Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2009, 04:54 PM   #81
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,298
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scandum View Post
I've found well written Usenet posts archived by google groups particularly useful for sourcing early mud history on Wikipedia given they're dated and cannot be altered.

Some MUDs will be screwed though since there is no reliable proof whatsoever of their existence.
Do Usenet posts count for notability on Wikipedia? If they do, then it's absurd that TMS and TMC forum posts don't (although I personally don't think either should count).

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 04:55 PM   #82
Aeran
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 208
Aeran is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyena View Post
MUDs will never die. The roots cannot die. From time to time they may be less or more played but they will stay. There are always people who find the magic from muds. Today there is no graphical game that could give you the same feelings and adrenaline that a good mud does. That is why books never die even if there are recorded tapes or movies. The roots cannot die.
MUDs can very well vanish, and books can vanish as well. As a recent example take a look at the MudMagic/MudRage community. All of a sudden the website was closed down. It had a large code repository and discussion forums. The code repository was luckily made available for download but it is nothing that was guaranteed to happen. The forum discussions are lost. If the code repository had been gone forever, then many codebases and documents could have been lost with it.

Another example is the MudDev mailing list. The mailing list was closed down all of a sudden, and the discussion archive got lost. Someone did happen to have a backup of it though.

Then you have all those MUDs that simply close down, without making any of their work available after the closure. When such a MUD closes down then all of that "world"'s history is pretty much gone with it.

If the history of MUDs aren't written down then the mistakes done in the past will without doubt be done again in the future.

Edit: I kinda doubt writing down individual MUDs' history is Wikipedia's mission though. There's WikiMU* though.
Aeran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 05:28 PM   #83
scandum
Senior Member
 
scandum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 308
scandum will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_logos View Post
Do Usenet posts count for notability on Wikipedia? If they do, then it's absurd that TMS and TMC forum posts don't (although I personally don't think either should count).
The Usenet archive is maintained by Google while the owners of TMC and TMS are less reliable entities.

A link to a 1998 post on TMC (though I believe TMC only goes back to 2001) announcing the official opening of Achaea (or whenever it was) would arguably be a valid reference if it was relevant and signed or pseudo anonymous. It would help if TMC had its own Wikipedia article and better content.

But if you use a good source, even if it's flimsy, and try to create a neutral article instead of something you pulled out of your nose on a whim, it'll show and your article will be left alone - unless it's about eugenics or something.
scandum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 06:11 PM   #84
prof1515
Senior Member
 
prof1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 791
prof1515 will become famous soon enoughprof1515 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to prof1515 Send a message via Yahoo to prof1515
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
prof1515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 08:43 PM   #85
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

I don't normally spend a lot of time on stuff outside my own little corner of the internet, but this hits close enough to my own involvement in the community that I can't leave it be.

Aristotle, I think you're getting a really bad rap from these WP admins. There's very clearly an agenda on Mendaliv's part and I find it quite disturbing that the justifications he's giving about TMC, TMS, Game Commandos, Bartle, and Koster all being unreliable sources is something they all find valid. I don't think it's at all paranoid or conspiratorial to think that they'll begin engaging in a wider campaign to purge MUDs in general from Wikipedia and nothing the admins who posted here have said has convinced me they won't.
Samson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 10:08 PM   #86
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Milawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
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
I have scientific research published and presented in my name on perideridia americana among other things. Threshold has tons of scholarly writings as well as legal briefs written by him. I would venture to guess that I've probably had more scholarly papers published than several people who contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis. It doesn't really matter, though, since Wikipedia doesn't require you to have jack squat in order to edit on their site. That's, in fact, a huge criticism of Wikipedia from academia and why they are NOT considered on par with an encyclopedia. (An encyclopedia is an accepted source for the beginning of research. At most schools, Wikipedia is not.)

