Talk:Online creation/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Online Creation: Original Research?

Hi.

I'm currently investigating whether this article conforms with Wikipedia's content policies. In particular, what I am questioning is whether the term "online creation" is a recognized concept deserving of an encyclopedic article exists.

To clarify, it's clear that there are MUDs and programs that allow what is described herein as "online creation." What's not clear is that any reliable source has used that term. My worry is that describing the term as a concept unto itself, in the way this article does, violates Wikipedia's core content policy on no original research.

It may simply be that I'm unfamiliar with the literature in this area. If so, then the problem is merely that this article doesn't cite its sources. If one of the editors familiar with the article could discuss those sources here, that would be great. Otherwise, I plan on nominating this article for deletion, since it seems that most of the material in it would be better covered in other articles (such as those on MUDs).


Regards, Nandesuka 13:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'online creation' is used all over. It's more commonly referred to by the acronym 'OLC', though. Google for +MUD +OLC and you should find a whole raft of stuff. I've never been sure that the concept really deserves an article all to itself, though. A mention in MUD and in the articles on codebases that are particularly known for this (such as TinyMUD) would be sufficient IMO. Ehheh 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Super. That's a relief. Could I trouble you to perhaps find what you'd consider to be the best (meaning "from the most reliable source") citation, for use in the article lead? That would assuage my concerns. Nandesuka 14:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Most of the definitions of the term are just from various internet documents. Self published guides, FAQs, etc. The best source for a mention of the term, though, would be Raph Koster here, or this, from the Journal of Virtual Environments out of Brandeis. Ehheh 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You know that isn't a reliable source. There are numerous other publications, try the 'papers' section at [1] Research archive or [2] Denambren 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you're going to get consensus that Herb's personal site constitutes a reliable source. Ehheh 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This article survived the process in Feb '04 back when it was just a NiMUD ad [3] that backdated its release date by 2 years (created by Herb as a supporting article for NiMUD which itself had the same problem). Here is the discussion page before it finished (tied 2:2, with nomination plus 1 vote to delete, and Herb plus 1 vote to keep oops, it looked like it was tied 2:2 to the unwitting admin who didn't watch for problem users back then... but actually was 2:1 in favor of Delete, with Herb being the sole Keep). Later in Feb '06 it was nominated again here, where again it's tied, with some sock puppets this time. On both of them, discussion included Herb, and outsiders assumed that the whole problem was based on Herb rather than it just being a pointless article to begin with. Thus most of the keep votes were an attempt to take a stand against ad hominem stuff, and likely didn't even look at the article itself. I support deletion, and suggest that if you write a nomination, just describe the article, as it's really worthy of existing on its own. Internet and single player games that include worlds/rooms/areas/some concept of space/realms/domains/etc in them have often had the ability to edit the data without having to restart or recompile the game; it's nothing quite as revolutionary or even noteworthy as what is described here and elsewhere. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is Herb? Denambren 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Herb is a problem user that is trying to get indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. For over two years, he has edited things via a multitude of sock puppets, even during his temporary bans. Currently, there is a temporary ban applicable to him today, and violating it via a sock puppet is grounds for extending his ban indefinitely. Anyway, he reveals his identities by doing things like refer to his own personal web site as a reliable source, and endlessly asking which of his identities have been revealed so far at every mention of his name. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're asking about the link in my above message to the votes, Ebube_dike is Herb; that identity is the one that deleted AfD discussion [4] about his own article, and then later in a later edit [5] deleted someone's Keep vote for his enemy's article (he dislikes the author of the mud trees article, because he wrote something similar to "OLC" on his own, thus Herb wanting to delete articles he contributes to), and put words into the mouth of Zanimum, a random person with a good reputation who didn't actually vote (oops, the first AfD was 2:1... 2 delete vs Herb's 1 keep plus Herb's fake 2nd keep, I wouldn't have noticed that myself except that you asked who Herb is). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Denambren, don't worry about Herb. He's not anyone important. Nandesuka 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, with relevance to the article and from what I've read on [6], it seems Herb is a co-writer of a widely derived, advanced OLC which seems to be the first thing officially called "OLC" -- from what I can tell, it was around the emergence of the term (based on the other OLCs being released in late 1993). It's sad that one of the authors died. Denambren 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
In reality, Herb was co-writer of The Isles/NiMUD. He was not involved with the first thing called "OLC", and NiMUD did not predate anything that was released in 1993, as shown in the talk archives at the top of this page, since it was released in mid-1994. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Preparing for a rewrite

