[Kylotan]

I don't see how that changes anything. The fact that they give no guarantee doesn't mean the content is intrinsically worse, just like the fact that a manufacturer giving a guarantee doesn't mean the product is intrinsically better (merely that they'll offer to fix it). Comparisons of Wikipedia with peer-reviewed encyclopaedia show there is very little difference in quality.

The rules for what should be on Wikipedia are reasonably clear. The problem is that people use other pages as a point of comparison, and that's not good enough. (Just like you can't get off breaking the law by saying, "well I saw that guy do it and he wasn't arrested".) The solution is simply to provide an external source of information about muds that does have some sort of review process, and which includes all these references that imply notability.