http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...wolf_%28game%29

This was an article that I wrote, about the most popular Multi-User Dungeon in history, called Aardwolf.

You will note that it got 4 delete votes and 1 keep vote, 5 total. It was 3/2, enough for a "no consensus keep", but one person changed their mind. So it was deleted.

Now, does Wikipedia regard that all MUD articles should be deleted?

They have 66 different articles on individual MUDs.

Not a single one of those 66 come close to the notoriety of Aardwolf, with over 4,000 people online at the same time regularly for the past 12 years straight, easily the most popular MUD in history.

I just get dumbfounded sometimes at the logic of some of these deletion debates. I mean 4 people, none of whom knew anything about it, voted delete because they couldn't be bothered checking anything properly.

I guess it doesn't really matter in terms of history of the world if this game is in Wikipedia or not. I doubt it'd be in Britannica, because they wouldn't have an article on any of the individual games, and probably all that they'd do is to mention MUDs, and perhaps in passing say something like "The most popular of all time is Aardwolf". But by Wikipedia standards, this was horrendous.

Of course, in saying this, I hate Aardwolf MUD.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at some of their arguments to delete something.

Jimbo is a big former MUDD-er as are many of his favorite lackeys. Wikipedia is notorious for catering to the interests of its cabal, or the techies who do a lot of the work. While they attack experts in the area of law, science, history (or whatever) who don't spend their lives on Wikipedia.

Why they don't call it a technical encyclopedia (and product guide) I don't know. A lot of hte other material is farcical.

This is the problem with Wikipedia's AFD method.

Here is an article that is borderline notable by real encyclopaedia standards, is more notable than 66 other similar articles, and should be the first article to be written if they were going to write individual articles about MUDs (single D, I get really annoyed when its falsely written as MUDD - its Multi-User Dungeon, not Multi-User Duh-Dungeon). It is the most popular in history, by miles too. Its not even close from that one to number 2.

And this wasn't decided by a huge debate with 70 people voting, massive discussion, lots of references and people knowing what they were doing. It was decided by 5 people, 4 of whom had no idea what a MUD even was. It wasn't decided based on references, it was decided because they couldn't be bothered researching it.

You could say "Oh but Blissyu2, you only wrote a stub". Fair enough, I did only write a stub. Because I personally don't care about it. I hate the place and couldn't write fairly about it. All that I wrote was that it was the most popular MUD in history, and had links to prove it.

Their response was that the links weren't verifiable. Sorry? They are as verifiable as you are going to get for a MUD. Plenty of places listed its data, and they are recognisable by MUD sites. If they'd known what they were talking about, they'd recognise that.

And that's it. How many articles on notable subjects are deleted because nobody bothers to vote, and the people that do bother don't have a clue what they are talking about?

I know, I know, its not really a huge criticism, but that should never have been deleted.

That's because they don't want Wikipedia's reputation being challeged as the most pop MÜÐÐ in hystery.

Jonny

Jon: You mean Harry Mudd?

*silly edit*

Five people make a WikiConsensus?

There's no minimum number of participants required for even a semblance of a quorum?

Where are the inclusionists on this bit of WikiBullshit?

I mean, the only way five people should be able to make a decision is if they're in the Cabal and they control... um... I mean, there's NO WAY IN HELL five people should be able to make any kind of decision on anything on a website with thousands of accounts open.

Man... just when you think the WikiGeniuses can't do something more stupid... they do something more stupid...

Well, I mean if this was a real decision, it should have gone like this:

1) Recuse: I don't even know what a mud is
2) Recuse: A what?
3) Recuse: I think I know what a mud is, but I'm not sure
4) Recuse: Stuff it, I can't be bothered researching
5) Keep: Yes, I know what a mud is, here's all of the proof that this article should be kept

And then have it relisted, with people commenting who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

But by Wikipedia rules, all Recuses turn in to deletes.

They kept Carnelli, an article I created about a parlor game played at Mensa conventions (and which has spread to some SF cons as well). Even fewer people voted on that one... it's kind of a "luck of the draw" thing.

Heh 2/1.

The thing is though that if I go in to any workplace, and I say to people "Oh hey I'm playing a multi-user dungeon", then okay not everyone knows what it is. If I then say "Its an online version of dungeons & dragons" then practically everyone knows what it is. MUDs were one of the first ever uses of the internet. Okay, they had some primitive IRC-like chat thing, and they had y-talk, and they had file transfer. Not long after that, they had MUDs. And they still have MUDs. They are seriously relevant.

Now if you were going to list which MUDs to include, you'd start with:

1) First ever MUD
2) Notable MUDs in terms of developmental stages
3) Notable MUDs in terms of media attention (e.g. Discworld isn't all that popular, but is related to Terry Pratchet's novels, so is worthy of mention)
4) The most popular ever MUD of all time

Now that's obvious. All of those are of equal importance.

Now, one argument is that popularity isn't everything. That's true. But being number 1 most popular is notability.