Right now this article is mostly a laundry list of various MUDs (notable and non-notable) that allegedly provide online creation tools. I think that's a mistake. When I have time, I plan on reworking this to focus more clearly on the topic of "online creation," and reducing the listcruft. I've gone ahead and nuked the command lists already, since they add nothing useful to the topic for the new reader. Nandesuka 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article by paring it to the bare essentials. Feel free to re-add in (or better yet, write new text) if you think I've chopped too much, but please try to keep from going back to "let's discuss every obscure MUD ever made in upsetting levels of detail." Nandesuka 20:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
While I still think that this is not particularly noteworthy to begin with (editing external data files via the same program which uses the data), this article has had a drastic swing in quality level with your one edit. Good job! Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Radical proposal: rename this article to "Monster (MUD)". Redirect "Online creation" to that article title.
Thoughts? Nandesuka 12:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems slighted toward "Monster (MUD)" why not create article "Monster (MUD)" and then create a seperate article "online creation" 24.131.64.194 23:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created Monster (MUD) and redirected it here. Thanks for the suggestion, Anonymous User! Nandesuka 23:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I assume sarcasm was intended here, since that's very different than what was suggested. It seems to me like the suggested idea would be more widely supported. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Jlambert, you indicated in your edit summary that you'd explain why you reverted my changes on the talk page, but I haven't yet seen the explanation. Can you explain? While reasonable people can disagree about which MUDs should be listed, I specifically don't understand how the command lists add anything to the article. Can you elaborate? Thanks. Nandesuka 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna try to answer both your questions at the same time. I kinda read the edit summary in a different way, Explain intention on talk page. could mean "I explain..." or "I would like for you to please explain...". I can't speak for Jlambert as to which one it is, or if it's some other third meaning that I didn't think of. I also can't speak for Nandesuka when I offer a guess as what his intentions are beyond what is written above... I think that Nandesuka did the reduction because the article was primarily about what command is in each of a certain list of OLC systems. As a result, it was basically a FAQ for each OLC system compiled together and not something that seemed really general-encyclopedia-ish, but perhaps maybe alright on a MUD or computer gaming focused Wikia project and linked to from here. Personally, I don't know if an article about OLC really offers anything at all, since I think programs changing a database and using it at the same time is really nothing particularly revolutionary. On a per-program level it could be considered an accomplishment as it might require stuff to be rewritten, but the concept itself doesn't seem like such a big deal. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I wanted you to explain what you are rewriting. All you've done is delete information. You haven't added new information nor have you rewritten anything. I suggest you download the article and actually rewrite it. Jlambert 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I have deleted information on tangential information that would serve to confuse the reader. Knowing what to cut out of an article is an important part of editing. Do you really think that any readers are interested in reading excerpts from help files? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you? Nandesuka 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Please prepare a rewrite which includes information already sourced in this article. Mass deletions of information in NOT A REWRITE.
I'm not going to edit war over this, but I will post an RFC inviting other editors to look at the article. The information I am deleting is, frankly, trivia, and not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Can you please explain why you believe the material in question is valuable? What purpose does it serve? Nandesuka 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important. More important to than the plot of South Park episodes and more important than the Brittany Spears discography. If you want to rewrite it then REWRITE it. Mass deletion is NOT a REWRITE. Frankly I'm of several minds. 1) I spent many hours researching it, and to have some goober just delete it because it don't interest them is crap. 2) I recognize than mud history is a rather esoteric subject, and is probably better preserved by people who give a shit about it than wikipedians. Jlambert 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And thirdly if your deletions are in any way motivated by ensuring NiMUD and Locke are not mentioned then you had better reconsider that. I had to revert your editting out of their names a few weeks ago, and it seemed to me to be retaliatory as you did not edit out others names. Jlambert 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am refering to thi edit[[7]] above. Jlambert 23:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
And fourthly, if you'd rather nominate the page for deletion, I'd rather fo along with that than to preserve a page that has been completely denuded of all information related to the subject matter. Jlambert 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
First off, please moderate your tone. Disagreement over the subject matter does not give you license to be rude.
I understand that you may feel strongly about content you've created, but the nature of Wikipedia is that none of us own the submissions we make. Everything here can — and will — be edited without mercy.
The relevant question is not whether the material interest me, but whether it would interest the readers of a general-purpose encyclopedia. It seems to me that some of this material, however long you spent researching it, is simply too trivial to include. That's only my opinion, of course, but I did discuss my edits on the talk page here, and at least one other regular editor of the page felt that my edits substantially improved the article. I think you need to sit back and look at these laundry lists dispassionately. I think if you do, you'll see that they substantially damage the quality of the article. What you call "mass deletion" I call "throwing out the chaff and preserving the wheat." Hope that helps. Nandesuka 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm on the fence about some of the prose, but I strongly agree that the command lists add nothing and should be removed. Ehheh 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the pre-culling to now this is now a tighter, more readable article. When a person who is not deeply enmeshed in the MUD world comes to this page, they get a digestable summary of the topic. This does not mean that there are not people for whom the over-detailed version was useful, simply that this is not the audience that we write for. There may be some scope for adding a précis of the removed information. - brenneman {L} 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Readable? How about accuracy? The term "crafting" does not appear in the original article, the paragraph entitled Online Creation vs. Crafting does not even make a comparison. Did you even read the edit!! Short and tight? How about illiterate, made up, and nonsense. Reverting. Jlambert 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've rolled back to the shorter version, a slightly more provocative edit than I would normally make. The growing consensus on this page supports a more concisely written article. - brenneman {L} 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The consensus may be shorter, but no explanation whatsoever has been given for the made up terms the user added to the article. If the user cannot edit the article without inserting unsourced terminology then maybe someone else (i.e. knowledgable) should attempt the edit. I understand from the edits (see above) that user has a grudge against Locke and is determined to excise all information IRT NiMUD from the article. Also NOTE the user editted the article to state that the information would be found elsewhere (i.e. DikuMud, MercMud, TinyMud) but is apparently to lazy to be bothered with actually moving said information there. So what is the purpose of deleting the information. Note there is no rewrite, just... well vandalism. Which is ironic. Jlambert 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked you several times now to identify which information, precisely, you feel was essential to the understanding of the topic that I removed. It would be helpful to everyone if you could please do so, with a level of precision greater than "all of it." In order to evaluate your claim that "information has been removed" we need to understand not only what that information is, but its relevance and importance to the subject. Thanks. Nandesuka 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the information you deleted. The article no longer contains the command lists, but as several people have pointed out, you have not justified deleting information concerning LPmud and DikuMuds. Now if you'd like to rework the information to present it more effectively then do so. I ask you not to gratuitously delete information. Rewrite and summarize if you want. I have no clue where you are going with prevalence section. As far as I'm concerned you could have included any number of pointless and useless quotes like say "A stitch in time saves nine". Nevertheless I left your, IMNSHO, abstract nonsense in the article in order to let you develop it. Jlambert 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As a mud coder (LP style), I agree that excising the command lists was a necessary step for this article (I've been looking for a place to direct wizard (MUD)). But as it stands currently, it's too focused on Monster, which could be alleviated by a bit more comparison of abilities, instead of command lists, for online coding. But sourcing that will be tricky. -- nae'blis 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Nanduska's talk page on my watch list - I consider his edits to be hugely beneficial. JBKramer 20:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Further rewrite directions

Here's where I plan to take the article. Speak up if you object, or if you think I'm headed in the right direction.

The interesting material here is what online creation abilities existed, and how they are distinguished from each other. That material should be enhanced and elaborated on. Uninteresting material includes personal details on the authors of every MUD-like system ever written, release dates, and quotes from USEnet postings. In other words, the current article's focus on the minutiae of which distributions influenced which other distributions is completely boring to most readers.

In other words, the current hybrid article spends too much time talking about who and when and nearly no time at all talking about what. I think we should fix that. I think every "who" in the article that isn't notable should be eliminated without mercy.

