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

Kylotan · 08-12-2010, 04:51 AM

But that's the whole point - Wikipedia don't want to be treated as a primary source, because they know they can't fulfill that role. Instead, they want you to go there, learn things on a general level, and find relevant sources attached to the article. That's why good citations and references need to be provided - not links to someone else's wiki, and not just a few Usenet posts.

People can bash Wikipedia all they like, but the fact is, if people didn't consider it important, this thread wouldn't even exist. It's one of the top 10 busiest sites on the web and the primary site that people go to to learn anything.

Why drag this fallacy out yet again? They (which could be you or me) fix things as and when they find them. By definition that means some will get fixed before others. If you had a rule that stated you couldn't possibly fix one page if there existed another page equally bad or worse, then you'd never get anything done. You can't use other bad pages as an excuse to keep your own bad page.

Then our field is pretty poor, to be honest. If we're so 'noteworthy' then we should have more than a couple of banner-clicking forum sites to show for it.

08-12-2010, 04:51 AM	#238
Kylotan Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Nottingham, UK Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug) Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc) Posts: 174	Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned. But that's the whole point - Wikipedia don't want to be treated as a primary source, because they know they can't fulfill that role. Instead, they want you to go there, learn things on a general level, and find relevant sources attached to the article. That's why good citations and references need to be provided - not links to someone else's wiki, and not just a few Usenet posts. People can bash Wikipedia all they like, but the fact is, if people didn't consider it important, this thread wouldn't even exist. It's one of the top 10 busiest sites on the web and the primary site that people go to to learn anything. Why drag this fallacy out yet again? They (which could be you or me) fix things as and when they find them. By definition that means some will get fixed before others. If you had a rule that stated you couldn't possibly fix one page if there existed another page equally bad or worse, then you'd never get anything done. You can't use other bad pages as an excuse to keep your own bad page. Then our field is pretty poor, to be honest. If we're so 'noteworthy' then we should have more than a couple of banner-clicking forum sites to show for it.