Please keep in mind that this deletion based on notability is a pretty recent trend in Wikipedia. Originally, you only needed to have verifiability, and notability determined the length of your entry. It's pretty easy to verify that most of these muds exist. Whether they are notable or not is a very much up to debate but is not grounds for deletion at least not by the written policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The current trends may be other than what is stated, but then the guidelines and policies should be updated.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 01:05 AM   #87
Maelgrim
Member
 
Maelgrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 35
Maelgrim is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
How would the residents of that town react if suddenly many, many votes came in from people they had never heard of before, all voting for the same candidate? Does it seem unreasonable that at least some of the town's residents would assume that the votes were coming from one person, especially if some of the letters were postmarked in the same place?
Sweet Raptor Jesus! I find it shocking that a Wikipedia editor would even THINK about using an analogy like this. Lern2internets, good sir. This is not a fenced sandbox you are playing in. Perhaps a little humility is due your editors and administrators, with the reminder that they are but a minuscule fraction of the total number of people who actively use the internet. The excuse 'well we don't know them' is laughable considering this fact.

Quote:
(P)rofessors 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?
Quoted For Truth. Wikipedia is viewed as a curio and a fanbois pseudo-reference in the eyes of most professional academics I have encountered. Sort of brings up the whole humility thing again, doesn't it?
Maelgrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 01:47 AM   #88
Hyena
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 23
Hyena is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeran View Post
MUDs can very well vanish, and books can vanish as well. As a recent example take a look at the MudMagic/MudRage community. All of a sudden the website was closed down. It had a large code repository and discussion forums. The code repository was luckily made available for download but it is nothing that was guaranteed to happen. The forum discussions are lost. If the code repository had been gone forever, then many codebases and documents could have been lost with it.

Another example is the MudDev mailing list. The mailing list was closed down all of a sudden, and the discussion archive got lost. Someone did happen to have a backup of it though.

Then you have all those MUDs that simply close down, without making any of their work available after the closure. When such a MUD closes down then all of that "world"'s history is pretty much gone with it.

If the history of MUDs aren't written down then the mistakes done in the past will without doubt be done again in the future.

Edit: I kinda doubt writing down individual MUDs' history is Wikipedia's mission though. There's WikiMU* though.
I'm saying that for MUDs to vanish it needs a whole certain type of people to vanish too. I don't know what it is that is given to a small percentage of people so that they will start playing a MUD but where's one there are anothers. Based on my own experience I only had to see one of my friends playing it and I already knew that I will learn it too. What's wrong with me then? It's quite simple - I was bored of 3D and the new coolest graphical games. There are always people who for some reason want to try something completely different. In my research people who play muds are either programmers, d&d or LARP fans, computer gamers, nerds, metalheads or some pretty random guys. Is one of these types vanishing? Certainly no.
Hyena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 02:36 AM   #89
Neurolysis
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8
Neurolysis is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maelgrim View Post
Quoted For Truth. Wikipedia is viewed as a curio and a fanbois pseudo-reference in the eyes of most professional academics I have encountered. Sort of brings up the whole humility thing again, doesn't it?
An encylopedia is not appropriate for sourcing. You are comparing two completely irrelevant and separate entities.
Neurolysis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 02:47 AM   #90
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Milawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyena View Post
I'm saying that for MUDs to vanish it needs a whole certain type of people to vanish too. I don't know what it is that is given to a small percentage of people so that they will start playing a MUD but where's one there are anothers. Based on my own experience I only had to see one of my friends playing it and I already knew that I will learn it too. What's wrong with me then? It's quite simple - I was bored of 3D and the new coolest graphical games. There are always people who for some reason want to try something completely different. In my research people who play muds are either programmers, d&d or LARP fans, computer gamers, nerds, metalheads or some pretty random guys. Is one of these types vanishing? Certainly no.
Or super cool chicks. Right?
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 03:12 AM   #91
prof1515
Senior Member
 
prof1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 791
prof1515 will become famous soon enoughprof1515 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to prof1515 Send a message via Yahoo to prof1515
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milawe
...a huge criticism of Wikipedia from academia and why they are NOT considered on par with an encyclopedia. (An encyclopedia is an accepted source for the beginning of research. At most schools, Wikipedia is not.)
An encyclopedia is not an accepted source for any research. You might look over an article to find references to actual source material but under no circumstances is the encyclopedic article itself a source for research because it is neither a primary nor a secondary source. It's an encyclopedia, a summary of the results from the research of others. Any student above the high school level should know that (hell, even high school students should know that).

