Sindusk

Suggestion: Reverse the WU Policy

Recommended Posts

Wurm Unlimited has been out for nearly 5 years now. The community has a fairly good grasp on what is and is not different between the two games. At this point, it's fair to say that they are roughly 90% the same. Therefore, I'd like to make the following proposal:

 

Allow Datamined Information Until Proven Inaccurate

 

Allow the Wikipedia to have information data-mined from Wurm Unlimited. Create a new banner (like the stub banner) which allows players to be notified that the information on the page is data-mined. If the information is proven inaccurate in Wurm Online, change the banner so it's known that the information differs between WU and WO. This will create a clear message that anyone editing the page should not be using WU data-mined information.

 

If something is data-mined from Unlimited, then it can be assumed correct until someone tests and proves it wrong in Wurm Online. This can be done through the talk page.

 

Why Change?

 

Because inaccurate information was added to the wiki years and years ago, which has been left there, misinforming players. Some of these were easy to test and change, such as the recent edits to the characteristics and fuel pages. The information that was overwritten was years and years old. Changing the policy on this would make it extremely easy to root out this misinformation across the wiki and replace it with more accurate ones.

 

It would also open the doors to players finally explaining some of the more "wogic" aspects of the game. Pages such as volume are missing a brutal amount of information. It redirects to the container page which is then missing, yet again, a lot of information. In fact, quite a few of the numbers listed on the container page are simply incorrect. Trying to explain to a new player why a 24kg log doesn't fit into their cart but 100kg of iron ore does is extremely hard. It would be nice to have a wiki page that explains it more clearly, but that can't be done unless we allow WU data to explain how it functions.

 

Wurmpedia should be used to help educate players on how the game works. Correct information should be presented, regardless of the source. Let's make a community effort to replace the baseless information from years ago with new, data-driven knowledge.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk, I thought WU hasn't been updated for about a year now so there's going to be alot of differences with all the hotfixes and updates WO has

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if my voice is of any importance or use, but I am not in favour of this idea "until proven inaccurate". There is a wise rule: ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non ei qui negat - (one has to prove who says not one who doubts) - so-called onus probandi - burden of proof, which would be shifted to those who doubt not those who said. On the other hand there is a similarity between WO and WU, which can be useful in discovering more aspects of WO. The solution that comes on my mind is to provide an additional namespace for experiments (Experiment:), where the information and experiment data would be published (something like Materials and Methods in scientific publications) and these articles could be linked. This article: https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Empirical_Evaluation_of_Fences should be a first one to be moved to the new namespace, I really enjoyed reading it. Scientific method is currently the best one to gain and work with knowledge about the world, I think it could be applied (to some extent) to the game knowledge base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the wiki has problems, but they have nothing to do with WU data, the problem is that moving from any player that applied being able to have a wiki account to only staff members dedicated to editing the wiki doing it, drove away most of the editors who seems to edit things based on data and experience and left us with people who just read changelogs and add things based on that.

 

the are things on the wiki right now that are proven to be inacurate or that everybody who played when they were added knows they are false and have always been false, but stay there forever. the easiest example is  "needing a templar and an oil barrel with oil in it to keep ondeed lamps on" which was true once 7 or 8 years ago for a couple of hours, because people complained so much they reversed it the same day they added it.but even CA´s still quote it as true, because its still on the wiki.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blablagame said:

idk, I thought WU hasn't been updated for about a year now so there's going to be alot of differences with all the hotfixes and updates WO has

well, it's easy to search the patch notes for pages you're editing to put in new features/mechanic changes

1 minute ago, Platyna said:

I don't know if my voice is of any importance or use, but I am not in favour of this idea "until proven inaccurate". There is a wise rule: ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non ei qui negat - (one has to prove who says not one who doubts) - so-called onus probandi - burden of proof, which would be shifted to those who doubt not those who said.

Seeing as the WU code was just a sub-branch of the WO code

On 9/25/2015 at 8:11 PM, Rolf said:

WU and WO share the same code, but the main branch is WO which means we will develop the WO server code first and then release on WU

, nearly every single thing is the exact same between the two, and you can assume if its in WU that unless it's been changed since the last patch it's the same in WO. In all my years of reading WU code and testing the info in WO i've only found a few differences, mostly to do with uniques.

