Sign in to follow this  
Wossoo

News #70: Wurmpedia Improvements

Recommended Posts

As we are all still players, I can't expect the developers to give us access to everything. We have some newer resources available to us as a team on Test, so that will help with testing mechanics. Beyond that, I don't think anyone can give you an exact answer right now as the details are still being worked out. 

 

 

First and foremost, Wurmpedia is paid for and hosted by Code Club. So as such if there are any directives that come down from the owner, it will be respected and followed as it always has. That said, there hasn't really been many of those directives. If a new system was launched that was full of mystery, and Rolf had asked the details to be kept vague to give everyone a chance to discover it for themselves, I can't see how we couldn't honor that request. I don't think I entirely understand the rest of your post. Incorrect information, when it has been proven as such by testing and verification from players or Wurmpedia team members, is obviously removed from the Wurmpedia, but nothing is ever fully "removed" from a Wiki. You can still go in and see the historical changes of any page by clicking "History". The meditation answers may be the only exception that I know of to this, which is also the only directive that I know of as well.

 

In a lot of cases, if the information isn't supplied on Wurmpedia, it's because someone hasn't taken the time to do the proper amount of testing to discover it. A great example of the sort of testing we're talking about can be seen here, where Dasfry had been kind enough to test the mechanics of the long spear. This was a bit of an easier test, but it confirmed that a long spear has a longer reach. Now testing what altar types give what gifts is not as easy as poking a horse with a spear, just as the thread Pandalet had made about wood types has gone relatively untouched, simply because it's extremely difficult for one or two people to test all of the possibilities. Yes, we all know what people say about the types of wood, but when was the last time anyone has sat down and made every tool out of cedar, oak, and birch, then tested them all equally over the course of a few hundred actions to see which took the least amount of damage? Or left them on the ground to see which had the least amount of decay? Expand that to furniture, vehicles, and so-on. For something like that, we need several people taking it upon themselves to test the information we've all taken as accurate to see if it truly is that way.

And once one(s) had done all that... wait a year or two (even just a few months) for something to change under the hood.

 

EDIT: For example, I had not heard that putting fuel into a fire container would fuel the fire after the fire damage decay (2011-ish?). Was still operating under the old knowledge that the only way to fuel was thru Burn, and the previous method would just waste potential fuel. Fuel item would simply go poof.

 

And that's how I would explain it to new players as I've done for years ever since I learned that myself. In fact had been telling a player in /ca that just a few days prior to learning otherwise.

http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/126533-fueling-fires-nevermind-ninja-updates/

Though, something else learned over the years is that such is nothing new. I always cringe a little when helping players, little nagging feelings that something may no longer be true. Not to mention if it even never was true, being a result of observational bias or flawed experimentation.

EDIT EDIT: Granted I'm a little annoyed that the players who supposedly knew this, didn't edit the wiki accordingly. Not like it was vital pvp data.

Edited by Klaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you don't want drug tests, background and driving records to join the team.


  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So eh... I'm confused - Will or will not the devs hand over solid information about new features (as well as old) that the Wurmpedia Assistants can put on the wiki? Because a heavily moderated wiki without official information is just as bad as what we've got right now and the Wurmpedia Assistants can't actually correct people if they themselves don't have actual facts to go by.

This statement doesn't make things any less confusing:

All accounts are being disabled and there is an application process to become either a) a non-staff editor or B) a wurm-staff assistant to the manager.

Since the OP states:

The Wurmpedia Editor is a non-staff volunteer position

So basically the Wurmpedia Assistants are exactly the same thing as regular players who edit the wiki? Or will regular players not be able to edit the wiki without having a badge pinned to them?

Don't get me wrong - It would be great if the Wurmpedia assistants fixed the structure of the wiki but I don't see the point to it if the facts are still half-assed and based on bogus rumours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all give it a chance and see how it turns out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked Keenan to post this himself if it was what he truely stood by.  He didn't so I will. This was sent in a PM to me this morning after I made my post.

