|
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
It seems to me that the problem that the outraged members in the community have is that they aren't familiar with scholarly or encyclopedic writing. I'm certain I'll be called "elitist" or something, but if you've ever had training in research and scholarly writing it's not very hard to understand the concepts of notability and usefulness of verifiable sources and why Wikipedia is considering articles for deletion. My suggestion is that people from the MU* community writing Wikipedia articles ask themselves if they're really qualified to be attempting something they have little or no understanding of how to do. Yes, anyone can write and edit on Wikipedia but anyone can try to perform brain surgery too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to slice grandma open on the kitchen table and start poking around with a fork. User-editing without verifiable credentials is one reason I'd flunk anyone that used Wikipedia as a source. Kudos to them at least for trying to maintain a level of reasonable legitimacy in their content though. It may not be useable material for writing scholarly research, but at least they're trying to keep it from being just some blog.
Jason
|