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 01-09-2009, 05:57 PM   #141
Newworlds
Legend
 
Newworlds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,404
Newworlds will become famous soon enoughNewworlds 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
But isn't that one reason Threshold's entry was removed? Among other things, they felt they couldn't trust the sources of info that Threshold's entry pointed to. In other words, they're trying to make the information on Wikipedia less suspect (at least the ones that mean well are).

--matt
That would be like pulling Microsoft's listing after Bill Gates personally wrote the discription. Classic idiocy.
Newworlds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 06:26 PM   #142
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
Kylotan is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Kylotan Send a message via AIM to Kylotan Send a message via MSN to Kylotan Send a message via Yahoo to Kylotan
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

If there weren't any other citations, then it wouldn't be idiocy. You can't complain about Wikipedia's accuracy on one hand and on the other hand say it's fine for people to write about their own companies and products without that then being backed up by cited sources.
Kylotan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 07:14 PM   #143
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 the_logos View Post
But isn't that one reason Threshold's entry was removed? Among other things, they felt they couldn't trust the sources of info that Threshold's entry pointed to. In other words, they're trying to make the information on Wikipedia less suspect (at least the ones that mean well are).

--matt
Possibly if we didn't have other sources that were repeatedly removed as others were putting them up, which is why the admins of Threshold finally got involved. This also resulted in the removal of TMS on the MUDs entry in order to take more references away from the Threshold entry. (It was put back by others.)

It wasn't a matter of "trust" for at least two of the articles since they were published in magazines completely unrelated to muds. If the references for the Threshold article had been left alone, it would have been one of the better referenced muds on Wikipedia. The message seemed clear: Back off. You're not going to be allowed to better this entry, which would make the information on Wikipedia MORE suspect in my opinion.

Now, there could be an argument that MUDs shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all, but that wasn't the case here.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 08:11 PM   #144
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos 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
Possibly if we didn't have other sources that were repeatedly removed as others were putting them up, which is why the admins of Threshold finally got involved. This also resulted in the removal of TMS on the MUDs entry in order to take more references away from the Threshold entry. (It was put back by others.)

It wasn't a matter of "trust" for at least two of the articles since they were published in magazines completely unrelated to muds. If the references for the Threshold article had been left alone, it would have been one of the better referenced muds on Wikipedia. The message seemed clear: Back off. You're not going to be allowed to better this entry, which would make the information on Wikipedia MORE suspect in my opinion.
I can't see the deletion thread now, obviously, but weren't the articles on the order of kind of "throw-away" mentions? A paragraph or something? Didn't the Wikipedia editors claim those kind of in-passing references don't really matter? I'm not espousing one viewpoint or the other, just curious. I think either the Aetolia or Imperian pages on Wikipedia were deleted at one point and I never had any idea why. Lusternia and Achaea are still there, but frankly, judging by Lusternia's entry, I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed for the same reasons as Threshold.


Quote:
Now, there could be an argument that MUDs shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all, but that wasn't the case here.
That'd be a very tough argument to make as there are MUDs that even the Wikipedia editors acting in bad faith would have a tough time arguing don't meet Wikipedia's rules for inclusion.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:30 PM   #145
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 the_logos View Post
I can't see the deletion thread now, obviously, but weren't the articles on the order of kind of "throw-away" mentions? A paragraph or something? Didn't the Wikipedia editors claim those kind of in-passing references don't really matter? I'm not espousing one viewpoint or the other, just curious. I think either the Aetolia or Imperian pages on Wikipedia were deleted at one point and I never had any idea why. Lusternia and Achaea are still there, but frankly, judging by Lusternia's entry, I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed for the same reasons as Threshold.
I don't really know how to answer this. The people originally engaged in the edit warring were declaring them "throw-away" mentions, though some of the articles were newspaper articles that were full articles on Threshold. Granted, it was not the New York Times, but it's still a substantial article. A few of the ones removed were also ones that were lists, but I see those all over the place for movies and games. They also removed Threshold's TMC review, which was unsolicited and written by a TMC staff member. It was actually the second review that was written on Threshold from TMC. I'm not sure where the first one is anymore. TMS was not only thrown out as a source that Threshold was notable in the mudding community, but it was removed from the actual MUDs article to try to make this point.

