09 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
09 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
It seems that all you have to do to put up potentially bogus information on Wikipedia is to put it into a book, self-publish it with an ISBN, and add the ISBN reference to Wikipedia. That apparently makes the information very notable and awesome, whereas years upon years of discussion and activity in the community, on Usenet, on forums, etc., is absolutely worthless.

I think that they have somewhat deluded notions of their own grandeur. A popular encyclopedia, in the sense of of the people, is supposed to contain popular information – and the nature of some of that information is such that it only exists in Usenet posts and so forth. Much research has been done by analyzing private letters between correspondents; is that useless too?

Well, anyhow, I guess the TLDR version is that this is just plain stupid.
09 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
It seems like Ridernyc needs some administrative action taken for being a pompous ass.

DAVI.. oh wait.
10 Aug, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Arctic MUD isn't any more notable than a random pub opened in 1992. Wikipedia is in fact very forgiving when it comes to MUDs.

Fortunately there's Mudpedia.

http://www.mudpedia.org/wiki/Arctic_MUD
10 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
10 Aug, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Want to nominate them for deletion and see what happens? ;)
10 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Wikipedia is in fact very forgiving when it comes to MUDs.

Not really - they tried to remove DikuMUD!

It's basically just a metagame though. Pick a weak target, get it deleted, earn points. Earn enough points and you get promoted to the next level. Move on to bigger targets.
10 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great to capture these articles and mirror them on a safe site. I hadn't looked to see if it was on Mudpedia, so some might view this as an opportunity to capture the latest changes before it's gone.

Scandum said:
Want to nominate them for deletion and see what happens? ;)


Not really. I figure if someone cares enough to write an article about something, why should I rain on their party. Although I had wickedly considered nominating for deletion articles started and maintained by those who regularly nominate articles for deletion.
10 Aug, 2010, ralgith wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
And why is an active MUD with a well established website being nominated for deletion?
http://mud.arctic.org/index.php
10 Aug, 2010, Sharmair wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
As I understand it from the comments on the page, there are not enough trustworthy
citations of it being noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia.
19 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Looks like it has been deleted.
19 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Wikipedia has always had a certain segment of users that seem to be hellbent on deleting things they feel don't belong in the site. Some of them are good intentioned, some aren't. However, if the page existed more than six months .. ish .. you can still get it from the Wayback Machine, if the actual content of the page was important to you.

Maya/Rudha
0.0/12