 

The devs should really be working with the wurmpedia team and giving them info directly anyway, wurmpedia is a mess of outdated info. I really can't see why some guys "i think it works like this but i haven't really tested it" from 10 years ago is more valid than the code of the game that the creator has said is the exact same code.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@TpikolI am not a staff member and I have an editor account, and I am doing many experiments, also very expensive ones (e.g. it cost me around 25s to check how does rarity affect range pole and dioptra), and players do supply data (such as recent transfer to lumps). I have this templar issue on my run queue, but I first wished to check if it is entirely true or only in part - to place some lamps that is not blessed and not on pavement. Unfortunately I don't have that much olive oil plus templars are expensive. Players that do not have the rw access report their findings and corrections on this forum, and they seem to be handled pretty quick. 

Edited by Platyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Platyna said:

I have this templar issue on my run queue, but I first wished to check if it is entirely true or only in part - to place some lamps that is not blessed and not on pavement. Unfortunately I don't have that much olive oil plus templars are expensive.

you dont need to pay for a templar to find out that you dont need templars, all you need to do is snuff a lamp you just made,plant it on deed anywhere, fuel it with tar once and light, it will work forever and turn itself on at night and off during the day. no templars, no oil and no barrels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Tpikol said:

you dont need to pay for a templar to find out that you dont need templars, all you need to do is snuff a lamp you just made,plant it on deed anywhere, fuel it with tar once and light, it will work forever and turn itself on at night and off during the day. no templars, no oil and no barrels.

 

On the deed, it is obvious you don't need templars to keep the lamps lit. On Wurmpedia it is written:

 

Quote

 


Off-deed lamps within 24 tiles of a deed that has one or more Spirit templars and a huge oil barrel full of olive oil will be kept filled and stay lit indefinitely.
 

 

 

There is nothing about on-deed lamps requiring a spirit templar to stay lit. But I think it is off-topic and should be made into a separate thread. 

 

Edited by Platyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Platyna said:

 

There is nothing about on-deed lamps requiring a spirit templar to stay lit. But I think it is off-topic and should be made into a separate thread. 

https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Category:Street_lamps

https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Huge_oil_barrel

https://steamcommunity.com/app/366220/discussions/0/351659808486641626/ WU people arguing about it back in 2016

 thread about it in 2012

Edited by Oblivionnreaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Tpikol said:

the wiki has problems, but they have nothing to do with WU data, the problem is that moving from any player that applied being able to have a wiki account to only staff members dedicated to editing the wiki doing it, drove away most of the editors who seems to edit things based on data and experience and left us with people who just read changelogs and add things based on that.

 

 

Players can still get editor accounts. No one's been chased away. We have non-staff editors editing constantly. Nothing is stopping you from getting your own editor account. https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Wurmpedia:Users

Edited by NeeNee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Platyna said:

https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Category:Street_lamps

https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Huge_oil_barrel

 

Where is the info that on-deed lamps require a templar and a huge oil barrel? I must have some major read error due to heat, I am reading this third time and can't find it (it is not sarcasm). 

 

Anyway, I will take a deep look into this. 

 

 

You're reading it correctly. It doesn't say that a templar is require on deed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NeeNee said:

 

You're reading it correctly. It doesn't say that a templar is require on deed. 

 

Thank you, I started to doubt in my faculties. I will check if a templar and an oil barrel will keep the lamps lit on 24 tile perimeter, once I get my hands on huge barrel of olive oil. 

  • Cat 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be reviewing our usage of WU data in the coming future.

As it stand CURRENTLY no information gathered from examining WU code is allowed on the wiki, and edits with information gathered from them are subject to removal. Inaccurate data from WU edits has created edit wars in the past, as well as adding its own inaccurate information to the mix.