I don't know what exactly is going on in Wikipedia except that some editors seem to think it's okay to do everything based on their own judgment and not research. For example, did you know that there was a discussion to remove mention of IRE on the MUDs article? You may not care about personally because, like Threshold, IRE probably gets very little out of being mentioned on Wikipedia, but looking at the entry objectively, how could IRE NOT be included in an article on MUDs and MUD history? I even went to look up a source for IRE and posted it so that it could be used. Even if it is a passing mention, the fact that IRE was mentioned along with Sony is a telling thing, in my opinion.

In the end, that may be the problem with the whole issue. Very much of this is opinion. Whose opinion counts more, then? And that may be the question. I think, though, the only reason that this issue HAS garnered this much attention is because Threshold might very possibly BE notable. You can't force people to pick up a story that doesn't mean anything to them, just as you can't force people to pick up a cause they don't have interest in. I know that I would pitch an absolute fit if someone tried to remove Achaea by claiming that muds in general aren't noticeable, but I might not be as moved to do act for Solace. (No offense to Solace.)

Ultimately, you might be seeing Wikipedia as one entity that is trying to do some "good", but in reality, two people, one of which just happened to be an admin, was making the decisions for the article before it was put up for an AfD by one of those two people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_logos View Post
That'd be a very tough argument to make as there are MUDs that even the Wikipedia editors acting in bad faith would have a tough time arguing don't meet Wikipedia's rules for inclusion.
I'd like to agree with you except that I saw TMS removed from the MUDs article in general. I think if enough administrations and editors got together, it's possible to remove just about anything from Wikipedia. I read about a case where one editor removed (and kept off) the reports of an author's death because it could not be "verified". I'm not sure if his death ever got back on there, but there sure a lot of jokes flying around about it.

I've already been assured that re-listing Threshold after it's written won't be a problem assuming the deletion doesn't get overturned. Maybe it'll face an AfD again, but at least they'll have to unlist us with about 10-15 citations this time, which will probably make it one of the best cited and researched mud articles on Wikipedia. I still think its days will be numbered, but then again, I think Wikipedia's days are numbered as well.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 10:45 PM   #146
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,248
Threshold 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
But isn't that one reason Threshold's entry was removed? Among other things, they felt they couldn't trust the sources of info that Threshold's entry pointed to.
It was removed for notability. It passed WP:V (verifiability) with flying colors. Incidentally, WP:V used to be the controlling standard. But WP:N (notability) is now being used as a scythe to remove entries because there are so many editors bucking for adminhood, and the easiest way to score "contributions" is to delete articles in the name of "improving the project."

WP:V is a very legitimate concern. WP:N is subjective as heck and doesn't jibe with what Wikiepdia does best: cover obscure topics. WP:NOTPAPER (Wikipedia is not paper) is actually clear on that as well. There is tremendous benefit to covering and documenting obscure topics. But the current dominating force is on a deletion crusade for their own personal benefit, not the benefit of Wikipedia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by the_logos View Post
That'd be a very tough argument to make as there are MUDs that even the Wikipedia editors acting in bad faith would have a tough time arguing don't meet Wikipedia's rules for inclusion.
The one thing I have learned above all else about Wikipedia is this: never underestimate what Wikipedians acting in bad faith are capable of.

Threshold was deleted, when it had all of this in its favor:
  • Two major gaming magazines (Computer Games Magazine, and Computer Gaming World). You can call them "throw away mentions" if you want, but that's unnecessarily dismissive. For a MUD to get mentioned in a major PC gaming magazine is pretty huge.
  • Staff review from TMC.
  • Staff review from GameCommandos.
  • Praise and a recommendation from CNET Gamecenter.
  • Various awards and rankings from TMC, TMS, TMJ, etc.
  • Endorsement from the most recognized experts in the world as "notable."
  • Factual notability, like 12+ years of existence, over 300,000 characters created, and (correct me if I am wrong) the only commercial role play enforced game in existence, etc.

We are lucky that we even saved that much information. I imagine there are a lot of very notable MUDs that SHOULD have entries on Wikipedia that haven't saved that much about their own history. That's part of the problem. The even larger problem is the fact that right now we are unable to use TMC, TMS, etc. as stand alone sources of information to keeping a MUD entry on Wikipedia. Since those are 2 of the main sources of historical information on MUDs, that is a big problem.