It's a bit like if I had a list of rap artists, if I was going through it, I'd have:

1) First rap artist
2) Notable rap artists in terms of developmental stages
3) Notable rap artists in terms of controversy (e.g. Notable BIG, Tupac Shakur)
4) Most popular rap artist of all time (Eminem)

Now, if Wikipedia had, for example, an article on oh I dunno "Kriss Kross", 2 kids who were promoted by Michael Jackson and had 2 hit singles and then disappeared, but they DIDN'T have an article on Eminem, then there's something wrong.

Okay, so Eminem maybe isn't the most notable rap artist in history. But he is the most popular. And indeed I'd probably argue that Eminem is the most notable rap artist in history actually.

Aardwolf is to MUDs what Eminem is to rap.

Any IT workplace.

Most workplaces, no.

I'm not saying it isn't worthy of encyclopedic mention, because there are interest groups for that kind of thing, as in any discipline. And that's what's wrong with the AFD process, its a total drive by who shows up to vote. And if too much support is had, its a sockpuppet accusation coming at you.

Bullshit its any IT workplace. Everyone knows about Dungeons & Dragons, any workplace. Not everyone knows what a MUD is however.

I worked in a school and they all knew, I worked in a bank and everyone knew, I worked for lawyers and everyone knew, I worked in a police station and everyone knew, I worked in a gambling house and everyone knew.

Now they might not have ever played it, but seriously, everyone knows what Dungeons & Dragons is. And in any workplace, you'd find at least 1 or 2 who know what a MUD is. Usually IT people.

You've got to be kidding, Bliss. I don't know what any of these things are, I recognise the name Dungeons & Dragons from the 1980s but I've no idea what it is. I don't recall any of these things ever coming up in a conversation I've ever had, and I can't imagine anyone I've ever worked with having a clue what these things are. Sorry.

However, I'm not voting delete on the afd. Nor would I consider doing so.

I didn't say that everyone knew what it was and had played it, just that they'd have heard of it. Mind you, if I go up to IT people, almost all of them have played a MUD, and could tell you what some of the good ones were. LOL. I did meet one that hadn't though, but that was a rarity somewhat.

i'm jes goan (no, silly rabbi, not portuguese indian) by wot the kidds @ my skool called em, bak in the 70's, b4 compootors n everthing, and the kidds would play d&d in the steam tunnels under the univeristy until 1 day when some kidd genius got killed or sewercided, i forget, & they put hi-security grates on all the portals. so all the kidd genii compiled together and invented compootors soldat dey cdr ∀ways be playin' in da mud&d w/o getting demsleveskilled @ ne-thang wote'er.

Jonny

(Quiet laugh) No they don't.

You said any WORKPLACE, and I said, sure, any "IT WORKPLACE". Thats a huge qualification there.

I know about D&D because I had some great friends who were computer geeks way back when who were obsessed. I was not. But that's the only reason why Ive ever heard of it, and in the executive world it isn't mentioned much. Games get more attention now, after Electronic Arts made scads of money, but that's the extent of executive interest in games, usually. Money.


Where did you work in the bank? In the computer department? If so, I rest my case. Executives or professionals in the main banks outposts in Perth, Sydney or Adelaide probably have no clue what D&D is, unless they were game fans, or computer hobbyists. I know plenty of Australian professionals, in Perth, Sydney, Adelaide, etc. None of them would know what D&D is. No way.

Your assumption is very Wikipedia, by the way, and is why the entire encyclopedia is slanted towards technologicial things, with an abused poverty of non-technical information. There's so many technical people on Wikipedia who think their experience is ubiquitous, and that's a huge fallacy.

I think you have no idea how internet-oriented your world is, despite Australia's apparent self criticism of being out of it web-wise, the web apparently pervades the world as you've experienced it.

Bliss, you need to get a better handle on the other person's background, because if you make assumptions like this, people will misunderstand you, and even be upset by you, really for no good reason other than that they can't relate.

I have to agree with Kato here. I know tons of programmers who havent ever played MUD. Mostly they work hard and have two or three kids. MUD is not a priority. Most have trouble keeping up with pop culture anymore.

NN Original Research.

I've never worked in IT, thank you very much. God, have you seen how hopeless I am with computers? Who the hell would hire me to work in IT?

Anyway, whatever, I just know I've been asked many times what I do on the computer at home, and I'd say it all, lots of nods of the heads then sometimes "what's a mud? you play with mud?" and then I say "online dungeons & dragons" and then its like yeah alright, I know what that is.

It'd be difficult for anyone not to know what dungeons & dragons is, seriously. You might not have played it, indeed not that many people have played it. But you'd have heard of it. I can't think of anyone I know who hasn't heard of it and has at least some idea of what D&D is. Maybe some of the younger people don't know, but that's about it. Anyone my age or older would know.

Today's featured article.

Dungeons and Dragons

Yeah well, as I said, somewhere that gets hundreds of people on it at a time 24/7 for 10 years+ does deserve an article, according to Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It is just plain sad that nobody bothered to research it properly. 5 votes with nobody bothering to check in to it.

It reminds me of when someone tried to delete Naruto on the basis that they personally had never heard of it. Naruto is Wikipedia's number 1 viewed article (or at least it was). I bet that most people here don't know what Naruto is either.