I also think the breaking up of the article into 784,348,232 subsections, one for each MUD, makes it both harder to read and less useful. Nandesuka 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the authorship details don't belong here, but when a particular codebase is mentioned by name, I think the release date is helpful, so the reader can easily verify that the code's place in the chronology of OLC is in fact what the article says it is. Ehheh 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The excised command information contained a good deal about "what". I completely disagree with removal of author's names. I agree with the amount..rather the exactitude of the dating is not necessary. Jlambert 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, but we should make sure not to overdo it. For example:

The first publicly available on-line creation add-on for Dikumud was written by Dan Brumleve (aka Acidion/Jhalavar) for Armageddon MUD in April 92[10] and released in June 92[11]

Could be rewritten as:

The first publically available online creation add-on for Dikumud was released in 1992[11].

I think we have too much detail on the dates specifically because certain parties have used this article as part of a pissing match to stake a claim that their particular implementation of OLC was "the first." The result is that we have all sorts of unnecessary detail about all of these dates. Do we care that Brumleve implemented this in April, not June? Is there a notable controversy surrounding it? If not, just say "1992" and be done with it. If there is a notable controversy, then maybe we go into more detail, if we can explain to the reader why that is important. For the specific case where a reader cares about the exact release date, they can look to the citation for the fine details.Nandesuka 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can agree with that. And now that this page doesn't have a daily argument about OLC authors stealing/deriving code from each other, we can get by without so throughly errorproofing the article. Ehheh 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"Do we care that Brumleve implemented this in April, not June?" Nope we don't care. We do care that you keep the author of the code's name. It didn't develop itself. They don't strike the writers of Brittney Spears tunes on her discography and they don't strike the writers of South Park episodes, and noone has excised Einstein's name from the page on the theory of relativity. Jlambert 17:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"As Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopedia, it strives to contain only material that it is reasonable to believe that others, outside of any given Wiki editor's regular personal sphere of contacts and associates, might want to know..." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What is the benefit to the reader of listing every author of every MUD that has had an online creation feature? Please be specific. Nandesuka 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's possible to be pretty inclusive without listing every MUD. I think it should have some info about interesting features without having a laundry list or big table with checkmarks or anything like that. A noteworthy amount of MUDs seem to be based on Diku, so it seems to me like it'd be noteworthy to explain what got added to it in at least some of the various forks that people have distributed. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is from DikuMUD: Diku's source code was released in 1991 and became the "source" of one of the largest trees of derived code from a MUD-like source code package. It has been the basis of a vast number of MUDs, including AlexMUD, Eris, GrimneMUD, MUME, and Sequent, as well as a number of offspring MUD engines such as CircleMUD, Merc, SillyMUD, and SMAUG. ...that is all that its article says about the post-last-release development right now, some stuff here could be moved to there. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well instead of mass deleting the command lists, perhaps you ought to have summarized them in prose. So now the article don't contain enough "what", and according to you, too much "who" and "when". I already lodged my objection to deleting the authors of the software and gave the reasons. The burden is on you to provide examples on Wikipedia where books, songs, art and software do not have their creators properly credited and attributed. As a matter of fact you've added three names to this article, Keegan, Koster and Bartle. Why? Because you are supposed to properly credit and attribute sources. So which OLC software are YOU going to provide the "what" for? Which one do you know enough about to do so? Jlambert 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't "summarize the command lists in prose" because they didn't add anything useful to the article. Regarding your other point, fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't rely on experts, but on third-party reliable sources. If there are no third-party reliable sources discussing ObscuroMUD, then we shouldn't have anything about ObscuroMUD. Nandesuka 03:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well after I added the command lists, I then when back and started to summarize them. Go back in the history and look at the Monster entry. In fact that's just the information you happened to keep on Monster. QV. Now if you've a problem with sources use those tag thingies in the article to indicate them. If you don't know the "what", then how are you going to edit the article. I've already commented on subject matter experts versus no nothing wikipedian issue and got a CIVIL warning. So no further comment. Jlambert 04:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't actually know anything about what I do or do not know about MUDs. The reason you don't know is because I choose not to share it. I choose not to share it because Wikipedia is a tertiary-sourced encyclopedia. Until you understand this, you won't understand why the article is poorly written. Nandesuka 12:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do know that one who would delete information in this article concerning the most popular OLC system in use today from this article either doesn't know much about muds or as I postulated earlier has a grudge against the author of that software. Either the article's topic is completely pointless (deletable) or it is not. If it is not deleteable, the information concerning that OLC IS relevant. Oh yes, the article certainly is poorly written. No argument about that at all. Jlambert 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article certainly was originally written as a vanity puff piece promoting a certain author's obscure software. Fortunately for all of us, none of us own the article, and so it may be edited mercilessly. I raised the issue of deleting it as original research, above, and the consensus of several editors was that, despite the article's tarnished past, the topic of "online creation" is deserving of an article beyond the obscure details of a largely forgotten program. That is where we will be taking this article. Nandesuka 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I know the origins of this article. Please get consensus here before deleting important information from the article. I clearly objected to your deletion of Diku related information and your deletion of authors names. Yet you did the edit anyway. Please explain. Jlambert 18:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting). Sure, I'll explain. There's nothing in the DikuMUD sections that I could find that is notable to the "what" topic of online creation as a whole. What did Diku bring to online creation that didn't exist before? If you can summarize that, then we should add it to the article. A list of "Oh, and here are 20 Diku-derived MUDs that supported online creation' is not helpful: there's already a DikuMUD article, and there's already a MUD tree, and we've already seen that there's consensus here to remove the "list of credits" from the article. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't help. You are the ONLY person who is trying to remove the Diku OLC information. Three people have made suggestions above that included keeping the DikuMUD OLC information. It's rather clear to me that this article does not end in 1990. I have also asked you to provide examples from the Wikipedia encyclopedia where the proper attribution of art, literature, music and software has been excised. I count two for and two against on that issue. That is NOT a consensus. Get your consensus by making a successful argument here. Jlambert 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask again: what, specifically, about the Diku OLC is unique and notable, other than the fact that it exists? I didn't address your earlier examples about Albert Einstein and Britney Spears out of politeness: I thought the analogy was too ridiculous, on its face, to make a fuss about. Nandesuka 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Both Locke and I made both the unique and notable argument above in connection with this article. Jlambert 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that argument anywhere on this page. Can you point it out to me? The only thing I see is "Lots of MUDs are based on Diku," which is certain true, but not really relevant to the topic of online creation as a whole. Nandesuka 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That's your characterization. What has been said by two persons is that the NiMUD/ILAB OLC is the most popular online creation system. It has been incorporated into more muds and is currently the OLC of most muds running. Jlambert 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Got a reliable source for that statement? As near as I can tell, that's simply made up. As made up as the claim that the author of NiMUD invented the Hummer H3. Nandesuka 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For statistics on mud servers running - See [8]and earlier messages with same title. Full disclosure... I'm the researcher. Merc, Envy and ROM-based derived running muds greatly outnumber all other muds running. The OLC used on almost every single one of them is ILAB/OLC and Ivans OLC. BTW, Not a single Monster mud is running. Other than being first conceptually Monster has no further claim to fame. Only one or two TinyMuds are running. Around 80+ Mucks are running. If you don't like the statement "most popular" then you edit the statement. Regardless the OLC is certainly highly significant. Jlambert 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Of note... there are well over 100 SMAUG MUDs running (133 listed on TMC), most of which are using SMAUG OLC, and not ILAB/OLC. --Thoric 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is a pretty close horse race as to which one is most used. While every Smaug Mud has OLC not all Merc, Envy, ROM derived muds are equipped with the Isles/Ilab/Envy/Ivans OLC. Short of logging into each and every one of the and asking whether they've installed it it's impossible to know. Nevertheless Nandesuka stubbornly refuses to include mention of any DikuMUD OLC software on this page. Jlambert 06:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for disclosing that. I think, though, that you need to read WP:NOR. And in any event, the link doesn't work. Nandesuka 00:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The message(s) are machine tabulations I generated from the mud listings at mudconnector.com. I believe the TMC listings qualify as a primary source for currently running muds. Any reasonable person can use the search engine there and manually verify that tabulation. In addition searching the three top three general purpose mud forums (TMC, TMS and MudMagic) for OLC will return more results for the three main Diku OLCs than for any others mentioned in this article. Jlambert 05:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it this "For example, LPMud (1989) tries to avoid the stability risks identified by Bartle by abstracting the system into a virtual machine which is protected from mistakes made in objects written in the game's LPC programming language." even possible given that Dr. Bartle wrote his article long AFTER LPC was developed? Jlambert 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The issues existed before Bartle wrote about them. Ehheh 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The point I was trying to make was neither Pensjo nor Foard read Bartle's advice and apparently solved the problem. Jlambert 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the word 'later' to the passage in question to clarify that the LPMud guys weren't acting based on Bartle's article. Better? Ehheh 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I have added this back into the article under the LPMUD section Jlambert 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

