Sign in to follow this  
Wossoo

News #70: Wurmpedia Improvements

Recommended Posts

Ok, here's the same bit of constructive criticism that I left in the old Wurmpedia Application thread that has now been deleted: Open registration back up to where anyone can get an editor account just by asking the WM—no applications.

 

I think you mistake me if you believe that I'm against the Wurmpedia Team existing when, in fact, I'm in support of a group that will be working to improve the wiki. However, what I'm against wholeheartedly is the fact that registration is no longer open, which gives the whole Wurmpedia Team an air of exclusivity that attracts people who want a special title and a feeling of superiority. If you open the registration to where anyone can PM you and get an account (like before you became WM) this project will be much more successful.

 

 

This does not appear to be the case. You contradict yourself in your other post here where you say:

 

"Submitting an application does not guarantee acceptance.  Applications will be reviewed by senior staff and you will be notified by the WM if successful."

 

So, which is it?

 

 

Please, no one's deliberately misreading what has been posted. And where has Nazi Germany references and radical free speech references been made? I think you're the one misreading things here.

Take it down a notch. Too much criticism without enough fact or evidence yet to back up concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so instead of criticising a forgone conclusion I am going to make a suggestion.  I would like complete transparency in all applications, acceptances and rejections.  Either:


 


A ) I want a say in who gets to feed me information.  I think all applications should be public and/or voted on in a poll limited to one vote per IP.  This would enable us to avoid the (Im going to call it conspiracies so my post doesn't get deleted) conspiracies regarding the selection process.


 


or


 


B ) All reasons for acceptance / rejection are posted publically under the application in an open forum - so none of this "yeah mate apply, just put your name don't bother filling anything out, I got your app" or "that guy dissed me in a post 2 years ago, 'reject'".


 


This would also help to assuage the "censorship" sentiment that seems a prevalent feeling at the moment


Edited by Nyack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so instead of criticising a forgone conclusion I am going to make a suggestion.  I would like complete transparency in all applications, acceptances and rejections.  Either:

 

A ) I want a say in who gets to feed me information.  I think all applications should be public and/or voted on in a poll limited to one vote per IP.  This would enable us to avoid the (Im going to call it conspiracies so my post doesn't get deleted) conspiracies regarding the selection process.

 

or

 

B ) All reasons for acceptance / rejection are posted publically under the application in an open forum - so none of this "yeah mate apply, just put your name don't bother filling anything out, I got your app" or "that guy dissed me in a post 2 years ago, 'reject'".

 

This would also help to assuage the "censorship" sentiment that seems a prevalent feeling at the moment

 

Since prior warnings and such will be taken into account, I can't see this suggestion working. Just like the GMs don't publicly post every offender that gets banned and why, it would be a violation of an applicant's privacy to post their specific reasons for denial. I'm sure they will be told personally. 

 

It is not in anyone's best interest to overly restrict access to editor accounts. Yes, for the start, there will be a soft cap as stated in the news, but I an assure you we will be eager to remove that cap as soon as possible. Someone who is new to the game may find that they'll be asked to play and experience the game more, just as they would if they applied for a CA position. Someone who has been repeatedly warned and punished for trolling or other offenses may be told to behave themselves and show that they can be trusted with such permission first. Are these not valid reasons?

 

This isn't a popularity club. It's a wiki. I didn't apply to be a WA for the title or the fame and glory, I applied because I wanted to do something constructive for a game that I had been very critical about for quite a long time. I realized that my critical stance was folly, considering that I had done nothing to help with the issues I had complained so much about. I applied because while I had a wiki account, I hadn't used it much because I didn't want to "break" anything. I figured if I applied to be on the team, I'd get the help and guidance needed to be a good editor. That's exactly what has happened, and that's exactly what we're looking forward to do with Editors - new and old.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since prior warnings and such will be taken into account, I can't see this suggestion working. Just like the GMs don't publicly post every offender that gets banned and why, it would be a violation of an applicant's privacy to post their specific reasons for denial. I'm sure they will be told personally. 

 

It is not in anyone's best interest to overly restrict access to editor accounts. Yes, for the start, there will be a soft cap as stated in the news, but I an assure you we will be eager to remove that cap as soon as possible. Someone who is new to the game may find that they'll be asked to play and experience the game more, just as they would if they applied for a CA position. Someone who has been repeatedly warned and punished for trolling or other offenses may be told to behave themselves and show that they can be trusted with such permission first. Are these not valid reasons?