On the plus side, the whole incident has helped us gather even more articles and references that we had lost track of. That will help in the future not only for a Wikipedia entry, but for our game and our company in general. Hopefully this has encouraged other MUD admins to start digging through their own files to gather up historical references about their games. But best of all, it seems to have galvanized us all a little bit. Maybe we can takes some steps as a community to preserve more of our history.

Toward that end, I hope any MUD admin who has a problem like this will let us know about it. If they are worried about canvassing, just send me an email. Most of us don't live on Wikipedia like they do. We aren't checking the AFD alert pages and crap like that. I know I'll be quick to help with research and such if anyone needs it.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2009, 11:42 PM   #147
DonathinFrye
Senior Member
 
DonathinFrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Name: Donathin Frye
Location: Columbus, OH
Home MUD: Optional Realities
Home MUD: Atonement RPI
Home MUD: Project Redshift
Posts: 510
DonathinFrye is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DonathinFrye
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

A few random musings, and one long thought.

1) Have you actually gotten a larger-than-typical influx of new players at Threshold since this fiasco began?

2) Would Achaea survive the notability scythe? If notability cannot be parented in through IRE, how would it be achieved in such a way to make it more notable than Threshold? An opinion would not be enough, as at the very least you would need to point to specific documented wiki law applicable to keeping Achaea that would distance it from Threshold. Anything less is speculation, and as I can attest to, when wiki admins set out to delete an article for reasons of notability, it can be very difficult to stop this process. Outside of Dragonrealms and the original MUD, I think current conditions could make proving notability for any MUD difficult if it is being attacked by such vigorous admins as those that attacked Threshold.

3) I would not be suprised to see an overturn ruling on the deletion review. Many unbias editors seem to think it appropriate, even more so than those that came out to support the KEEP votes (like me). At either rate, improving the editorial quality and referencing for the page would be a good thing to both preserve it, and to improve it to a level of quality sufficient for what wikipedia should be (and, admittedly, sometimes is).

4) As I've stated above, my only other advice would be to avoid flame wars on wikipedia, even if anger is justified -- their community does not respond to angry posts as well as the MUD community does. This is because most wikipedia communication comes from posts that can be edited, moved, and changed by just about anyone - whereas this community is used to virtual chatting and forum community. When you go to the courts to plead your case, even if the judge is bias and underhanded and the jury is bribed, your best bet is always to show yourself as a respectful and level-headed person. I know how difficult this can be, but it is always in your own best interest.


5) I see the entire ordeal as an opportunity to strengthen the community, instead of hurt it. The article can be improved and recovered, and now some often forgotten weaknesses of the MUD community have been exposed. Gone are the days of the innovation, largely, the popularity. Perhaps not co-incidentally, gone too are the days of online magazines dedicated to MUDs, professional magazines reviewing them, professorial articles written on them. Gone is the vibe, the underground excitement, the movement and word of mouth. Did all of the absentee, hard-working contributors to the community get too old? Get too tired? Get too comfortable? Probably. I know that I have narrowed my own personal vision of what I could contribute to the community to what I could contribute to a single (and incredible) game. For a time, this (rather historic, in terms of wikipedia length) debate and AfD have brought the community together. Didn't even need to canvass - many read it on the experts' blogs, I found it while surfing around randomly on wikipedia for information on MUD codebases. For those who are still in a position to do something for the community, who still have the energy - accept the challenge. For those of you who are newer MUDers and reading this post, take up the call.

Graphical MMORPGs are inferior games with inferior gameplay and content, but superior graphics/interface. This is what many of us believe. If you believe that, and you have the time and energy to do something about it - start a new wikipedia for just MUDs, band together with others to start writing expert-quality articles on MUDs and MUDing, find new and innovative ways to get our message out to potential new players, fight to get us represented in commercial gaming magazines. Underground music will continue to thrive, independent movies will continue to thrive, non-best-seller books will continue to captivate large audiences of readers. Don't let flash games be the next-gen of underground gaming. That crown was on our heads, and complacency has seen it slip in the past few years.

Do something about it. All I can say.

Last edited by DonathinFrye : 01-09-2009 at 11:47 PM. Reason: minor errors
DonathinFrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 12:53 AM   #148
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.