I condensed the Hidden Worlds and NiMUD sections together and rewrote the section. I expanded the WHAT of the Armageddon OLC by summarizing the earlier command list, in the same way I did the Monster entry. I changed the dating to be more generalized. Note that this is not a traumatic excising of important and NOTABLE information. It is a small step at a rewrite. I encourage others to improve the article, and not engage in mass deletion. Jlambert 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. This article appears to lurch from concise to wreckage with very little in between. The state of the article as I write this is woeful: long, unstructured, full of doubtful links. While I support the consensus concise version, I'm sympathetic to the desire for some level of detail. I'm going to revert to a shorter version, and ask that we add information slowly and in a manner that avoids the slow-burn edit warring that I am seeing. - brenneman {L} 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, in the 3 or 4 paragraphs about TheIsles, we learn who wrote it, when it was written, and that lots of MUDs are allegedly "derived" from it. All of that is beside the point (to me). The key question, which is unanswered, is "What does it do that previous OLCs did not?" Can someone answer that, preferably with a citation to a reliable source? Nandesuka 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a small section of that summarized information as per Brenneman's request and Nandesuka immediately deleted it. The user apparently will not allow ANY information whatsoever on DikUMUD OLCs into the article. He is also claiming some sort of genealogical relationship. Jlambert 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Btw Mr. Brenneman - I've asked Nadesuka to explain this edit [9]. I believe it explains the extraordinarily high burden of proof for adding DikUMUD information. The user has a author of OLgrudge against an particular C code. I'm asking him to stand down if he can't edit the article without this sort of blatant personal bias, which is just as offensive as the author who has been vandalizing this page. Jlambert 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sweet bippy, please let f('Mr. B') → 'b'. I'd also suggest that comparing to vandalism an editor's behavior in a content dispute is neither socially acceptable nor a succesful rhetorical approach. That aside, currently I'm struggling. Not only because I am not familiar with the material. (Despite having played AberMUD in monocrome green.) But because I am having a hard time determining what constitute's a "reliable source" here. <GOTO 1000>
brenneman {L} 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why an editor would suddenly appear, edit a page and remove the authors of a single piece of software out of dozens listed on the page? Furthermore delete all such information and sit on the article delete and block the DikuMUD OLC information from being entered on the page? Care to comment on my comment that The Mud Connector listing is a reliable primary source and catalog of muds running today? Do you dispute that there are more DikuMUDS running today than all other muds combined? Second maybe AberMUD means something to you, but since AberMUD does not have anything whatsoever to do with online creation and suddenly appears on this page, perhaps someone, anyone, can tell me why all the prior subject matter experts who have been editing this page completely failed to mention AberMUD on this page? Jlambert 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Because they weren't interested in accuracy? Nandesuka 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There were too many issues in that edit for me to respond to meaningfully. I've got no stance on AberMUD, I mentioned in to demonstrate that I have at best passing familarity with this subject. I have more that a passign familarity with the guidelines of reliable sources, and am happy to talk about that. <GOTO 1000>
    brenneman {L} 05:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Next phase: non-MUD OLC's

Title says it all. If you have any reliable sources discussing online creation enabled games that are not based on "MUD" (or MUD-derived) code, please list them in this section. Thanks. Nandesuka 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No original research