 

This isn't a popularity club. It's a wiki. I didn't apply to be a WA for the title or the fame and glory, I applied because I wanted to do something constructive for a game that I had been very critical about for quite a long time. I realized that my critical stance was folly, considering that I had done nothing to help with the issues I had complained so much about. I applied because while I had a wiki account, I hadn't used it much because I didn't want to "break" anything. I figured if I applied to be on the team, I'd get the help and guidance needed to be a good editor. That's exactly what has happened, and that's exactly what we're looking forward to do with Editors - new and old.

Great minds think alike.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, no one's deliberately misreading what has been posted. And where has Nazi Germany references and radical free speech references been made? I think you're the one misreading things here.

Oh? I don't recall saying Nazi Germany and radical free speech references were made. Might want to reread my comment again, I was referring to doing such myself as Internet discussions on censorship inevitably end up going there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh? I don't recall saying Nazi Germany and radical free speech references were made. Might want to reread my comment again, I was referring to doing such myself as Internet discussions on censorship inevitably end up going there.

 

Ahhh, I see that now. I misread what you said, myself. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yay, Wurmpedia is getting improvements, and here I am... making no improvements...


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yay, Wurmpedia is getting improvements, and here I am... making no improvements...

You have brought shame upon your whole famiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have brought shame upon your whole famiry.

I don't have a family. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated in my PM, I didn't want to see a news thread derail into a discussion about testing things for the Wiki.

 

Now that you're quoting me completely out of context, I'll clarify:

 

I don't think the developers should be forced to spell out how every feature of the game works. That is not the game I started playing some years ago, and not the game I wish to see it become. I don't need a developer to hold my hand, I can sort out mechanics on my own. As for facts, you do not need a developer to provide you with code or specifics on how said code works to discover the facts. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? If not, you should take a look as it's how some of the greatest discoveries in our modern times have been found. In real life, there is no developer passing us information about how things such as gravity works, yet we are able to establish facts just fine.

 

I strongly suggest that people see the Q&A posted by Marni over here, and to keep questions coming.

 

There was nothing out of context in my quote.  It was EXACTLY from your PM to me.  I detest when people quote single words.  While you say you want facts discovered by testing.  I know this game has alot of range in almost everything.  As I have said time and again, that is not something you can prove.  What you can do is get FACTS from devs.  The people that actually program it.  Now they will say but there is a range.  Sure fine.  We all understand and see that.  But the question is, exactly what goes into the decay of a meal.  Does weight affect it? (I have been told it does by Enki)  Does the quality affect it?  We'd all assume it does.  But do we know any of those for facts.  Doubt it.

 

As for comparing this to real life?  If I want real life, I turn the computer off.  Then I have gravity, no unicorns (people they really don't exist), I am not able to cast spells so we can learn things quicker or better (I'd have used it on my kids if I could have.  Hell would use it on myself too)

 

As far as how this affects the wiki.  We had many editors (they are saying 30 active right now) that all contributed to updating the wiki with items that they had found through testing.  Now I might not have agreed with everything that got posted and some things were changed as others found something that might not have agreed with their testing.  That is how I think this should be done.  As for a template, sure make one so they are easier to read.  Take the team and go through and update all of the pages to that particular template.  But you should let people edit it and add things without having to go through hoops to get there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was nothing out of context in my quote.  It was EXACTLY from your PM to me.  I detest when people quote single words.  While you say you want facts discovered by testing.  I know this game has alot of range in almost everything.  As I have said time and again, that is not something you can prove.  What you can do is get FACTS from devs.  The people that actually program it.  Now they will say but there is a range.  Sure fine.  We all understand and see that.  But the question is, exactly what goes into the decay of a meal.  Does weight affect it? (I have been told it does by Enki)  Does the quality affect it?  We'd all assume it does.  But do we know any of those for facts.  Doubt it.