 

7 hours ago, Tpikol said:

the are things on the wiki right now that are proven to be inacurate or that everybody who played when they were added knows they are false and have always been false, but stay there forever. the easiest example is  "needing a templar and an oil barrel with oil in it to keep ondeed lamps on" which was true once 7 or 8 years ago for a couple of hours, because people complained so much they reversed it the same day they added it.but even CA´s still quote it as true, because its still on the wiki.

Has anyone on let the Wurmpedia team know of these inaccuracies? I'd be happy to assign someone to help fix this.

 

 

2 hours ago, NeeNee said:
7 hours ago, Tpikol said:

the wiki has problems, but they have nothing to do with WU data, the problem is that moving from any player that applied being able to have a wiki account to only staff members dedicated to editing the wiki doing it, drove away most of the editors who seems to edit things based on data and experience and left us with people who just read changelogs and add things based on that.

 

 

Players can still get editor accounts. No one's been chased away. We have non-staff editors editing constantly. Nothing is stopping you from getting your own editor account. https://www.wurmpedia.com/index.php/Wurmpedia:Users

That's correct, we do not lock out people from getting editor accounts. People may lose editor account access if they are not following the guidelines for the wurmpedia, however.

A great place to collaborate with other editors is our Wurmpedia discord.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that our current policy doesn't render datamined Wurm Unlimited information completely useless, and never did. We just require any information learned this way to be confirmed in-game first, as with information from any other source, aside from the development team themselves, patch notes, or other officially released information.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ostentatio said:

Note that our current policy doesn't render datamined Wurm Unlimited information completely useless, and never did. We just require any information learned this way to be confirmed in-game first, as with information from any other source, aside from the development team themselves, patch notes, or other officially released information.

Only that if the information is and has been verifiably wrong for years, and the only alternative is to use the datamined info to correct it, wiki staff rather leave the false/inaccurate information rather than use the datamined info and leave a banner warning people than the information is datamined. In other words, wikipedia staff rather mislead people with known false information than fix it.

 

Even Wikipedia uses banners in this manner. As long as you let people know its datamined data, why not use it? It seems like an outdated rule to me to prevent "WU secrets" from spoiling WO. But WU has been out so long that people who could had possibly benefited from that already did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

Only that if the information is and has been verifiably wrong for years, and the only alternative is to use the datamined info to correct it, wiki staff rather leave the false/inaccurate information rather than use the datamined info and leave a banner warning people than the information is datamined. In other words, wikipedia staff rather mislead people with known false information than fix it.

 

 

Can we get an example of this known false information? I am often told that the wiki is entirely wrong, but when I ask for which parts, the player won't tell me. We're helpful, but not psychic. Thankfully, we have lots of editors and players who see a bit of wrong info and either tell us or edit it themselves. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeeNee said:

 

Can we get an example of this known false information? I am often told that the wiki is entirely wrong, but when I ask for which parts, the player won't tell me. We're helpful, but not psychic. Thankfully, we have lots of editors and players who see a bit of wrong info and either tell us or edit it themselves. 

Op has examples. The whole thing about the fuel stuff took forever to correct being wrong for years. A player had to provide a way to test it even though it was verifiably wrong by just looking at the WU code.

 

As much as the Wurmpedia staff is loathe to admit it, experienced players and former staff, including Rolf himself have said that WU (in rough terms) is pretty much a copy paste of current WO code. So why can't you cite it as the correct info with a banner or a citation explaining its from datamined WU? Its way better to have cited content from datamining than a blatantly and verifiable false information.

 

And before you raise the argument that "if you can prove its false, then you can give references to the true option so it can be corrected" that is not true. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. A test can be run from the information from the wiki and prove it doesn't work/its false information, yet not have anything to provide as true to replace it other than WU datamined info. Yet the datamined info has a higher chance to be true than said proven wrong info.

 

That is precisely the point OP is trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

Op has examples. The whole thing about the fuel stuff took forever to correct being wrong for years. A player had to provide a way to test it even though it was verifiably wrong by just looking at the WU code.

 

As much as the Wurmpedia staff is loathe to admit it, experienced players and former staff, including Rolf himself have said that WU (in rough terms) is pretty much a copy paste of current WO code. So why can't you cite it as the correct info with a banner or a citation explaining its from datamined WU? Its way better to have cited content from datamining than a blatantly and verifiable false information.