Quote:
Please keep in mind that this deletion based on notability is a pretty recent trend in Wikipedia. Originally, you only needed to have verifiability, and notability determined the length of your entry. It's pretty easy to verify that most of these muds exist.
Existance is irrelevant. I can prove the gas station down the road exists. Notability doesn't merely determine the length of an entry. Are you saying that Wikipedia believed that an article on the clay bowl I made in the first grade was acceptable so long as I could produce proof it existed? Somehow, I don't think Wikipedia EVER intended such an interpretation, even if their policies were "originally" worded poorly (assuming they were).

Quote:
Whether they are notable or not is a very much up to debate but is not grounds for deletion at least not by the written policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The current trends may be other than what is stated, but then the guidelines and policies should be updated.
There appeared to be several good reasons for deletion. A lack of documentation to prove assertions made in the articles would be grounds to question the suitability of the content of the article. The example given, Threshold's article, lacked any documented material and was filled with irrelevant and inappropriate material for an encyclopedic article. Take out the material that shouldn't be there and there was nothing left in the article. To call it a stub would have been too generous. That leads to the question of notability when so little valid information on the subject exists.

The lack of any documentation to prove notability would therfore be a perfectly acceptable reason for deleting. Encyclopedias, even a user-generated and edited one like Wikipedia, are not telephone directories or grocery lists. There are very few, if any MUDs in existance which constitute a notable subject. There aren't any which are innovative, cutting-edge technology which is transforming the world (even if MUDs themselves led to other developments, the individual games themselves don't). Their cultural impact is practically nil. There really are no legitimate third-party sources which support notability of any MUDs.

Being mentioned in a magazine or newspaper article itself isn't enough to really denote notability. If that was the case, every dip**** who gets a mentioned on the news for owning a two-headed turtle or having found a pretzel shaped like the profile of Elvis would be "notable". It's not however.

If Wikipedia didn't make that clear, then changes in their policy and deletion of articles is a perfectly acceptable way of doing that. Either way, the articles should be deleted because the subjects of them are not worthy of encyclopedic note. That's what Wikipedia is doing. So why are people complaining and crying conspiracy? There is no reason to protest or cry foul if Wikipedia is correcting a policy error (assuming it existed in the first place) in their oversight of content.

Take care,

Jason
prof1515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 04:01 AM   #92
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Milawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
An encyclopedia is not an accepted source for any research. You might look over an article to find references to actual source material but under no circumstances is the encyclopedic article itself a source for research because it is neither a primary nor a secondary source. It's an encyclopedia, a summary of the results from the research of others. Any student above the high school level should know that (hell, even high school students should know that).
"Beginning research." Almost all research begins with a list of citations which CAN and often does include encyclopedic research. Encyclopedias (like Wikipedia, imo) is a great place to START your research, but Wikipedia is not acceptable as a citation in even initial research. Citations to encyclopedias are used for reference and often leads to PRIMARY sources, which is the crux of most research papers. (Scientific papers almost always go beyond just primary resources as well.) So, no need to get your panties in a bunch!