 

As for comparing this to real life?  If I want real life, I turn the computer off.  Then I have gravity, no unicorns (people they really don't exist), I am not able to cast spells so we can learn things quicker or better (I'd have used it on my kids if I could have.  Hell would use it on myself too)

 

As far as how this affects the wiki.  We had many editors (they are saying 30 active right now) that all contributed to updating the wiki with items that they had found through testing.  Now I might not have agreed with everything that got posted and some things were changed as others found something that might not have agreed with their testing.  That is how I think this should be done.  As for a template, sure make one so they are easier to read.  Take the team and go through and update all of the pages to that particular template.  But you should let people edit it and add things without having to go through hoops to get there. 

Been there, done that = current wiki = player complaints.  Time to change the formula a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I'd like to point out that the Wurmpedia staffers in this thread seem to be more interested in telling everyone about their grand plan then they are in listening to what the community desires." (joedobo)


 




Please let me know what you desire. So far all I'm seeing is fear and uncertainty. You have probably been the biggest opposer of any Wurmpedia changes to date yet you've never actually contacted me to discuss or point out where you disagree. Let's talk?




1. I don't like PM's. Anything that needs to be said should be said in front of the community. What -> I want <- is irrelevant. What the majority of the community wants is what you should be addressing.


 


2. "the biggest", hu? I asked the community what they thought of this adventure and most seemed to be for it. After this I haven't said anything about it until this thread. Again, I saw the community commenting on it and I put in my opinion. Also, I made one post in this thread, well this is the second.


 


3. You misunderstand me. I'm not afraid of uncertainty. Again, privileged editors don't need special titles or power over a standard editor to make improvements to the wiki. This power is only needed if it is desired to have some kind of oversight over the wiki.


 


Wurm wiki hasn't needed oversight for 10 years, Wikia's vast collection of game wiki pages doesn't need oversight, Wikipedia doesn't need oversight. The spirit of a wiki is where anyone can contribute. The only time oversight is needed or an admin should step in is when there is malicious edits, vulgar content, or various spamming. imo, under the current wiki plan, admins will have more power then those three items.


 


It is almost as if select folks decided that the community can't agree; therefor, they can never make a quality wiki. Further, so in order make a good wiki we need to shift power into the hands of a few who can impose some conformity. And hopefully this conformity will improve things. 


 


 


 



 


 

 


  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"I'd like to point out that the Wurmpedia staffers in this thread seem to be more interested in telling everyone about their grand plan then they are in listening to what the community desires." (joedobo)

 

1. I don't like PM's. Anything that needs to be said should be said in front of the community. What -> I want <- is irrelevant. What the majority of the community wants is what you should be addressing.

 

2. "the biggest", hu? I asked the community what they thought of this adventure and most seemed to be for it. After this I haven't said anything about it until this thread. Again, I saw the community commenting on it and I put in my opinion. Also, I made one post in this thread, well this is the second.

 

3. You misunderstand me. I'm not afraid of uncertainty. Again, privileged editors don't need special titles or power over a standard editor to make improvements to the wiki. This power is only needed if it is desired to have some kind of oversight over the wiki.

 

Wurm wiki hasn't needed oversight for 10 years, Wikia's vast collection of game wiki pages doesn't need oversight, Wikipedia doesn't need oversight. The spirit of a wiki is where anyone can contribute. The only time oversight is needed or an admin should step in is when there is malicious edits, vulgar content, or various spamming. imo, under the current wiki plan, admins will have more power then those three items.

 

It is almost as if select folks decided that the community can't agree; therefor, they can never make a quality wiki. Further, so in order make a good wiki we need to shift power into the hands of a few who can impose some conformity. And hopefully this conformity will improve things. 

 

 

 

 

 

From what it seems, most people that complain about the wiki complain that it is inaccurate.  You're saying the wiki doesn't need oversight and assistance, however the large majority seems to disagree.  As I said before, this change could be great or it would be bad, only time will tell.  In the meantime, however, spinning every facet of this change into something negative only strengthens the argument that the team should indeed be going forward with this project.  It's hard to appease the beast, some times you just have to do what's best for it and know that it'll understand when the time comes.  Just my opinion of course. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yet the wiki worked fine for years albeit it with wrong information like every other wiki in existence, it got new players the basic information they needed.


 


While trying to be 100% correct in any wiki is beyond a pipe dream, I doubt at times even Rolf knows how each mechanic works after so many years of tweaks.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yet the wiki worked fine for years albeit it with wrong information like every other wiki in existence, it got new players the basic information they needed.