 

And before you raise the argument that "if you can prove its false, then you can give references to the true option so it can be corrected" that is not true. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. A test can be run from the information from the wiki and prove it doesn't work/its false information, yet not have anything to provide as true to replace it other than WU datamined info. Yet the datamined info has a higher chance to be true than said proven wrong info.

 

That is precisely the point OP is trying to make.

 

There's no such thing as "verifiably wrong by just looking at the WU code", because there's never anything close to a guarantee that decompiled Wurm Unlimited code reflects current or past functionality in Wurm Online. Wurm Unlimited was never a 100% identical copy of the Wurm Online code, and even if it had been, Wurm Unlimited is no longer receiving feature updates, so the two codebases will diverge more and more as time goes on.

 

If you come across information in the wiki that you can verify is incorrect, and Wurm Unlimited datamining results in different information, couldn't that information itself be tested to confirm that it's true?

 

 

In the end, I understand the frustration. I was both working on the wiki and going through decompiled Wurm Unlimited code myself to figure things out long before I was on the dev team, and dealing with the potential inaccuracy of old information in the wiki was never easy. However, giving wiki editors carte blanche to add information derived from decompiled WU code to the wiki is not the solution, for the reasons outlined above. Wurm Unlimited was never an identical copy of Wurm Online, and the two have only diverged more since Wurm Unlimited stopped receiving content updates, and they will continue to diverge. Pretending they're identical would only be irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ostentatio said:

There's no such thing as "verifiably wrong by just looking at the WU code", because there's never anything close to a guarantee that decompiled Wurm Unlimited code reflects current or past functionality in Wurm Online. Wurm Unlimited was never a 100% identical copy of the Wurm Online code, and even if it had been, Wurm Unlimited is no longer receiving feature updates, so the two codebases will diverge more and more as time goes on.

That is not what I said. What I said is you can run tests to confirm the data is wrong, not look at the code to cite it as wrong. For example, I can light a bunch of forges and add fuel in different quantities to prove that the information is wrong since I get different results than the ones stated. I can compare meals, I can imp lamps, or do a spreadsheet of data proven by testing and show you I have different results than the ones cited. This has been happening for years. People follow the WU information and realize its wrong. The problem is that there is no alternative to provide to correct it. As such, the proven false information remains.

 

However, this does not mean that I have the right numbers. x + y = z vs. x + y = a. Just because x + y = z is proven wrong doesnt mean we have the answer to x + y = a.  You know who has the answer? WU code. WU code has more times than not been proven to be right. What is the problem with offering that info on the wiki with a citation to datamined WU content instead of providing false information? How does the false information is any better than most likely right information?

 

10 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

If you come across information in the wiki that you can verify is incorrect, and Wurm Unlimited datamining results in different information, couldn't that information itself be tested to confirm that it's true?

 

Not necessarily, because players dont have access to the actual live Wurm code or the means to test it. However WU modders can look at the code, use their knowledge, and say "oh that makes sense. Now wonder the wiki info doesn't work."

13 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

 

There's no such thing as "verifiably wrong by just looking at the WU code", because there's never anything close to a guarantee that decompiled Wurm Unlimited code reflects current or past functionality in Wurm Online. Wurm Unlimited was never a 100% identical copy of the Wurm Online code, and even if it had been, Wurm Unlimited is no longer receiving feature updates, so the two codebases will diverge more and more as time goes on.

 

If you come across information in the wiki that you can verify is incorrect, and Wurm Unlimited datamining results in different information, couldn't that information itself be tested to confirm that it's true?

 

 

In the end, I understand the frustration. I was both working on the wiki and going through decompiled Wurm Unlimited code myself to figure things out long before I was on the dev team, and dealing with the potential inaccuracy of old information in the wiki was never easy. However, giving wiki editors carte blanche to add information derived from decompiled WU code to the wiki is not the solution, for the reasons outlined above. Wurm Unlimited was never an identical copy of Wurm Online, and the two have only diverged more since Wurm Unlimited stopped receiving content updates, and they will continue to diverge. Pretending they're identical would only be irresponsible.