 

I'd be more than happy to discuss better ways to test things and such on the Wurmpedia section of the forums. My goal is to not clutter that news post with debate on such topics.


I know what you mean though, that unless the Devs give us hard fact, anything we find will have a potential for error. The point of the team is to not delve into the code and post up every equation and mechanic as it is written. It's to provide a standard for what is included in the Wiki and how it is presented. It's still up to players like you and I to discover how these things work.

I don't think I'd like direct word from the Devs, because then whats the point of playing? What we can do is verify our results together. If something seems nearly impossible to verify, that's just as much of a fact as getting the same result from 10 people.
 
As you can see they aren't going to have any more facts and at least he doesn't want to have any.  He wants it to be done the same way it has been done all this time.  If they are not going to do this with facts from the Devs, I don't see the point of having a 'team'  unless it is just to standardize the format.  That is probly the simplest item in the list that I keep hearing.
  •  
  •  
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there are others commenting on wiki, here is my take.


 


I think this whole thing is a mistake. Everything these folks are doing could be done without their special titles. The only thing that has changed is now certain individuals can make changes and not have to worry about other players challenging their opinions.


 


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. Yes, just like all other Wurm "officials" its always what they think is best and the community can either praise it or stfu. Although, there is that rare occasion where large portions of Wurm agree and voice enough opposition that Rolf steps in to grant the communities desire. I don't see him doing that here since It seems most people don't care about the "new wiki" approach.


  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there are others commenting on wiki, here is my take.

 

I think this whole thing is a mistake. Everything these folks are doing could be done without their special titles. The only thing that has changed is now certain individuals can make changes and not have to worry about other players challenging their opinions.

 

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. Yes, just like all other Wurm "officials" its always what they think is best and the community can either praise it or stfu. Although, there is that rare occasion where large portions of Wurm agree and voice enough opposition that Rolf steps in to grant the communities desire. I don't see him doing that here since It seems most people don't care about the "new wiki" approach.

 

I wished more people cared because it's obvious that this power grab by Marni & Co. wasn't done with innocuous intentions. If this was truly about cleaning up the wiki, it could be accomplished amicably and without force. By forcing everyone else out but the select few there's now a situation where the editors aren't free agents anymore and must comply to the team's hierarchy. And I want no part of that mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with all of the tests you are saying that needs to happen. It will still be some bit of speculation.  Only a different person's version of events.  There is so much range in this game as to make many tests end up being just what happens in this instance.  Including laying 3 identical tools on the ground.  I know for a fact I can have 3 identical meals in the same place and they will take damage at different rates.  If Rolf or someone isn't behind the scenes saying this is fact or that is fact, none of means anything more than what has been input into the wiki before this 'team' was put into place.

 

Hence why the Wiki is in the shambles it's in now. For a game like Wurm, absolutes are unreasonable to expect without a cited Word of God. (Rolf) - Tested information will always be argued, thus, always be a theory. (eg. Theory of Relativity.)

 

It's actually why I've avoided putting any input on the Wurmpedia myself. I would honestly be ashamed if it were my Wiki. Wurmpedia is in serious need of a design overhaul.

 

Were I them, I wouldn't even bother mucking about with the permissions and clamping down on how people are allowed to edit. Instead, the first thing I'd do is clean up how unnecessarily repeated/unreasonably segregated the actual useful information is between pages that don't really need to exist. (eg. Preaching, Praying, Faithful, Exorcism, Religion, Gods, Convert, Channeling, Priests) - you'd be surprised how easily they could be turned into 3 pages instead of 9 with some creative use of redirects and headlines.

 

Then I'd test and redesign how the pages look in game. Because they often look awful when translated to the in game Wurmpedia. If pages are required to be segregated for the use of the in-game Wurmpedia, I'd start adding navigation templates at the bottom to give people more links to click on to get more information without having to play the guessing game in the search bar or sub-categories. If you were the Wiki designer. Ask yourself. "How many clicks does it take to get from the Wooden Altar page to Channeling?" - or "How many clicks does it take to get from Channeling to information on my deed's Enchantment Bonus?"