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
Existance is irrelevant. I can prove the gas station down the road exists. Notability doesn't merely determine the length of an entry. Are you saying that Wikipedia believed that an article on the clay bowl I made in the first grade was acceptable so long as I could produce proof it existed? Somehow, I don't think Wikipedia EVER intended such an interpretation, even if their policies were "originally" worded poorly (assuming they were).
WP:V deals with way more than just establishing existence. It actually goes far beyond that, so there are no worries that your version of Wikipedia ever existed. And as you can see by the arguments about notability on that AfD in discussion, notability itself is a very blurred concept. For example, the 1st man in space is extremely notable. The 2nd one is probably also very notable. What about the 3,239th one? I would say it was still notable, but others could easily say that it's not. Deletions based on notability can easily degenerate into exactly what this one did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
There appeared to be several good reasons for deletion. A lack of documentation to prove assertions made in the articles would be grounds to question the suitability of the content of the article. The example given, Threshold's article, lacked any documented material and was filled with irrelevant and inappropriate material for an encyclopedic article. Take out the material that shouldn't be there and there was nothing left in the article. To call it a stub would have been too generous. That leads to the question of notability when so little valid information on the subject exists.
I'd say that this argument would belong on Wikipedia's talk page for Threshold RPG's article, especially since what remains now has been gutted and multiple references removed. It's hard to even keep track of everything that occurred there. Documented material was more than once removed. Whether you think some of that material was notable or not is also a matter of opinion. On one hand, you could say it's not notable because in the grand scheme of things, most people don't know jack about mudding. On the other hand, you could say that perideridia americana is not notable because most people in America don't know jack about it. However, if you talk to a botanist or most any other scientist, they would probably say that that plant is notable. Though, no one really has an axe to grind against cute little perideridia americana, so its notability probably would never come into question. (Except me since I got poison ivy studying it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
The lack of any documentation to prove notability would therfore be a perfectly acceptable reason for deleting. Encyclopedias, even a user-generated and edited one like Wikipedia, are not telephone directories or grocery lists.
That's obviously true, but in this case, there wasn't "lack of any documentation."

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
There are very few, if any MUDs in existance which constitute a notable subject. There aren't any which are innovative, cutting-edge technology which is transforming the world (even if MUDs themselves led to other developments, the individual games themselves don't). Their cultural impact is practically nil. There really are no legitimate third-party sources which support notability of any MUDs.
According to Wikipedia's rules, notability doesn't expire. Arguing that muds are no longer cutting edge is irrelevant because at one point they were cutting edge along with BBSes. When 3D virtual reality games make MMOs obsolete, that doesn't mean that World of Warcraft won't still be notable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
Being mentioned in a magazine or newspaper article itself isn't enough to really denote notability. If that was the case, every dip**** who gets a mentioned on the news for owning a two-headed turtle or having found a pretzel shaped like the profile of Elvis would be "notable". It's not however.
If that were the only citation, then probably not. If you're mentioned in multiple newspapers, more than one online magazine and several websites, maybe that'd be a different story. I'll bet you that some of the more popular phenomenons probably do have a Wikipedia entry, though. And you can probably find some extremely obscure ones, too. It was notable enough for SOMEONE to go make a Wikipedia entry about it. (That doesn't mean it will survive an AfD, though!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by prof1515 View Post
If Wikipedia didn't make that clear, then changes in their policy and deletion of articles is a perfectly acceptable way of doing that. Either way, the articles should be deleted because the subjects of them are not worthy of encyclopedic note. That's what Wikipedia is doing. So why are people complaining and crying conspiracy? There is no reason to protest or cry foul if Wikipedia is correcting a policy error (assuming it existed in the first place) in their oversight of content.
The problem is that there's really no entity that is Wikipedia. The AfD was actually proposed by individuals, and Wikipedia is composed of many, many other individuals. Wikipedia is not "correcting a policy error". The outcry, apparent if you've looked at the topic at all, is because an inordinate number of people voting to KEEP the entry were getting banned, leaving no way to discuss the policy or improve the article. Further outcry resulted when all sources for MUDs were deemed irrelevant by some in order to support the deletion of one MUDs' entry. Wikipedia policy actually states that no article should be removed on notability issues alone and that improvements to the articles should be made if at all possible first. (An effort made extremely difficult with constant reversions and removals of links and sources and quick bans.)

Anyway, I have no interest in getting into another discussion about Wikipedia policy especially when it's not on Wikipedia and won't really do a bit of good. I might be misreading your post, but you seem kind of bent out of shape that MUDs exist on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why since Wikipedia has the ability to far outshine any encyclopedia since it has no limits based on physical space, and Wikipedia's guideline and policies as well as Jim Wales press release statements seem to indicate that that was the original goal for Wikipedia. In the end, though, Wikipedia, like muds, continues to evolve. There may well be a time when fancruft, fictional characters, books, movies, and games are removed from Wikipedia completely.