There is no geneological linkage between DikuMUD and Monster or TinyMUD. See Keegan. I've removed the implied assertion that there is. See the Keegan references. Read Wikepedia original research article, especial the section on promoting personal theories and crank theories. Of course if you can support your geneological theories then explain here and cite references here. Until such time as you can I ask you not remove the DikuMUD OLC information. Jlambert 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Keegan says that both Tiny and Diku were influenced ('Grafted,' in his terminology) by AberMUD. Ehheh 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. However the article suggests that all OLCs are descendents of Monster. Clearly not. They were developed independently. AberMUD had no OLC. DikuMud is not a TinyMUD descendent. Jlambert 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
TinyMUD's author acknowledges that he was borrowing ideas from Monster. Locke has said several times that NiMUD's OLC was borrowing ideas from PennMUSH. That seems like a chain of descent to me. Ehheh 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing in the original release documentation suggesting that. I asked him here to clarify what he meant by the reference. He said later versions got features from PennMush. I would assume he is talking about NIM scripts. I can't find where he has said it anywhere else but here, which is part of the problem. Reliability. I find the comments made at the time of the release much more reliable than the stories told today. Jlambert 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(comment from banned editor deleted).

Thanks for the clarification. Jlambert 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Relevent guideline

1000 I'd like some discussion on if (for example) the ludd.luth.se citation qualifies as reliable sources.
brenneman {L} 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bartle is a recognized expert in his field, but I'd be willing to bet that all the same points are covered in one of his books (such as "Designing Virtual Worlds"). If we can replace the web URL with cites to the book, that would be a good start. Nandesuka 02:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The web page source is two separate posts to RGMD one by Bartle and the other by Kimberly M. Antell. Bartle's post solely discusses his M.U.D. and nothing germain to this article. Jlambert 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Commented out source

I've commented out one reference. It did not adress the material of the article as I understand it.
brenneman {L} 09:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Jlambert 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Section title "Descendants and Imitators"

(comment from banned editor deleted)

I agree. Jlambert 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "descendants and imitators" is taken from one of the sources cited. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? Jlambert 14:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello? Jlambert 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Cannot find "descendents and imitators" in Keegan as you cited in your edit revert. Since I can't revert the nonsense headings as I'm at 3RR. I also can't find any support whatsoever for "popularity spreads" either. This appears to be an unsourced opinion. Jlambert 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed it in a way that I think makes it imply less than it previously did regarding things being based on or inspired by each other (see some of my earlier comments along the same lines). Please discuss it here if there is any disagreement regarding this. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

MMORPGS

  • All MMORPGS are muds. see Designing Virtual Worlds, Bartle 2003 - also see Mud-Dev FAQ, 1996-2005
  • Tale of the Desert is not a notable MUD. Hundreds of muds before it allowed players to create items.
  • You might also see the MMORPG page on this Wiki which sources MUD as the first MMORPG.

Jlambert 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The MMORPG article very clearly states that the first MMORPGS have their origins in MUDs. That is a very different statement from "all MMORPGS are MUDs". The difference is that the former statement is true, and the latter statement is false. Nandesuka 02:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If it makes you happy, I'd accept changing the title of "Post Text-based MUD".
Accepting for the sake of argument your claim that an MMORPG is a MUD, I simply disagree with you about ATITD not being notable. Based solely on the number of google hits and reviews of it in mainstream publications it's more notable than nearly every other program listed in the article. Nandesuka 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources going either way on the question "Are MUDs MMORPGs?", and the MUD article itself talks about this question being somewhat controversial. That implies that in this article we should try to avoid taking a stance on that question either way (since it is tangential). Therefore, I'm happy with "Post Text-based MUD" for now. Nandesuka 02:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For Tomorrow

I'm near 3RR for today, so I'll leave off for now, but this is the material I was trying to insert that Jlambert seems to feel is inappropriate. I apologize for only finding a cite to the Wall Street Journal — I guess that's not as reliable source as a 15 year old USENET posting.

Post Text-based MUD

Online creation does not only exist in the text-based MUD context. For example, A Tale in the Desert is a massively-multiplayer online role-playing game[1]. From within the game's client, players can engage in certain limited forms of creation (such as the development of fireworks, sculptures, or games for other players to play).[2]. Similarly, Second Life is a 3-D virtual world which provides its users with tools to modify the game world and participate in an economy, trading user content created via online creation for virtual currency.[3]

If some other editor thinks that this would be a good addition to the article, please be my guest and add it. Nandesuka

Seems good to me! I added it. Ehheh 02:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Isles OLC is not based on Merc

It's not based on it, it's written for it. It was incorporated into its successor package, Envy. Get it right. Fascisti 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've made a mistake. I apologise without prevarication, I confused User:Jlambert and User:Jaiwills. That conflation combined with the very small three minute window between the block and the first edits by this account led me to block in haste. I shall log off and meditate on the error of my ways. - brenneman {L} 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe both Nandesuka and yourself should be less quick on the draw, specially the fascist hair trigger censoring on the talk page. He reverted comments I added to this talk page. Fair warning. I'm going to cast summon subject matter experts on this article. So you should consider unprotecting it. Jlambert 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you make sure that your subject matter expects have the "Cite reliable sources" spell memorized, because otherwise other editors are likely to cast "Dispel Original Research." Nandesuka 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why bother?

Why bother? I found out about this page from mudbytes.net and got blocked immediately. 70.5.70.90 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You aren't blocked, or you wouldn't be able to post on the talk page. The article is protected against edits by very new users, because there have been some problems with one ill-behaved user using multiple accounts to evade blocks. Ehheh 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Freedom of speech. 70.5.8.18 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to participate here except Herb, who gave up his privileges by committing egregious and long-running fraud. If you're not Herb, welcome. If you're from mudbytes.net, I'm sure you understand this -- he was apparently blocked from there for unacceptable and shameful behavior, as well. Nandesuka 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really sure what "shameful behavior" is, other than to say that from our standpoint on mudbytes, Samson was a bit overbearing when it came to his scrutiny of Locke's emails. As for "long-running fraud" I am not exactly certain what you mean, but you are certainly a person who is quick to judge other people and not very understanding of the way Wikipedia works. 70.5.8.18 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Locke's long-running fraud is quite well documented, and quite outrageous. We let him get away with it for over six months, mostly, I suspect, because no one realized just to what lengths he was willing to lower himself. Judging him after six months of deception and fraud is not exactly "quick". In any event, it's over now, since both his methods and his goals are transparent. Nandesuka 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mudconnect.com link and primary sources

I've removed three references because they aren't acceptable.