 

After that, I'd implement a citation system for proven information (Anything that Rolf says.) and highlight 'theories' as theories for the unproven information that is widely accepted (Long Spear Tests) and still useful to the community. Then and only then I'd go about cleaning up the obviously outdated/inaccurate information. (Demise spell casting time for instance.)

 

I'd do this myself, but I've read through the Wurmpedia forums, and seen how restrictive things can be. As a result, stubs, dead-end pages and bad information get grandfathered in through fear of vandalism, or the arrogance of the original providers. I've seen it a thousand times on other Wiki's.

 

So... simply put, Wurmpedia's problem isn't a lack of permissions. It's problem is that it drives away potential content providers.

Edited by Dairuka
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you don't want drug tests, background and driving records to join the team.

Only in Eve Online... and ten page essays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the Wurmpedia Assistants are exactly the same thing as regular players who edit the wiki? Or will regular players not be able to edit the wiki without having a badge pinned to them?

 

Editors will be as they were previously, editors.  Assistants will be the assistants to the Manager.  The manager is well.. the Manager.  This is all explained in the OP and also here.

 

Anyone can be an editor, just send an application in and boom, job done (once we've finished with security and admin on the Wurmpedia).

Anyone can apply to be an assistant just with any volunteer role.

 

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.

 

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?

 

I wished more people cared because it's obvious that this power grab by Marni & Co. wasn't done with innocuous intentions. If this was truly about cleaning up the wiki, it could be accomplished amicably and without force. By forcing everyone else out but the select few there's now a situation where the editors aren't free agents anymore and must comply to the team's hierarchy. And I want no part of that mess.

 

Power grab?  Let's not get personal, this has nothing to do with power, this is about me volunteering to help out with the Wurmpedia on a massive scale.  As above, I've seen folk saying 'this is a bad idea', 'this is all about the inner circle', but not one piece of constructive criticism.  Around 3 or 4 appear to have an issue with me, yet I've never actually crossed any of those person's paths.  PM me if you'd like to discuss because I'd hate to think that I've left a bad taste with a few folk before taking this role without even knowing why.

 

...Wurmpedia is in serious need of a design overhaul.

 

Already on it!

 

We have a sandbox where we're testing consolidation of information and new ways to set out the information.  All of these new designs will be put to the public for feedback and opinions.  Some of the other points you raise were also discussed within the team.  Once we get editors on board and some more assistants you will begin seeing more interaction and discussion from the team.

 

Cheers,

Marni

 

P.S. Lots of questions, not enough post space!  See here for some of the more frequently asked question responses.

http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/126742-the-wurmpedia/?p=1305399#entry1305399

Edited by bwg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely post which hopefully will add to the emphasis on my following point.


 


As I see it, Wiki wars is natural way of contesting the given information.


 


You have either:


 


A ) Large volume of testing to prove the mechanics or


B ) Release of mechanics from development


 


Wurmpedia already misleads on numerous subjects, in instances deliberately.  By reducing the number of Editors you are exacerbating the current problems with A) by reducing the quantity of input.  The solution is B ).


 


The crux of the matter is, this change is going to make things worse and I am absolutely astounded it is not obvious to everyone.


Edited by Nyack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to be very clear since it's obvious I've either explained myself in the wrong way or people aren't understanding what I've already said.


 


We are not reducing the number of editors, everyone is welcome to apply for an account.


 


We have redesigned the process for which a player may apply for an account and will be monitoring usage and edits to ensure a better structure and more clear detail on the Wurmpedia.  If you feel that adding in a new process to apply for an editor account is going to make things worse then please do tell me, because I'm oblivious to that.


 


Also, please tell me where you're mislead on the Wurmpedia currently and I'll immediately get to work on correcting it with the team.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the part where I deliberately misread what bwg posted? So as to make Nazi Germany and radical free speech references?

tumblr_inline_mgsan1llgV1qcoa6s.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wiki definately needs an overhaul - as has been pointed out by others, there's way too much duplication of information, with pages that haven't been touched.  The core of the wiki is definately useful, but it needs some clean-up love.  As I've said elsewhere, I certainly don't have enough spare time to make that level of commitment, so power to those who do - I await with interest the new and better-organised wiki bwg and co are working towards, and I wish them well with their herculean task!