 

While trying to be 100% correct in any wiki is beyond a pipe dream, I doubt at times even Rolf knows how each mechanic works after so many years of tweaks.

Thankfully no one ever said 100% correct.  The wiki is just getting a tune-up. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what it seems, most people that complain about the wiki complain that it is inaccurate.  You're saying the wiki doesn't need oversight and assistance, however the large majority seems to disagree.  As I said before, this change could be great or it would be bad, only time will tell.  In the meantime, however, spinning every facet of this change into something negative only strengthens the argument that the team should indeed be going forward with this project.  It's hard to appease the beast, some times you just have to do what's best for it and know that it'll understand when the time comes.  Just my opinion of course. ;)

I'm just voicing my opinion. Now, why are you trying to argue with me and others also? Can't you just voice your opinion and not get into an argumentative reply war?

 

It seems you don't know me to well. You're not going to change my mind regardless what you write.

 

I'm well aware of what most Wurminians want. It is for that very reason I haven't been saying anything about the wiki. In this case you seemed to have missed the many post by others in this thread who have concerns. I saw others who seemed to feel similar to how I do and I supported them. Your argumentative replies doesn't change my concerns or anyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh id much rather something important be worked on than the wurmpedia  :D


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh id much rather something important be worked on than the wurmpedia  :D

There is something more important than the Wurm Bible?

Blasphemer!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh id much rather something important be worked on than the wurmpedia  :D

The Wiki is very important.  I'm surprised it has taken this long to work on it, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am seeing the application process as a way to get rid of inactive Wiki accounts, (such as mine).  I think it will be better to monitor the accuracy of information to have only the active editors.  Unless someone has been refused an account to edit the wiki lately, I can't see how we can say that the new Wiki team is being biased.  And we have always had a sort of Wiki manager, just not so public.


  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am seeing the application process as a way to get rid of inactive Wiki accounts, (such as mine).  I think it will be better to monitor the accuracy of information to have only the active editors.  Unless someone has been refused an account to edit the wiki lately, I can't see how we can say that the new Wiki team is being biased.  And we have always had a sort of Wiki manager, just not so public.

Thank you for approaching this with optimism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see the structure i proposed inmmy wurmpedia application has been used.

About time something was done about wurmpedia. Not even know how they got convinced to make this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am seeing the application process as a way to get rid of inactive Wiki accounts, (such as mine).  I think it will be better to monitor the accuracy of information to have only the active editors.  Unless someone has been refused an account to edit the wiki lately, I can't see how we can say that the new Wiki team is being biased.  And we have always had a sort of Wiki manager, just not so public.

 

The application process is not a way to get rid of inactive wiki accounts because Marni specifically said in another post here that this was a side effect and not the main reason.

 

See:

So now if I understand this right, this is all just a move to weed out old, inactive accounts with the idea in mind that active players will make an application?

 

That is not 'all' we're trying to accomplish, as you've said; it is however one of the side-effects of what we're trying to do with the new security and groups on the Wurmpedia.

Edited by Laiwyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The application process is not a way to get rid of inactive wiki accounts because Marni specifically said in another post here that this was a side effect and not the main reason.

 

See:

He specifically said that it is a way to weed out inactive accounts moving forward. Lol. That might not be the only reason for the change, but it is definitely one of the reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He specifically said that it is a way to weed out inactive accounts moving forward. Lol. That might not be the only reason for the change, but it is definitely one of the reasons.

 

Choice of words is important, Slickshot. If it was truly one of the reasons Marni would have said so and not referred to it as a "side-effect". Of course, anyone else can come along and say "well, that's not what he meant" so pointing this out may be moot.

 

One last thing I want to point out here is that this Wurmpedia Team will be successful in cleaning up the wiki and will be inevitably praised for it. What many people don't realize, though, is that even if account registrations were left open like before Marni became WM this project would still be just as successful. So when the day comes for the praise about how much better the wiki is in both content and appearance, know that the team's success is not due to the restrictions on editing access or the imposing of a hierarchial power structure but instead because there's a dedicated team behind this. And in the end everyone really needs to ask themselves whether needlessly killing the spirit of the wiki was worth it in order to achieve something that could have been achieved anyway.

Edited by Laiwyn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this