Quote:
start a new wikipedia for just MUDs, band together with others to start writing expert-quality articles on MUDs and MUDing
Not to leech off the suggestion or anything but one could also avail themselves of the already existing article section over at MudBytes. Articles on MUD history and things of that nature would be more than welcome there. It's not wiki-ware quality but that could change as time goes on assuming people are interested in using the resources we've made available.
Samson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 02:38 PM   #149
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos 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
They also removed Threshold's TMC review, which was unsolicited and written by a TMC staff member. It was actually the second review that was written on Threshold from TMC. I'm not sure where the first one is anymore. TMS was not only thrown out as a source that Threshold was notable in the mudding community, but it was removed from the actual MUDs article to try to make this point.
Obviously my company is a big supporter of both TMS and by far the biggest supporter of TMC, but I agree with Wikipedia's decision here to be honest. I don't see either TMS or TMC as establishing notability.

Quote:
I don't know what exactly is going on in Wikipedia except that some editors seem to think it's okay to do everything based on their own judgment and not research. For example, did you know that there was a discussion to remove mention of IRE on the MUDs article? You may not care about personally because, like Threshold, IRE probably gets very little out of being mentioned on Wikipedia, but looking at the entry objectively, how could IRE NOT be included in an article on MUDs and MUD history? I even went to look up a source for IRE and posted it so that it could be used. Even if it is a passing mention, the fact that IRE was mentioned along with Sony is a telling thing, in my opinion.
That's kind of funny but I find it hard to care much. The thing IRE is most notable for in the wider games world (pioneering virtual goods sales and inventing the dual currency model) might be hard to prove as I don't think there are any sources that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia that "prove" it did those things.

You're right btw, Wikipedia sends virtually no traffic our way.


Quote:
I'd like to agree with you except that I saw TMS removed from the MUDs article in general.
That's a little strange, although on the one hand it's "just" a set of MUD listings, an unauthoritative ranking system, and a set of forums. On the other hand, it's one of the two major text MUD sites, but it doesn't get much traffic. In the grand scheme of things, maybe it's not very notable. I think it's easy for us (like everyone) to get caught up in what we're doing and assume it's of world-shaking importance to everyone else. I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but the comparison to people who are really into knitting or <pick your niche> probably have similarly strong views about everything in their communities too, but a lot of people might kind of laugh at the idea that a knitting mailing list should be included on Wikipedia as being notable, for instance.

Anyway, just pointing out that it's easy for people in general to overestimate our own importance in the scheme of things since we are all the center of our own little universes.



Quote:
I still think its days will be numbered, but then again, I think Wikipedia's days are numbered as well.
Well, everything's days are numbered in one sense, but I think that you're taking what is a VERY minor issue (seriously, whether a text MUD is included or not may be offensive to us but I don't think it matters very much to Wikipedia as a whole). Wikipedia looks to become more used by human beings, not less though. Quantcast and Compete both show an upwards trajectory. Alexa's is harder to read (and in my opinion Alexa is less reliable than Quantcast or Compete, though still has some use), it shows Wikipedia's traffic as being slightly higher than it was a year ago.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:03 PM   #150
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 the_logos View Post
Anyway, just pointing out that it's easy for people in general to overestimate our own importance in the scheme of things since we are all the center of our own little universes.
No offense, but I think you missed the main point of this thread if this is what you got out of it.

You're stating this as if we don't all know that we're a niche hobby. That's kind of not the point. In the end, online gaming is not considered a mainstream hobby period, even if you include all the big-name MMOs and such. Video games in general are considered for kids, so gets very little impact in general. Dungeons and Dragons is hardly mainstream at all, and if you look at Dragonlance's article, it has little to no sources outside of TSR/WoTC materials. It hasn't been in the press for a very long time.

Does that really matter? Wikipedia has a very specific set of rules to govern fictional material and games in order to aid them in being listed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_logos View Post
That's kind of funny but I find it hard to care much.
That's fine, but is it really right to tell people they shouldn't care either? If everyone took on that attitude, then there wouldn't be any attempt to preserve and better document mud history. Even if Threshold's article on Wikipedia becomes nothing more than a fossil in time, at the very least, other muds might be able to start snapping up what's out there now before other sites holding resources are lost.