Whether Threshold's page stays or goes will not the affect the game in the slightest bit. Threshold has never received a single user from Wikipedia, but the issue has grown far beyond Threshold's entry.

In the end, you've always seen to be a proponent of MUDs coming together to form a third party review site. Perhaps this will be an impetus.

Last edited by Milawe : 01-06-2009 at 04:04 AM. Reason: typos, added a sentence
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 06:51 AM   #93
MudMann
Member
 
MudMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Home MUD: Primordiax
Home MUD: Threshold
Posts: 178
MudMann will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

For those who dont care about Threshold, but play muds do what I just did and click MU* Category and start taking links. I think you will find that almost every one can be deleted using the arguments laid down by the admin on wikipedia.

I am not as eloquent as some of the boffins getting involved in this debate.. I am just using common sense. For those not following the debate, this is what my take on the situation was

Comment I have just followed the MU* Games Category link and gone through almost every game listed (briefly). Most of them have even less references, sources than Threshold. If you delete this one entry, you may as well delete every entry in the MU* Category using the same precedence potentially laid down here (I saw maybe one possible exception, and most of the references there were on the same vein as Thresolds.. webbased writeups). If you delete the MU* Category, you are deleting a genre.. if you delete a genre, Wikipedia is incomplete and in essense a useless pile of crap and a failure. I would urge editors to look a little deeper than the Thresold entry, but the MU* category itself and the knock on effects of removing the Threshold entry. Oh, then you may as well move onto Video games, the majority of the 1996 games have nothing to make them notable.. get rid of that category as well.. same thing.. in fact by the time you have finished Wiki will look a lot thinner and deny the existance of anything computer based before 2000.

Summary - If you have categories such as MU* listing games (and there is nothing on the categoryt that says NOTABLE Mu* then list them, and likewise the games listed in the list should have entries even if it is just a stub. And if a game has been produced by a company, like ALL video games listed, so should the developer.. and LIKEWISE, the developer has an entry.

Lots of waffle.. but I hope my point got accross from a 'normal person using wiki' perspective

Last edited by MudMann : 01-06-2009 at 06:56 AM.
MudMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 01:01 PM   #94
Delerak
Senior Member
 
Delerak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Name: Dan
Location: New York
Posts: 706
Delerak is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Delerak Send a message via AIM to Delerak Send a message via MSN to Delerak Send a message via Yahoo to Delerak
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MudMann View Post
For those who dont care about Threshold, but play muds do what I just did and click MU* Category and start taking links. I think you will find that almost every one can be deleted using the arguments laid down by the admin on wikipedia.

I am not as eloquent as some of the boffins getting involved in this debate.. I am just using common sense. For those not following the debate, this is what my take on the situation was

Comment I have just followed the MU* Games Category link and gone through almost every game listed (briefly). Most of them have even less references, sources than Threshold. If you delete this one entry, you may as well delete every entry in the MU* Category using the same precedence potentially laid down here (I saw maybe one possible exception, and most of the references there were on the same vein as Thresolds.. webbased writeups). If you delete the MU* Category, you are deleting a genre.. if you delete a genre, Wikipedia is incomplete and in essense a useless pile of crap and a failure. I would urge editors to look a little deeper than the Thresold entry, but the MU* category itself and the knock on effects of removing the Threshold entry. Oh, then you may as well move onto Video games, the majority of the 1996 games have nothing to make them notable.. get rid of that category as well.. same thing.. in fact by the time you have finished Wiki will look a lot thinner and deny the existance of anything computer based before 2000.

Summary - If you have categories such as MU* listing games (and there is nothing on the categoryt that says NOTABLE Mu* then list them, and likewise the games listed in the list should have entries even if it is just a stub. And if a game has been produced by a company, like ALL video games listed, so should the developer.. and LIKEWISE, the developer has an entry.

Lots of waffle.. but I hope my point got accross from a 'normal person using wiki' perspective
That's ridiculous. The reason Threshold is getting deleted is for many reasons, not just one. To apply that to every game in a category is just plain ignorance. That's like saying they should delete every television series that is no longer running. However a lot of series have had impacts on society, so they remain. Threshold has had no impact on society whatsoever, so why should it remain?
Delerak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 01:33 PM   #95
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Milawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

I feel that the base of the problem here is that random people are getting to determine notability in a field that is not their expertise. Notability becomes a personal opinion and sliding scale, which, ultimately, is probably why it is prohibited to be used as the only determination for deleting an article.