Is not about giving carte blanche to add information from WU. Its about using the WU code to correct provable false information. Perhaps Sindusk hasn't explained himself good enough, but if you haven't noticed yet, nearly all the Wurm content available in WU is already available in the wiki. Is not like WU players will start creating new pages of ambiguous or erroneous info by using the Wurm datamining process. The pages are already created, the info is already on the wiki. WU can be used to fix disputed content and that is what is not allowed. Why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeeNee said:

Can we get an example of this known false information? I am often told that the wiki is entirely wrong, but when I ask for which parts, the player won't tell me. We're helpful, but not psychic. Thankfully, we have lots of editors and players who see a bit of wrong info and either tell us or edit it themselves. 

 

A couple I know to be false but I cannot correct:

 

Table of weapons - All crit chances for weapons are 5x higher than they should be. Trying to confirm this in-game would be a nightmare.

Horse - Take one look at the "Speed Boosting" section. It's extremely unclear, and there is absolutely no way it's correct because those speed intervals literally don't exist. Traits are also incorrect about their actual affect on speed for example. I could change the wiki and give accurate information, but I'd have no in-game testing to back it up.

Aggressive fighting - "higher damage is dealt (133% max) and two-handed weapon speed is increased by up to one second." All of that is basically incorrect. Actual weapon swing damage is equal between aggressive and normal stance, though other factors during aggressive stance can increase damage dealt. 133% is a number pulled out of a hat and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to any actual aggressive fighting mechanic. Furthermore, no two handed weapon can get a full 1 second timer reduction in aggressive mode. It reduces swing timer by 10%. No weapon has a 10 second swing timer. The best you can do is -0.6 seconds on a 6 second weapon such as a huge axe. But hey, who are we data miners to question the knowledge of an edit from 2010. I'd love to change this, but unfortunately doing in-game testing to prove how aggressive stance works would be next to impossible due to the RNG of combat.

 

Clicked "Random Article" a few times. Will list every single one I hit, without exception:

 

Studded leather armour - "Studded leather armor has a mild evasion penalty." This is extremely vague and not entirely true.

Firemaking - Information regarding how firemaking affects cleaning forge/oven ash QL is missing.

GNU Free Documentation License - Correct.

Taunting - Correct.

Fishing reel -> Light fishing reel - Information regarding the difficulty differences between other components of the rods is missing. No comparison between the reels. A comparison table would be easy to make using WU data.

 

These are obviously not major offenders, but they are missing information that could be filled using WU information. Studded leather is somewhat inaccurate and a case could be made to call it misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

That is not what I said. What I said is you can run tests to confirm the data is wrong, not look at the code to cite it as wrong. For example, I can light a bunch of forges and add fuel in different quantities to prove that the information is wrong since I get different results than the ones stated. I can compare meals, I can imp lamps, or do a spreadsheet of data proven by testing and show you I have different results than the ones cited. This has been happening for years. People follow the WU information and realize its wrong. The problem is that there is no alternative to provide to correct it. As such, the proven false information remains.

 

If you've run a test that shows information in the wiki to be incorrect, then it can be corrected. It's that simple. And if that testing verifies what you've seen in decompiled Wurm Unlimited code, then that would be reason to include that new information in the wiki.

 

As for the rest of what you've said, I feel I've already expressed my concerns. Any information in the Wurm Unlimited source cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect Wurm Online, either now or when that version of Wurm Unlimited was released, and therefore it cannot be used as an authoritative source for editing the wiki. If you can confirm that information from decompiled Wurm Unlimited source code is accurate through in-game testing, or can provide evidence through in-game testing that something currently in the wiki is inaccurate, then that can be used as a source for editing the wiki. The Wurm Unlimited source cannot be relied upon on its own; testing is required in-game to verify that it applies to Wurm Online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sindusk said:

 

A couple I know to be false but I cannot correct:

 

Table of weapons - All crit chances for weapons are 5x higher than they should be. Trying to confirm this in-game would be a nightmare.