Quote:
I forget who it was earlier in the thread, but the comparison to people who are really into knitting or <pick your niche> probably have similarly strong views about everything in their communities too, but a lot of people might kind of laugh at the idea that a knitting mailing list should be included on Wikipedia as being notable, for instance.
Funny you should say that since I was looking at the amigurumi article on Wikipedia last night. It's a gigantic movement in Asia that's recently made its way to the US. The problem they're having with sourcing is that most of the source materials are in Japanese, and Wikipedia heavily discourages sources that are not in English. Amigurumi is a sub-set of knitting and crocheting, much like a single mud is a sub-set of mudding in general. The article as it is now would be deleted in a heartbeat, but it'd probably be given a bit more chance to survive if sources could be located.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_logos View Post
Well, everything's days are numbered in one sense, but I think that you're taking what is a VERY minor issue (seriously, whether a text MUD is included or not may be offensive to us but I don't think it matters very much to Wikipedia as a whole). Wikipedia looks to become more used by human beings, not less though. Quantcast and Compete both show an upwards trajectory. Alexa's is harder to read (and in my opinion Alexa is less reliable than Quantcast or Compete, though still has some use), it shows Wikipedia's traffic as being slightly higher than it was a year ago.
Threshold had a spike in usage this year as well. That's not going to keep our Wikipedia article, though. Looking at things in the long run, if Wikipedia's editors continue this kind of behavior, it won't be long until something bigger and brighter can come its way and make it obsolete. Editors who get sick of the inane system that governs Wikipedia will simply move on to other places, and if content continues to get removed, then it's not hard to imagine that they'll have very little left to work with. We've seen this happen in our own industry where companies have shut down their text muds and moved out of the community once they got their graphical ones up.

Lastly, it may not matter much to Wikipedia as a whole, but with something that (Wikipedia's) size, very little is going to matter much to Wikipedia as a whole. Who it does matter to is the editors who have been touched by this issue as well as people who care about the actual issue such as prominent names in our community who have actually moved beyond muds to other things as well.

As for your comments on TMS, I don't really see it as being any different than Rotten Tomatoes or a dozen other movie sites that are used as resources on Wikipedia all the time. TMS is a ranking site with forums and some articles. It doesn't really pretend to be more than that.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:05 PM   #151
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Threshold View Post
Threshold was deleted, when it had all of this in its favor:
Sorry to ask, but can't see the deletion thread.
Quote:
[*] Two major gaming magazines (Computer Games Magazine, and Computer Gaming World). You can call them "throw away mentions" if you want, but that's unnecessarily dismissive. For a MUD to get mentioned in a major PC gaming magazine is pretty huge.
But the standard isn't "What's notable for a MUD" it's "What's notable." I doubt they're consistent about it, but I DO think that Wikipedia is at least in theory made better by considering what's notable rather than what's notable relative to the audience size of something. If you use the latter standard, then you're in a situation where the more obscure the subject matter, the easier it is to have a Wikipedia page. At the extreme, If I invent a new type of game with one friend, we could convincingly claim that it is the #1 game of that type of game in the world. So what though?

Scale that scenario up a lot and I can see where most MUDs are going to have a very hard time establishing themselves as having any notability to the wider world. I'm not trying to be unnecessarily dismissive of the mentions in CGM and CGW but weren't they basically throwaway mentions? (much like when Total PC Gaming recently ranked Achaea as the best MUD in the world. I'm proud of that and will certainly use it in marketing, but it was, frankly, a throwaway mention). Consider this: It is not a big deal to simply be included in a computer games magazine for a couple of sentences. It's really not. Multiple dozens of games get included in every single issue of pretty much every single games magazine. It's totally routine to simply be mentioned, in fact.

Quote:
[*] Staff review from TMC.
Wasn't Wikipedia's thing here was that this was a volunteer with no established credibility as a journalist? I'd have to agree.

Quote:
[*] Staff review from GameCommandos.
I was very fond of GameCommandos, and Ilya, its creator, was a full-time Iron Realms employee for four or five years (ending a few months ago). I wouldn't consider it more than a jumped up blog though. Also, can you even prove this happened (I'm not questioning you, but without evidence I think Wikipedia should be questioning it)? Gamecommandos seems to be completely gone.

Quote:
[*] Praise and a recommendation from CNET Gamecenter.
I think there are two issues here. One is it doesn't appear to be on Cnet anymore and two is that if it's the blurb on Theshold's site, I think that squarely qualifies as a throwaway mention. It's basically a letter to the editor from a random Cnet user. Again, not trying to attack you here. I can just see the point of view that would disqualify this kind of thing from notability.

