Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Sounds like you are. I haven't yet participated in a deletion debate where web content was being considered reliable, but editorial oversight is important, as is not being "self-published". Some kind of feeling that somebody's fact-checking and has a fiduciary stake in the content's accuracy that they're trying to protect comes into it. If the context is one where any yahoo can just toss up whatever he likes, like a forum post or a MUD listing or some random dude's blog or whatever, then Wikipedia doesn't want material from it. I assume the reasonableness of this position doesn't really need to be defended.

It's on the basis of editorial oversight and what I hope isn't too much of a belief that there's fact-checking going on that I've been supporting treating TMC Mud of the Month articles and staff reviews as reliable. I haven't seen this seriously tested in a deletion debate, though, and I haven't yet mustered the energy to try to get the concept reviewed for inclusion in the main WikiProject Video Games reliability guidelines. I may be hoping for a bit too much.

On the other hand, I don't support using any kind of user-generated information from TMC or TMS on Wikipedia, emphatically including rankings. Any affiliate traffic metric is the purest grade of BS imaginable, and I'm gonna put my foot in Cambios's ass if he puts Threshold's TMS and TMC "vote" rank back in that article one more time.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

In related news, is finally back from the dead and better than ever, and has an article now. :)

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

CHEER!! Good work, CP. I noticed you were the main editor of the MUME article. It's extremely well sourced and reads well.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Thanks, glad you like it. :) I didn't start it or anything, but I definitely took the most interest in it while it was in the Article Incubator. It really needed to get back into the encyclopedia; without ever having played MUME, I've been hearing about it regularly since '93, so I kinda feel like if it isn't notable, nothing is.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

News Flash!

At 2:48 EST on the Nationally Syndicated Jim Rome Show, the Number 1 Sports Radio Show in the United States, Mr. Rome slams Wikipedia with the comment:

"Who are these morons? I don't need to go to Wikipedia to find the truth. When I want the truth, I go to the source."

You tell 'em Jim! Now, can we get Jim to comment on MUDs so we have a source? We'll see.:p

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Latest new creations: (finally, an AberMUD), , and .

* added to stop vBulletin from mangling the hell out of my URL because it finds the anchor text inside it

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Great sourcing on the first two. SPR still in the works?

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

It definitely needs build-out, but I doubt I'm going to do it. The TMC Mud of the Month article has plenty of material to work from, though.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Going a little nuts today, I guess. Also new:






Note that the LP Infinity doesn't have enough sourcing to clearly demonstrate notability, so if anybody knows of any coverage I could use to shore it up, that'd be lovely.

I also got my first drive-by proposed deletion on an article I'd just created, where the proposed deletion reason made no sense to the point where the proposer couldn't possibly have read the article: . Ooh, have I finally run afoul of a real live anti-MUD bigot? Guess we'll see...

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Who? Any chance of a link?

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

There was a link, on the word . It's Starblind, who I seem to recall having seen around before, but I'm not sure where.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Oh, right. Duh.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Hey, also, if anybody can come up with any sources for poor , whose terribly neglected article I just found, do speak up.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

How not suprising. Do you know if this cat is just against Arctic or is he anti MUDs in general?

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

I don't think he cares about Arctic or MUDs. His edit history is that of a common or garden variety deletionist. The only strange thing is that he thought prodding the Nuclear War MUD article was useful or appropriate when it already had three print sources, two of which are unambiguously significant coverage.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Realized some of the problem there: Wikipedians are actually by and large unaware that MUDs are not Web content, so they tend to believe that one of the (A7, article about a person, animal, organization, or Web content that does not assert notability) applies to MUDs. Understanding the confusion there will probably help in the future.

Maybe I'll even get lucky and run into some jackhole who will assert that MUDs really are Web content because he says so, and I will get to invite him to compare the duration of the existence of the Web with the duration of the existence of MUDs. Good times.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

New Wikipedia MUD articles today:

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Go Chaosprime! You are running this show.

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Nice work Chaosprime. Keep it up! :)

Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
 

Okay. 1UP: :)