First, I've removed the reference to mudconnector.com because it has not been accessible for the entire time that it has been on this page (the home page just gives a message saying "You have reached a section of mudconnect.com which is off limits.")

I don't get that message at all. Anyone else besides N. get it? Jlambert 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Second, I removed the comments about Dan Brumleve and H. Gilliland (again), because those aren't references, they're just unsourced assertions. In both cases, the actual information (who and when wrote them) is in the google groups link given in the following reference. I'll rewrite those references apropriately, but putting htem on their own line is just goofy. Nandesuka 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper attribution of published works IS Wikipedia policy. In spite your blatant personal bias against properly atrributing works apparently ONLY related to Diku, I will continue to add them back. Your choice is whether the attributions occur within the text proper as in the TinyMud and Monster attributions or outside the text in references. Jlambert 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. On a related note, I am still uncomfortable with using USENET postings as if they are reliable sources. Basically, if no one meaningful has written about Armageddon or NiMUD, then they shouldn't be discussed in Wikipedia at all. A while ago I asked for meaningful citations for "online creation" as a term, and sure enough we managed to get some, proving me wrong. Now I'd like to do the same for Armageddon and NiMUD. Can anyone find a discussion of these systems in a reliable source? Nandesuka 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with the DONE? You apparently waited only 4 minutes after beginning this discussion to conclude it. While I do monitor the page, I think you should wait a hell of a lot longer for discussion and consensus. I have asked you multiple times to provide examples in Wikipedia where works are not properly attributed. Jlambert 21:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the consensus on this page fairly firmly supports the proposition that my edits improve the article. The only people who disagree seem to be you and Herb's 8000 sockpuppets. That's not a carte blanche for me to do whatever I want and expect to not be challenged, but I think it shifts the burden of proof back to you. This article has been a sewer of vanity, original research, and POV pushing since it was created. Now it's not. I don't think we should let it become a sewer again. Nandesuka 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it does shift the burden of proof, I think that both of you have the same responsibility to get consensus before doing edits. I think that most of your edits have improved it, but not necessarily all of them, and I don't have time or interest to list out each one and rank it. Both of you are pretty reasonable people as far as I can tell, so it seems pretty reasonable to expect that each of you can fairly easily get agreement from the other. As far as the quality of the article goes, I still think it's very low. I suggested breaking it up quite a while ago with this article to have general info and another article to have MUD-specific info, etc, so that different types can be discussed at different levels. But there was consensus to keep it as one article instead with MUD systems here and other systems in a separate article (I think the Post Text-based MUD section seems to go completely against consensus for example). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I was finally able to get through mudconnect.com today. As near as I can tell, it does not support the statement that it was cited to support ("TheIsles OLC is widely used today") without engaging in original research. Perhaps if you could provide a cite to a reliable source that states that, that would help. Nandesuka 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This was already discussed above. If you prefer you might link to my automatic tabulations of the listing as published repeatedly on the sites message board under the title "TMC List Stats" that I linked to in the above discussion. Jlambert 21:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer that you do no original research whatsoever — which includes analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position, such as you're doing here by synthesizing the mudconnect data and making judgments based on it. Find a reliable source that describes TheIsles as being "widely used," or don't include such analysis at all. Wikipedia is not the place or you to advance your novel theories and analyses. Nandesuka 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
First, original research does not include trivial tabulations which can also be done manually per the WP:NOR link. Secondly, it says the TheIsles OLC is widely used NOT TheIsles. You've removed all information in the article that refered to the direct derivatives, so I will be inserting it again if your standard is how many links you can find. Thirdly, you've yet to defend your title "Popularity Spreads" with even an attenpt to cite a reference. There are not multiple standards here. One for properly attributing TinyMUD and Monster and another for NOT properly attributing Armageddon OLC and TheIsles OLC. Nor for citing and defending a Bartle USENET post and questioning a Brumleve USENET post. Nor for the ridiculous assertion that FIRST is notable, because a MUD has graphics it's somehow different and notable, and yet the OLCs used on the most popular muds today are NOT notable. A strong bias on your part as I've alleged and again strongly indicated by your excising proper attribution of selected software from the article and leaving proper attribution of other software in the article. Jlambert 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask this question directly. What part of "WP:NOR includes analysis of...data" is unclear to you? WP:NOR certainly does include "trivial tabulations." If they're that trivial, find a reliable source that has done the tabulation for you. Wikipedia absolutely does not permit original research. This is one of the core pillars underlying the entire project. Nandesuka 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I contend it's a tabulation and it quite clearly is. There is no synthesis or analysis involved in counting the number of muds and their types from the popular source. There are no crank or otherwise outrageous theories being proposed as the WP:NOR is intended to prevent. Jlambert 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As even a cursory reading of the talk page archives here, and of the discussion at mudbytes.net shows, there is significant disagreement over just which MUD OLCs are "derived from" TheIsles OLC. So right off the bat it isn't just "simple tabulation," but synthesis. Second, there's an analysis required to say "many". Many compared to what? If a reliable source says "There are many MUDs derived from TheIsles OLC", then there is no original research problem. If — to make up numbers — User:Jlambert goes and do a "simple tabulation" and finds that there are 100 MUDs active in the world, and 35 of them have OLCs derived from The Isles, and that's "many," there is a huge original research problem. It's a problem because the person making that decision is you, rather than a reliable source.
I'd recommend more than a cursory reading. There was only one user, Locke, claiming that ALL Diku OLCs originated from TheIsles OLC. Noone has disputed that ILAB OLC, EnvyOLC, ROM's OLC, Ivan's OLC are all derivatives of TheIsles OLC. Noone at all. And the references and the documentation supports it. Other than the Armegeddon OLC, two other Diku family OLCs were independently developed, Smaug OLC and Sams/Oasis OLC. Your quote, "There are many MUDs derived from TheIsles OLC", indicates a fundamental misunderstanding. Nobody is claiming that either. Jlambert 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement on TheIsles OLC