Quote:
[*] Various awards and rankings from TMC, TMS, TMJ, etc.
I'd probably side with Wikipedia as to the authoritativeness of those sites for their purposes.

Quote:
[*] Endorsement from the most recognized experts in the world as "notable."
I don't know what Wikipedia's rules are here so I can't really comment, but there's certainly room for Wikipedia to decide that what Bartle thinks of as notable isn't what Wikipedia thinks of as notable.

Quote:
[*] Factual notability, like 12+ years of existence, over 300,000 characters created, and (correct me if I am wrong) the only commercial role play enforced game in existence, etc.
I don't think simply existing for 12 years makes most things notable. Sure, if you were to get a radioactive isotope with a half life of a millisecond to last for 12 years, you'd have done something pretty notable. Existing as MUD for 12 years is just a matter of having started it more than 12 years ago and paying the hosting bill every month.

Characters created doesn't mean anything. I could launch a MUD and do that in a few days with a script (or another user could, etc).

The problem with claiming that you're the only commercial roleplay enforced game in existence is that it's true or not true depending on what you mean, on a detail level, by roleplay enforced. For instance, on the lighter end, some big commercial MMOs have "roleplay enforced" servers. Their enforcement is pretty much limited to requiring a less-chaotic naming policy, but it's "enforced" in some sense. Threshold has a higher level of enforcement, but certainly isn't as roleplay enforced as another MUD could be. Plus, I don't know that being the only COMMERCIAL roleplay enforced game is enough of a distinguisher, particularly as I consider commercial to be just another game feature, like having PvP or not having orcs. Again, I'm not sure this is particularly notable. Almost every MUD could claim to be the only MUD in existence with a particular combination of game features.


Quote:
Toward that end, I hope any MUD admin who has a problem like this will let us know about it. If they are worried about canvassing, just send me an email. Most of us don't live on Wikipedia like they do. We aren't checking the AFD alert pages and crap like that. I know I'll be quick to help with research and such if anyone needs it.
I share your wishes here that MUD admins bring this to people's attention on TMS or TMC when this happens. I think what I think of as notability is a lot closer to the Wikipedia line than yours, but please understand it's a legitimate difference of opinion, not an attempt to attack Threshold or you.
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:18 PM   #152
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.

Just realized that one of my comments could really be taken the wrong way. I was speaking specifically of Darkness Falls and Mythic, not IRE, when discussing companies that have dumped their text muds when their graphical one took off.
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:22 PM   #153
Lasher
Administrator
 
Lasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Name: Derek
Location: Orlando
Posts: 354
Lasher has a spectacular aura aboutLasher has a spectacular aura about
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

The listing had it's day in court and was closed. The deletion review may or may not succeed. Apparently someone requested an "RFC" on Cambios the user which seems to lead to a big discussion where people have their say and then at the end of it someone officially tells him off?

I'd suspect that Cambios isn't going to be too active on Wikipedia either way after all this and any discussion on whether or not he should be told to stand in the corner for an hour has less value to Wikipedia than the last comment on the AfD itself which was completely brushed over:

Quote:
Question on Wiki policies. The header here says to assume good faith. Regardless of the outcome of this particular AfD, I do not believe good faith has been followed. The original recommendation for AfD came from a former Threshold player who was removed from Threshold for being in conflict with their rules and policies. The particular challenges Threshold is having with verifiable references applies to many MUD listings on Wikipedia. The header says we should "assume" that is coincidence. What if we flat out don't believe it? If this were a genuine effort to improve the relevancy of Wikipedia coverage of the MUD genre, you would expect good faith to involve a little self reflection along the lines of "I have a history with this MUD, perhaps I should start elsewhere to make it very clear this isn't targeted at Threshold". Is there any Wikipedia oversight of this kind of thing? If this discussion is to continue along the lines of "it doesn't matter how the afd got started, now the discussion is the listing itself" then so be it. However, when this is all over and done with, senior Wikipedia admins who do act in good faith and sincerely want that to be the public perception of Wikipedia may want to take a closer look into this particular AfD.
Maybe the answer is to open your own RFC or WP:SOMETHING - in that case I'm going to be extra self-important here and quote myself a second time:

Quote:
Kind of like telling your neighborhood association yard monitor that they are mistaken and the height of your grass is just fine. You might be right, but it's quicker, easier and less likely to result in repeated banging of
your head on the nearest wall to just mow the yard than it is to play in their world.
MUDs did just fine for years before Wikipedia existed and whether or not they are covered on Wikipedia itself is probably going to have zero affect on any of our futures. I'd have liked to see the listing stay but they did also add that one AfD does not set "precedence" for another so it might not have mattered either way.

