Talk:TMI Mudlib
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Abductive (talk · contribs) on 6 October 2009 with the comment: Std {{prod-nn}} tag It was contested by Nihiltres (talk · contribs) on 2009-10-13 with the comment: Objection to proposed deletion received through Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/GeorgeReese/status/543726830 |
 | The contents of the TMI Mudlib page were merged into LPMud on 2016-05-12 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Twitter objector's salient comments, newest to oldest
[edit]- There are plenty of sources like Usenet archives to validate that stuff. But those aren't considered relevant for notability
- According to Wikipedia notability guidelines, muds never existed. Notability is a worthless criterion.
- The core point is notability a) adds no value to Wikipedia and b) is problematic for mudding articles.
- Mainstream press did not start paying attn to the Internet until 95. Per Wikipedia not rules, Internet was not notable.
- Notability in mudding (or any other pre-1995 Internet thing) is a constant issue for Wikipedia.
- 1 Notability for something like Wikipedia is just plain silly.
- There is no value to the Wikipedia notability requirement.
- Of course, most Internet culture pre-1996 has no web pages.
- For example, Wikipedia editors believe if a) they have not heard of it and b) it's not on a web page, it's non-notable.
- Can't fix the goofy editing clique they've created
- Wikipedia is such a bloody joke.
Original prodder's notes
[edit]I was around for the early days of the Internet, and I agree that little of it was documented. However, I disagree with the unspoken assumption and central tenet of GeorgeReese's argument; that individual multi-user dungeons were all that important, and I don't see why a topic being on Wikipedia or not is valuable. At the time I was unimpressed, for whatever reason, with real-time text-based interactive games. Although this may be hard to believe, I knew that these MUDS were going to get better, and I was content to wait. But my opinion and GeorgeReese's opinion's are completely irrelevant; what matters is secondary sources, which don't have to be contemporaneous. For example, there is mention (quoting a George Reese) of TMI mudlib in the appendix of the 2003 book Developing online games: an insider's guide by Jessica Mulligan and Bridgette Patrovsky. In addition, there are two Master's theses that mention TMI; "PanaeaMud An Online, Object-oriented Multiple User Interactive Geologic Database Tool" by Erich Boring, and A Study of Behavior Intention and Actual Behavior of Junior High School Students on Internet Games - With Example of Ping-tung County Junior High School Students by Hui-ju Chung. I don't think these sources are sufficient to support a stand-alone article on TMI Mudlib, so I await the addition of offline sources. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My Thoughts
[edit]It's probably important to note for this conversation that I was not involved with the TMI mudlib in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I was a critic of it and ultimately authored a competing mudlib, the Nightmare Mudlib.
Having said that, TMI was one of the most important works in the MudOS area of LPMuds. It was the basis of a number of major muds in its own right, and it was also the basis for Nightmare and TMI-2. By 1995, pretty much every new MudOS mud owed its origins to TMI either through Nightmare or TMI-2.
Here's the challenge you have: almost every modern source discussing LPMuds is using me as a source, because my LPMud Timeline and LPMud FAQ are the main primary sources for all current research into LPmuds. However, very few people write or talk about muds today. Very few people realize they ever existed, in even though they were a major part of the pre-web Internet. And because the pre-web Internet was not covered by the press or books for the most part, there are few contemporaneous sources for external validation of anything relating to muds.
About all we have is USENET and the memories of people who were involved.
All of this leads to my primary objection: I think Wikipedia notability requirements are fundamentally flawed. I think there's no reason to get rid of things that some random person thinks are not notable unless there is a verifiable problem with its inclusion. Notability, all attempts at defining an objective standard aside, is not an objective thing.
Creation is hard; destruction is easy. Things should not be destroyed unless there is a strong rationale for doing so.
GeorgeReese (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the sources must be contemporaneous. Actually, contemporaneous sources would likely be primary sources and thus inappropriate for constructing a tertiary source like Wikipedia. See WP:PSTS. It is with the passage of time and a little hindsight that the important events in the history of a topic become clear. You say there are sources discussing LPMuds. It would be helpful if you could provide links to these sources, or citations if they are offline. As for people writing or talking about muds today, it doesn't take but a few sources to create an article, and it's ok that these sources are based off of people's memories. The only question is what article will the material be used. For example, if TMI Mudlib doesn't have enough secondary sources from which to build an article, nothing prevents the mention of TMI Mudlib in context with the overall development of MUDs. You yourself are embedding the discussion in a larger context, don't you see? Abductive (reasoning) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)