Does anyone here other than Nandesuka seriously dispute this statement in the article, "The Isles OLC[11] was released in 1994[12] and its descendents are widely used [13] on Merc derived MUDs today."? Do note that in his arguments above he is arguing against a straw man statements that simply do not appear in the article. Specifically what is in error in the statement above that appears in the article? Jlambert 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The objection I am making is that the cited source at mudconnect does not make the assertion that it is cited as supporting. Nandesuka 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
How about something like 'OLC derived from TheIsles comes preinstalled on MUDS running the Merc and ROM codebases?' Or something like that. We can just avoid the troublesome 'widely used' wording, which I agree isn't supported by a link to mudconnector. Ehheh 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would not suggest that it is preinstalled because that would not be true as there are a number of Merc derives where it is preinstalled and a number where it is a patch. However why is "widely used on Merc derived muds" even objectional or controversial? Jlambert 05:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am including the tabulations in this discussion:

Muds listed at TMC 
            (8/28/6) (8/3/6) (7/10/6) (6/4/6) (5/3/6) (4/2/6) (3/4/6) (1/7/6)
      total - 1535    1779     +5      +19     +22     +31     -154    +42

The classic mud groups
       diku - 771     -176      0      +11     +12     +20     -101    +22
       tiny - 430     -41      +2      +3       +7     +7      -33     +15
         lp - 186     -10      +1       0        0     +2      -11     +1
    unknown - 99      -13      +4      +4       +3      0      -6      +4
      other - 33      -3       -2      +1        0     +1      -2      +1
       aber - 16      -1        0       0        0     +1      -1      -1

The diku mud group
       merc - 504     -42      +2      +12      +9     +12     -79     +14
     circle - 174     -30      -1      -1       +5     +5      -18     +6
       diku - 83      -4       -1       0       -2     +3      -4      +2
      silly - 10       0        0       0        0      0       0       0

The merc mud group
        rom - 227     -56      -5      +6       +1     +4      -28     +6
      smaug - 133     -45      +3      +3       +6     +2      -28     +3
    godwars - 64      -22      +1      +1       +1     +2      -16     +1
       merc - 31      -9       +2       0       +1     +2      -1       0 
       envy - 31      -5       +1      +2        0      0      -4       0
      other - 18      -5        0       0        0     +2      -2      +4

The tiny mud group
       mush - 186     -22      +2      +2       +2     +4      -12     +6
       muck - 87      -8        0       0       +2     +1      -8      +3
        mux - 82      -6        0      +1       +1     +2      -8      +5
        moo - 61      -4        0       0       +2      0      -5      -1  
      other - 14      -1        0       0        0      0       0      +2

The top ten mud codebases
(by TMC category level)
1     LPMud - 186     -10[4]   +1       0        0     +2      -11     +1
2       Rom - 186     -35[1]   -5      +1        0     +3      -18     +7
3      MUSH - 185     -23[2]   +2      +2[3]    +2[2]  +4[2]   -12[3]  +6[3]
4 Circlemud - 173     -30[3]   -1      -1[2]    +5[3]  +5[3]   -18[2]  +6[2]
5     Smaug - 88      -31      +3      +2       +4     +3      -14     +1
6      MUCK - 87      -8        0       0       +2     +1      -8      +3
7       MUX - 82      -6        0      +1       +1     +2      -8[8]   +5[8]
8   Dikumud - 73      -4[9]    -1      +1       -2     +2      -4      +2 
9   GodWars - 64      -22[8]   +1      +1       +1     +2      -16[7]  +1[7]
10      MOO - 61      -4        0       0       +2      0      -5      -1

Of the 353 muds that are ROM, Envy, Godwars derives or Mercs, what other OLCs are they running if not TheIsles OLC derivatives? Or to put it another way of the 504 Merc and Merc derived muds we know for certain that the 133 Smaug muds are running the Smaug OLC, what OLCs are the remaining muds using? Jlambert 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very thoroughly proving my point. Nandesuka 12:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that the GodWars codebase does not have any form of OLC, although many of its derivatives do, including GodWars Deluxe (which I believe uses EnvyOLC, derived from TheIsles OLC). KaVir 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This looks a very complex analysis; are you seriously asserting that it is actually a trivial calculation, along the lines of a simple percentage or addition? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is indeed a simple tabulation. The complete listing rather than the main page can be obtained here [10]. You can use fingers to count if you'd like. I include the whole posting as it is, which just happens to have multiple buckets and includes past history. Jlambert 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be fair to assume that the current state of TMC is pretty close to what it was at the earlier times. If those other columns are older dates, I think it was a mistake to include them; this format really makes it look needlessly complicated. Was that entire table copied and pasted from a page with TMC stats, or put together yourself? Anyway, if I'm reading it correctly, it's saying that there are 31 merc muds listed and 133 smaugs listed. As far as the quote "The Isles OLC[11] was released in 1994[12] and its descendents are widely used [13] on Merc derived MUDs today.", is fine without the 13 on it. Among Merc derived MUDs that have OLC, it appears that that particular one is fairly widely used, since I'm unaware of what other OLC systems might be popular. There is of course a group of MUDs that don't use any form of OLC and just use external editors, but they aren't a part of this discussion. I don't imagine that anyone would dispute the lack of development with other OLCs, and also don't expect a source to say "other Merc derivatives don't have very much going on", so it seems alright without that citation.

I thought the statement was non-controversial without the citation. Jlambert 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll suggest a compromise: replace the word "widely," which is a value judgment, with the word "still," which is a simple verifiable fact. Do that, and there is no original research issue. How dos that sound? Nandesuka 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you were actually arguing the value judgement by providing alternative Merc OLC systems there'd actually be a sound reason for compromise. Few, some, many, most, widely have common sense meanings and are not in general in any way harmful nor even contentious as would be first, last, notable, nonnotable, best, worst and others. No I see no reason to compromise unless the poster has an argument that the observation "widely used" is blatantly fallacious or harmful to the article. Jlambert 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If there's no source for the claim that something is "widely used", and it is challenged, then you must provide a proper citation, per WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of the "verify source" tag

Jlambert, please stop abusing the {{citationneeded}} and {{verify source}} tags. Your use of the latter is particularly troubling since as near as I can tell in every place where you put it, simply following the provided reference would lead you to a statement equivelent to what was in the article. To pick just one example, you placed a verify source next to this statement:

As time went on, and TinyMUD gained popularity, some of the functionality that was deliberately left out was reinvented. <ref>[http://www.ludd.luth.se/mud/aber/mud-history.html ludd.luth.se] MUD history</ref>{{Verify source}}

Going to the provided reference shows a direct quote from Aspnes saying:

The basic idea was to include the minimal object-creation and locking features of Monster without throwing in all the hairy stuff. Since then a lot of the hairy stuff has been reinvented. It might be interesting to go back and look at the Monster docs and see how much of its functionality eventually showed up in TinyMUD.