The only real "bad taste" from all this is how the AfD got started in the first place and how a post on this forum somehow became "massive canvassing". Perhaps also a little disappointment in myself that at the end of it all I probably spent more time trying to "defend" Threshold's listing than I did Aardwolf's
Lasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:27 PM   #154
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 the_logos View Post
I share your wishes here that MUD admins bring this to people's attention on TMS or TMC when this happens. I think what I think of as notability is a lot closer to the Wikipedia line than yours, but please understand it's a legitimate difference of opinion, not an attempt to attack Threshold or you.
I think the difference comes in because I extrapolate it much further than you might. In the field of science, there are many things that are extremely core and notable theories and terms that don't get written about much out of scientific journals and such. Even then, a single CONCEPT might not get more than a paragraph or two, which could easily qualify as "throw away". My examples before have been pedomorphism and perideridia americana. Is it really right for you or some random editor on Wikipedia who wouldn't begin to know the first things about how pedomorphism could relate to the formation of a spinal cord and thus all vertebrates get to determine what is or isn't notable about the topic?

I could apply this to many, many more scientific theories and phrases that the average person has never heard of, and I feel that has a serious tie-in here.

Our definitions of notability seem very diverse here just as it is on Wikipedia, and that's the problem with making WP:N (a guideline) the controlling factor rather than WP:V (a policy). Is notability objective? Is notability semi-objective? Or is notability completely subjective?
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:28 PM   #155
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos 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
You're stating this as if we don't all know that we're a niche hobby. That's kind of not the point. In the end, online gaming is not considered a mainstream hobby period, even if you include all the big-name MMOs and such.
Runescape was fifth most searched for term on Yahoo last year. WoW has 11 million players. They're not as mainstream as, say, baseball, but they're clearly having a major impact on a LOT of people. There's a difference of multiple magnitudes between them and even the biggest text MUDs.

Quote:
Video games in general are considered for kids, so gets very little impact in general.
I'm not sure where you're getting this impression, but it's very outdated. Some of the biggest companies in the world have major gaming divisions. Sony, Microsoft, etc. The biggest publications in the world talk regularly about video games (NY Times, Newsweek, the Guardian, thousands more, etc). There's a tv channel in the US devoted to video games. There are a couple in Korea devoted just to WATCHING other people play videogames (Starcraft and such). Video game conferences draw over 100,000 people to them and attract billions of dollars of investment. Major retailers like Best Buy devote massive amounts of floor space to video games.

Incidentally, according to the 2008 annual ESA study on gamer demographics, the average US gamer is 35 years old, and 65% of heads of households play video games.


Quote:
That's fine, but is it really right to tell people they shouldn't care either? If everyone took on that attitude, then there wouldn't be any attempt to preserve and better document mud history. Even if Threshold's article on Wikipedia becomes nothing more than a fossil in time, at the very least, other muds might be able to start snapping up what's out there now before other sites holding resources are lost.
I will someday write a 10 page or so history of Iron Realms. Wikipedia can choose to use it or not (I'd imagine not) but it'll be out there as the authoritative history of Iron Realms as far as people I care about are concerned. Whether the Wikipedia page reflects some, all, or none of that info doesn't make it less available. Just makes it less available on Wikipedia! Wikipedia isn't the only place to get info after all.


Quote:
Threshold had a spike in usage this year as well. That's not going to keep our Wikipedia article, though. Looking at things in the long run, if Wikipedia's editors continue this kind of behavior, it won't be long until something bigger and brighter can come its way and make it obsolete. Editors who get sick of the inane system that governs Wikipedia will simply move on to other places, and if content continues to get removed, then it's not hard to imagine that they'll have very little left to work with.
We'll see! The only likely challenger was Google Knol, but it hasn't gotten very far.