 


However, I stand by my earlier point: Wurm suffers from not having properly documented mechanics and features, where said documentation is based on disclosure by the development team instead of speculation and testing by players.  If the wiki management is become more official, that seems like an excellent time to institute an official channel for getting mechanics confirmed by Rolf and buddies.  For anyone who prefers to figure stuff out for themselves in game, nobodies stopping you - you aren't forced to read the documentation!  For those of us who would prefer to use our in-game time in the most efficient fashion, though, properly documented game mechanics are a must.  It'd also make reporting actual bugs instead of misunderstood design a whole lot easier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely post which hopefully will add to the emphasis on my following point.

As I see it, Wiki wars is natural way of contesting the given information.

You have either:

A ) Large volume of testing to prove the mechanics or

B ) Release of mechanics from development

Wurmpedia already misleads on numerous subjects, in instances deliberately. By reducing the number of Editors you are exacerbating the current problems with A) by reducing the quantity of input. The solution is B ).

The crux of the matter is, this change is going to make things worse and I am absolutely astounded it is not obvious to everyone.

The thing is though, less than 30 different people have edited the Wiki since January. There is already a problem with not enough people being around to edit and contribute, I think mostly because the Wiki project had little structure and momentum. We're talking about having upwards of 100 editors, with no reason why we couldn't increase that further at a later date, and with how little the community already contributes to the Wiki I fail to see how any of the improvements to the Wiki are censorship, a power grab or increasing bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to be very clear since it's obvious I've either explained myself in the wrong way or people aren't understanding what I've already said.

 

We are not reducing the number of editors, everyone is welcome to apply for an account.

 

No sorry you misunderstand, it's not that I don't understand what is being said.  It is just I don't believe it.  Simply having a more rigorous application process will reduce the amount of editors.  In any case, Wossoo did specifically state, and I quote: "we will be reducing the number of player accounts...

 

We have redesigned the process for which a player may apply for an account and will be monitoring usage and edits to ensure a better structure and more clear detail on the Wurmpedia.  If you feel that adding in a new process to apply for an editor account is going to make things worse then please do tell me, because I'm oblivious to that.

 

Of course it is going to make it worse, you are attacking the fundamental principles of a wiki, which if you did not know by definition is:

"a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content." 

 

Adding in a new process to apply for an editor account is going to make things worse because by definition it is not longer a wiki it is simply a badly written manual with no input from the developers.  EDIT: This is of course just my opinion not fact, I just think we either need an open wiki as per it's definition or we need a development driven manual of sorts.  The current suggestion just seems like a non-effective middle-ground to me.

 

Also, please tell me where you're mislead on the Wurmpedia currently and I'll immediately get to work on correcting it with the team.

 

I was just referring to Wassoo when he wrote: "Some of the knowledge became lacking substance, mis-informed"  I have noticed this in passing as have many others.  I dont have a specific page in mind, but hopefully the new editors will find these.

Edited by Nyack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Of course it is going to make it worse, you are attacking the fundamental principles of a wiki, which if you did not know by definition is:


"a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content." 





 


Any user could previously edit the Wurmpedia, they just had to apply for an account by contacting Eir then Mama. Now any user may edit the Wurmpedia, they just have to apply for an account by contacting the Wurmpedia Manager. There has been no change there.


 





Adding in a new process to apply for an editor account is going to make things worse because by definition it is not longer a wiki it is simply a badly written manual with no input from the developers. 





 


It's not a new process, it has just been modified.  Previously the Wurmpedia had little to no input from the developers, but as I've stated I intend to work closer to the developers to get some items clarified.  I see that as progress rather than making things worse.