If you have serious good-faith doubts about these sources, please discuss them on the talk page rather than littering the article with tags. And please perform due diligence and actually read the sources you are questioning. It will save everyone a lot of time. Nandesuka 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That reliability of the ludd.luth.se source has been questioned under the "Reliable sources" heading on this talk page. I marked it with the "verify source" tag per recommendations of proper tag use under WP:CITE. Jlambert 19:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:RS as a recognized expert Bartle's self published writings can be used as sources, with the caveat that we should be careful because they haven't been subject to fact checking. Did he get the facts of the matter wrong? Ehheh 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Bartle did not write it. It's clearly a USENET posting by someone named Kimberly Artell<sp) Jlambert 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't realize there were two different posts on the same page. Ehheh 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

COncerning the 3 tags in the article currently. Please provide the source for the statements "The first publicly available..." Sources cited do not state that. "Some research" - What research? Please provide the reasoning for accepting a forum post as a reliable source. Jlambert 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The full sentence was "Some research is cited in the article". That article would be the article in The Guardian. That would be the daily British newspaper. You might want to read the article that we cited before asking for a citation. Nandesuka 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have read the article. The article does not point to any research whatsoever relating to online creation in muds, mmorpgs, or virtual worlds. Instead it refers to wikipedia, yahoo fora, youtube uploads, etcetera. You are performing original research with your synthesis by linking any of that research to this article even by stating "some research" when there is none. Analogy follows: Research on pigs and mice is not research on humans. Maybe some medical professional is equipped to make an interspecies correlation based on research or knowledge, but you aren't, and more importantly neither does the article. Jlambert 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comments made it evident that you didn't read the reference, since its citations are perfectly clear. Nandesuka 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the statement. It would be obvious from the specifics I mentioned that I have read the article. So in response to your blatant insult, fuck you too. Jlambert 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there an online source for that specific article? I didn't see it when I checked, but I might have missed it. And please avoid further egregious violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg: here.
Jlambert: Your language is absolutely unacceptable. Please apologize. Nandesuka 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your new source "www.mmorpgdot.com" is not a reliable source either. It is yet another game forum/fanzine article site, no greater or lesser in reliability than any other mud sites with forums and articles nor any greater or lesser than references to usenet posting of articles in the pre web fora era. See WP:CITE reliable sources. No double standards. Jlambert 04:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; MMORPGDot is a well-respected source. To use the google test, there are about 593 hits for "mudbytes.net" and 49,000 for MMORPGdot, which is a subsidiary of RPGDot for which there are 268,000 hits. That's a fairly start difference. There's not a "double standard" here, there's a single standard: the sources you are citing are obscure, and the sources I am citing are not. If you really want to make an issue of it, I encourage you to file a content RFC. Nandesuka 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the "google hit count test" for the reliability of sources. Is there a Wikipedia policy statement on it? Common sense tells me that there is no correlation between the hit count of a site and the reliability of the information on it. Jlambert 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is not "many google hits makes a site reliable." My point is that your argument "RPGDot, a widely-referred to and respected news site, is just like mudbytes.net, a fairly obscure internet forum" is false on its very face. Nandesuka 20:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
--All of the aforementioned sites (mudbytes, rpgdot) are rather recent additions to the Web, and are not established as being leaders of their respective niches. 68.246.92.133 09:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Graphical muds are far more popular than text muds. Logically fanbois sites of graphical muds have higher google hit counts than fanbois text mud sites. I take it that there is indeed no Wikipedia "google hit count test" policy for source reliabilty. Jlambert 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be silly to have as a policy, there are however suggestions along those lines, for borderline stuff. As an aside, I'd be curious if the Chinese wikipedia has arguments over that guy standing in front of the tank is notable, since it'd fail the google test. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

At what point does one assume bad faith?

Once again Nandesuka has removed the attributions to the Armageddon OLC and Diku OLC for probabaly the 6th or 7th time. I've lost count. He disguised the edit when reverted the the original request for citations. These are exact tactics used by Locke used by labeling an edit as something else while reverting his software dates. Jlambert 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe I am acting in bad faith, I absolutely encourage you to file a user conduct RfC. I personally would characterize this as a straightforward content dispute. Nandesuka 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your continual removal and attempt at hiding said removal of specific references on the page that properly attribute the author, title, and publication date of specifc works (and no other), in accordance with with standard academic practices and Wikipedia policy, is in fact tendentious. Clearly an agenda. It's frankly remarkable to me that not one of the reviewers (or friends of your Talk Page) that you summoned to this page has dared to comment on this abomination. Jlambert 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why the removal of the SMAUG online building system?

I don't see the point in removing mention of SMAUG's online building while retaining specific information to TheIsle OLC when a good deal of MUDs use SMAUG OLC. --Thoric 18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The impetus of the recent changes has been to focus the article more on the "What" of OLC rather than the "Who." Can you write something describing the unique features of Smaug OLC, and hopefully point to a reliable source where those are discussed? Thanks. Nandesuka 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The article did contain such information about SMAUG OLC, and the talk archive pages went over it in quite a bit of detail. SMAUG's OLC was somewhat unique in that it brought some of what was previously limited to MUSHes and MOOs to MUDs (specifically the DikuMUDs), and that would be the ability to online edit factors far beyond rooms, objects and mobiles -- to include spells, skills, shops, scripts, class and race attributes as well as system wide parameters and settings. As for a reliable source, how about www.smaug.org? --Thoric 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)