I'll try to illustrate to you why the notability argument is such a problem. The average person on Wikipedia probably couldn't tell you what pedomorphism is without looking it up on the internet. It, in fact, only gets approximately 2400 hits on google as opposed to the 167,000 hits for Threshold RPG or the 289,000 hits you receive for God Wars. (Yes, very aware of WP:GHIT. Irrelevent to the point.) However, if you talked to a geneticist or an ecologist, they would most likely say that pedomorphism is a very notable concept in biology and is key to many theories involving evolution. Now, should a random editor get to determine whether or its entry is notable and its sources are notable, especially since most of the primary sources for pedomorphism does not exist online? Should a random editor get to vote on the notability of pedomorphism? In addition, should a random editor get to fly in the face of people who are recognized experts in the field?

Is notability simply a popularity vote? If so, where does that leave things like concepts in quantum physics that most of us couldn't even begin to understand but are key to the field? Is notability objective, subjective or semi-objective? Does someone get to come by and say, "Not notable" simply because he doesn't want it to be or simply doesn't understand it? That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Now, obviously, then we come to the question how big can a relevant field be before it gets "experts"? 100 people? 1,000 people? 10,000 people? I'm not really sure. Over 250,000 characters have been created on Threshold alone, and I'm sure the numbers are much higher for some of the older and bigger muds who have never been to Threshold. (We're still counting and are fully aware that some of these are spammers and multis.) That does not seem to be an insignificant number of people and can surely establish us as a genre.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 01:48 PM   #96
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Milawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delerak View Post
That's ridiculous. The reason Threshold is getting deleted is for many reasons, not just one. To apply that to every game in a category is just plain ignorance. That's like saying they should delete every television series that is no longer running. However a lot of series have had impacts on society, so they remain. Threshold has had no impact on society whatsoever, so why should it remain?
It's actually just one reason: notability. You can easily see this in the discussion on Wikipedia.

MudMann's logic is actually a very easy one to follow. Take this entry:

Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, go to the references. Peer review, peer review, expert review (Egbert's), popularity list, another list, blog. Apply the standards set to the Thresold entry. Bye, bye entry.

How about this one?

Dragonlance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References are from Wizards of the Coast, the company that owns the Dragonlance copyright. Articles cited are written by the authors of Dragonlance or from the official Dragonlance forum. Apply the standards being set to Threshold's entry. So long, Dragonlance! Actually, Dragonlance would get deleted far before Threshold would with those references.

Yet, Dragonlance spawned more than 50 novels by various authors. Untold numbers of people have played DnD with Dragonlance modules. Who knows how many people have read the books. Yet mainstream media hasn't really written about Dragonlance.

So, tell me exactly how you know for a fact that Threshold has had no impact on society, and then tell me how that even matters based on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There is no WP:NOIMPACTONSOCIETY.

Don't let your disinterest and biases against Threshold blind you on the issues here. I know you don't have a whole lot of love in your heart for Threshold, but as I said before, this has moved beyond the scope of Threshold. The entry itself now is irrelevant. No one's being allowed to improve it. The people who could improve it aren't interested in doing so. Whether it lives or dies matters not at all to the actual game, but the precedent it sets matters to our genre.

Try applying it to something more dear and near to your heart:

Dark Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References: All from TSR or Wizards of the Coast, the company that owns the copyright to Dark Sun. There's actually no references there that determines notability at all, just verifiability. It has not been written about in a third-party, reliable source according to the standards set to the Threshold entry. I think you start to see how the problem perpetuates itself.

Last edited by Milawe : 01-06-2009 at 01:54 PM.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 02:12 PM   #97
Zivilyn
Member
 
Zivilyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Name: Dave
Location: Oregon
Home MUD: Ansalon.net
Posts: 79
Zivilyn is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Lol Milawe, I actually went through and did the same look on Dragonlance (as well as looking through the other Mud's listed). I didn't want to bring it up for fear the wikinazi's would vape those entries as well.