Edited by bwg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all give it a chance and see how it turns out :)

Something dawned on me, this is probably why they don't tell us things. We react poorly to how they poorly inform us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've always reacted well I believe to "actual" information of gameplay, telling us that locking down the wurmpedia but giving out no real info is hardly improving gameplay.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When BWG posts, he makes it seem as if they are going to get some actual FACTS from the developers.  When Keenan talks, he doesn't want facts from them. In other places, BWG says he is testing on the Test Server.  I'd love to see facts.  


 


I understand disabling accounts of people that haven't been active.  They may have even quit the game and not been around forever.  However, you had 30 that were posting since January.  Those 30 had already been approved and now have to get approval again?  If I were the manager, I'd be contacting that group and saying hey we are just making some changes but we'd love to have you continue to do what you do.  Here is your approval ahead of time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though, less than 30 different people have edited the Wiki since January. There is already a problem with not enough people being around to edit and contribute, I think mostly because the Wiki project had little structure and momentum. We're talking about having upwards of 100 editors, with no reason why we couldn't increase that further at a later date, and with how little the community already contributes to the Wiki I fail to see how any of the improvements to the Wiki are censorship, a power grab or increasing bias.

 

So the solution to editors shortage is to remove current editors and make potential editors go trough a new application process? Clever.

 

Its similar to the situation in test server (provided last time I loged was months ago), yeah come too test, but you can't have tools and you can't have more than 70 skill...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of speculation so far, but very few players stepping up to this logically. Sure most of the comments here are picking this change apart and putting it in a negative light, but everyone is failing to account for one very important and undeniable fact: this change hasn't happened yet, so no one knows for sure how well it will work or if it will fail.

Try to approach this with wisdom and logic. Think about it, what's more likely; Wurmpedia will crash and burn, or through success or failure Wurmpedia will evolve and become even better than it already is. As it is now, bwg and company are right, there have been very few edits to the Wiki pages in the last 6 months. This has made the wiki stagnant. The more stagnant it has become, the more players have complained. The more players have complained, the more the staff has been brainstorming ways of shifting the wiki into another gear.

All of this publicity at the moment is going to stir up more proactive testing and information gathering to update the wiki. So while some of the player base is already frustrated - albeit for misguided reasons in my opinion - this change is already serving part of its purpose, and will continue to produce the kind of results that will benefit the player base as a whole.

TL;DR - The wiki is stagnant. News of this change has already sparked new life and motivation into reviving and updating Wurmpedia. Being concerned with the changes is natural, but embracing it and coming forward to help it is much more beneficial to the community as a whole.

Edited by Slickshot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editors will be as they were previously, editors.  Assistants will be the assistants to the Manager.  The manager is well.. the Manager.  This is all explained in the OP and also here.

It's not actually explained in the OP and all three of you who have posted about it so far have used different terminology, which is just ironic considering two of you will be the ones to fix inconsistencies on the wiki. I'm honestly still not sure of what it is that you will be doing and why since you contradict each other constantly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When BWG posts, he makes it seem as if they are going to get some actual FACTS from the developers.  When Keenan talks, he doesn't want facts from them. In other places, BWG says he is testing on the Test Server.  I'd love to see facts.  

 

I understand disabling accounts of people that haven't been active.  They may have even quit the game and not been around forever.  However, you had 30 that were posting since January.  Those 30 had already been approved and now have to get approval again?  If I were the manager, I'd be contacting that group and saying hey we are just making some changes but we'd love to have you continue to do what you do.  Here is your approval ahead of time.

 

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power grab?  Let's not get personal, this has nothing to do with power, this is about me volunteering to help out with the Wurmpedia on a massive scale.  As above, I've seen folk saying 'this is a bad idea', 'this is all about the inner circle', but not one piece of constructive criticism.  Around 3 or 4 appear to have an issue with me, yet I've never actually crossed any of those person's paths.  PM me if you'd like to discuss because I'd hate to think that I've left a bad taste with a few folk before taking this role without even knowing why.

 

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.

 

Anyone can be an editor, just send an application in and boom, job done (once we've finished with security and admin on the Wurmpedia).

 

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?

 

Is this the part where I deliberately misread what bwg posted? So as to make Nazi Germany and radical free speech references?

 

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.

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