The angst of the week seems to be about Wikipedia chopping articles about MUDs because they lack verifiable sources.
For good or bad, Wikipedia is the animal it is, and its rules can be enforced rather selectively. Somebody seems to have it in for MUD history and they have the rules to back them up. If it wasn’t lack of sources, it would be the “not notable” angle or something else. Go listen to Jason Scott or look up Wikilawyering (and all the “See Also” items listed on that page) to get a feel for what can go astray.
But to moan, “Oh no, we’re going to lose all that history because somebody at Wikipedia is being mean!” seems to be a bit of a cop-out.
If it is important not to lose this history, it is important enough to preserve by other means or in other places. So I have to agree with something I have seen suggested, which is that perhaps something on Wikia would be a better answer.
Yes, not being on Wikipedia is a bummer. Entries won’t ever be top responses on Google. People who go to straight to Wikipedia and look up MUDs won’t find it. But one of the tenets of Wikipedia is to not be an original source of information.
Of course, this new MUD History Wiki could take the stance of being an original source…
are you thinking what I am?
But somebody needs to start up that MUD History Wiki first and announce it so that the people who do really care can help spread the word and help build it up.