Quote:
As for your comments on TMS, I don't really see it as being any different than Rotten Tomatoes or a dozen other movie sites that are used as resources on Wikipedia all the time. TMS is a ranking site with forums and some articles. It doesn't really pretend to be more than that.
I don't know what Wikipedia's rules are regarding this, but I'd imagine it's a scale thing (multiple orders of magnitude between TMS/TMC and Rotten Tomatoes) and that pointing out what a movie's rating is on Rotten Tomatoes isn't used to establish notability (though I could be wrong...I don't think they should be used to establish notability but my opinion doesn't matter to Wikipedia) in any case, but as a fact about the movie/game/whatever.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:29 PM   #156
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos 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
Just realized that one of my comments could really be taken the wrong way. I was speaking specifically of Darkness Falls and Mythic, not IRE, when discussing companies that have dumped their text muds when their graphical one took off.
Thanks for the clarification! Iron Realms has definitely not been dumped and isn't going to be. It's very much a going concern.
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:35 PM   #157
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos 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
I think the difference comes in because I extrapolate it much further than you might. In the field of science, there are many things that are extremely core and notable theories and terms that don't get written about much out of scientific journals and such. Even then, a single CONCEPT might not get more than a paragraph or two, which could easily qualify as "throw away". My examples before have been pedomorphism and perideridia americana. Is it really right for you or some random editor on Wikipedia who wouldn't begin to know the first things about how pedomorphism could relate to the formation of a spinal cord and thus all vertebrates get to determine what is or isn't notable about the topic?
I personally think there's an objective difference between an entertainment product/fictional setting and hard science, though I don't know where one would draw the line in terms of what scientific minutiae gets included and doesn't get included. Luckily, it's not up to me.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:47 PM   #158
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,306
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Sorry about the multiple posts in a row. I'm laid up after some minor foot surgery yesterday, and am not going to start my Fallout 3 adventures for the day until later.

Does anyone who knows more about Wikipedia's rules than me know if they'd accept screenshots of now-dead websites or scanned pictures of print articles as references? I can see where they might not, as the magic of Photoshop could produce pretty much anything. Just wondering.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 05:49 PM   #159
DonathinFrye
Senior Member
 
DonathinFrye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Name: Donathin Frye
Location: Columbus, OH
Home MUD: Optional Realities
Home MUD: Atonement RPI
Home MUD: Project Redshift
Posts: 510
DonathinFrye is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DonathinFrye
Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_logos View Post
Sorry about the multiple posts in a row. I'm laid up after some minor foot surgery yesterday, and am not going to start my Fallout 3 adventures for the day until later.

Does anyone who knows more about Wikipedia's rules than me know if they'd accept screenshots of now-dead websites or scanned pictures of print articles as references? I can see where they might not, as the magic of Photoshop could produce pretty much anything. Just wondering.

--matt
No. There would be no evidence that the screen-shot might not be doctored. Unfortunately, this is the case for any online content, which is part of the problem in the first place.
DonathinFrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 06:00 PM   #160
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 the_logos View Post
Sorry about the multiple posts in a row. I'm laid up after some minor foot surgery yesterday, and am not going to start my Fallout 3 adventures for the day until later.
No worries. I think you put up some very legitimate arguments, and it's interesting. I had to step away from the computer for a while to tend to some stuff, but I did found myself eager to come read more discussions on this.

While I agree with you that science and entertainment are very different, the arguments presented should someone decide to attack a science article could very much be the same. There are plenty of things that I think are objectively notable that wouldn't survive the test that was put on Threshold regardless of whether or not Threshold is objectively notable.

I just read an article on the video game perception in the media within the last two weeks. One of the main points is that it doesn't receive the coverage it should based on how many people are involved. I'll try to dig it up again for you to read as well.
Milawe 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 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014
http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/showthread.php?s=c7faa458f334fcf8d4af14a44e90f1af&t=5287&page=8
www.topmudsites.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-39
174292
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BQ2XWEXS277NW4EENYMC2UWGCZPSWY5N
<urn:uuid:bd700bbe-85ac-4684-aede-06e46b1b57eb>
2019-09-22T13:56:01Z
209.133.212.238
text/html
sha1:Z73WK6BZTUODYCTUEI34PIV4NNSKY4W4
<urn:uuid:1fd04922-23e2-4d03-b4ba-7829b29578ac>
http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/showthread.php?s=c7faa458f334fcf8d4af14a44e90f1af&t=5287&page=8
response
<urn:uuid:26500e3c-5730-4525-9865-4cf5dda7896e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-39
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-20.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/