I find it largely humorous that while my Mud's webpage is considered a valid source of information on the genre, the entry on the game itself wasn't. With what's going on now, I wouldn't even bother trying to create another entry as it would most likely end up 'Not notable' and me banging my head on the keys. My game has continued on since 1996, spawned a slew of other Dragonlance Muds, but... niche genre in a niche genre heh.
Zivilyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 02:19 PM   #98
Aeran
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 208
Aeran is on a distinguished road
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milawe View Post
References: All from TSR or Wizards of the Coast, the company that owns the copyright to Dark Sun. There's actually no references there that determines notability at all, just verifiability. It has not been written about in a third-party, reliable source according to the standards set to the Threshold entry. I think you start to see how the problem perpetuates itself.
You are not allowed to reason like this according to WP:ALLORNOTHING .
Aeran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 02:33 PM   #99
MudMann
Member
 
MudMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Home MUD: Primordiax
Home MUD: Threshold
Posts: 178
MudMann will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milawe View Post
It's actually just one reason: notability. You can easily see this in the discussion on Wikipedia.

MudMann's logic is actually a very easy one to follow.
.
Thanks you saved me a job there.. I think a certain poster either woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, or just likes being beligerent :-)

My post was nothing to do with defending Threshold.. but an observation of the rules of Wiki as a whole. Look at the justification posted by those that want to delete the Threshhold entry, then start taking random links in the MU* (or even the Video game 1996) and APPLY THE SAME REASONING.

Bye bye entry(s)

I am serious. Good of Milawe to give examples of some "well known" names, and save me the bother

All of the WIKI:<xxx> or whatever policies / guidlines they use that are thrown around are ALL based on / and refer to examples of previous arguments to delete an entry. If Threshold is deleted then wikipedi.. amongst others dismisses

1) TMC (I still think of this as THE MUD site / directory.. no offense TMS :-)
2) TMS
3) various other MMO sites, and most article effectivly written about MUD's by anyone
4) Any publication no longer in print
5) The words of people who have to be classified as Experts (pioneering the MUD genre, and winning awards is pretty bloody defining as an expert to me regardless of whether you agree with him or not.. or whether he plays MMORPG's anymore)

and so on.. in otherwords pretty much refereneces / sources . notes for every other MU*. Even Acheae (as big as it was? dunno) would possiblty fail, though to be blunt I was never overly enamoured with it. BUT thats a personal opinion.

The only MUD's I have seen mentioned in modern press (and I read most mags, including retro.. hence why I got into this whole debate) are Achea, Diskworld and Wheel of Time.. but they were only paragraphs.

What next.... spectrum games? Because all reviews are from unreliable sources? All fan sites / remakes are not worthy of note. Well crap, there are no spectrum publications anymore, and WoS is fan run. Get rid. Yet these games are in my memory... are they in the memory of a 20 year old admin? not likely. They defined my youth and where a staple of my generation, but are not notable to anyone else.

To be honest, google is my friend.. and I know that is all I will need for a search on there. Overall who gives a toss whether its in Wikipedia at the end of the day. Its not the first place I go to search for new muds or whats happeneing in the world of muds. What this whole thing has told me is "Wikipedia is flawed". The fact that such a huge percentage of information is controlled by a tiny number of people is wrong.

Waffling again.. sorry

and as a gossipy aside... did the player who posted the deletion, who says openly on his user page he used to play threshold (and the name was the name of his character) get kicked out, and if so how the HELL is a clear violation of the Wiki pillars being ignored. Also when you agree to the terms and conditions of Threshold.. didnt the character name become the property of Frogdice ;-).. please take this last paragraph in the manner it was posted.. far FAR from serious
MudMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 02:33 PM   #100
MudMann
Member
 
MudMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Home MUD: Primordiax
Home MUD: Threshold
Posts: 178
MudMann will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Deleting due to duplication

Last edited by MudMann : 01-06-2009 at 02:37 PM. Reason: Duplicate
MudMann is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014