that you can track back their sources to something that can be.

Case in point, you can sit here and boo-hoo all you want about how mean Wikipedia is, but it still draws an enormous amount of traffic that we could use to our benefit, as a community.

The unfortunate thing is that many games attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform, at least on some level, and that is not what it is intended to be. Gasp and be indignant if you want, but at least some of you are posting MUDs up not because of their noteworthiness but because you just want your work to have it's own proverbial front page in the news. In the grand scheme, this hurts us because it makes arguing for games that ARE noteworthy all the more difficult.

As for verifiable sources, I know I am working with at least one group that is attempting to publish a website with researched, interview-based, and peer-reviewed articles that would be safe to cite. While the subject matter is a bit concentrated, I invite anyone who's interested in writing to contact me (*cough* ok, plug).