Horse - Take one look at the "Speed Boosting" section. It's extremely unclear, and there is absolutely no way it's correct because those speed intervals literally don't exist. Traits are also incorrect about their actual affect on speed for example. I could change the wiki and give accurate information, but I'd have no in-game testing to back it up.

Aggressive fighting - "higher damage is dealt (133% max) and two-handed weapon speed is increased by up to one second." All of that is basically incorrect. Actual weapon swing damage is equal between aggressive and normal stance, though other factors during aggressive stance can increase damage dealt. 133% is a number pulled out of a hat and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to any actual aggressive fighting mechanic. Furthermore, no two handed weapon can get a full 1 second timer reduction in aggressive mode. It reduces swing timer by 10%. No weapon has a 10 second swing timer. The best you can do is -0.6 seconds on a 6 second weapon such as a huge axe. But hey, who are we data miners to question the knowledge of an edit from 2010. I'd love to change this, but unfortunately doing in-game testing to prove how aggressive stance works would be next to impossible due to the RNG of combat.

 

Clicked "Random Article" a few times. Will list every single one I hit, without exception:

 

Studded leather armour - "Studded leather armor has a mild evasion penalty." This is extremely vague and not entirely true.

Firemaking - Information regarding how firemaking affects cleaning forge/oven ash QL is missing.

GNU Free Documentation License - Correct.

Taunting - Correct.

Fishing reel -> Light fishing reel - Information regarding the difficulty differences between other components of the rods is missing. No comparison between the reels. A comparison table would be easy to make using WU data.

 

These are obviously not major offenders, but they are missing information that could be filled using WU information. Studded leather is somewhat inaccurate and a case could be made to call it misleading.

 

This all runs into the problem I've been mentioning (aside from some information missing from recent updates, like firemaking ash QL): There simply is no guarantee that the "correct" information from Wurm Unlimited source-diving is 100% correct and applicable in Wurm Online.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about the horse article; it's fairly explicit that the speed increases are "smooth" and don't occur at specific intervals.

 

 

I agree that some information, particularly very old information, puts the wiki team in a difficult place. If something is very difficult to test, but the only information we have is either from Wurm Unlimited source code (which cannot be used as a citation by itself) or ancient in-game observations that may not be correct, and may never have had adequate in-game testing at all, what exactly do we do? There isn't a perfect solution to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ostentatio said:

This all runs into the problem I've been mentioning: There simply is no guarantee that the "correct" information from Wurm Unlimited source-diving is 100% correct and applicable in Wurm Online.

 

So instead of using data to root out old, outdated misinformation... you would prefer to guess that it's not applicable and leave the incorrect information there? The proposal is not to preach the WU source as gospel. It's to update information from years ago that is absolutely, 100%, without question wrong, and replace it with more updated information. I mean, the alternative, for example, would be to simply delete the aggressive fighting page entirely since none of that information is applicable to Wurm Online.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ostentatio said:

This all runs into the problem I've been mentioning (aside from some information missing from recent updates, like firemaking ash QL): There simply is no guarantee that the "correct" information from Wurm Unlimited source-diving is 100% correct and applicable in Wurm Online.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about the horse article; it's fairly explicit that the speed increases are "smooth" and don't occur at specific intervals.

 

I agree that some information, particularly very old information, puts the wiki team in a difficult place. If something is very difficult to test, but the only information we have is either from Wurm Unlimited source code (which cannot be used as a citation by itself) or ancient in-game observations that may not be correct, and may never have had adequate in-game testing at all, what exactly do we do? There isn't a perfect solution to this.

 

I didn't catch the post before the edit. You literally cannot increase a horses speed by 0.24kmh. The minimum threshold of speed increase is 0.72kmh. Speed also is not linear based on QL of shoes. The whole section is complete nonsense and I have in-game testing (Wurm Online, mind you) to confirm that it's nonsense. But I can't update it with the correct information, since it comes from WU.

 

The solution is exactly as proposed: Add the WU data information, tag it with a banner, and then allow it to be presented as applicable. The wiki is currently enabling misinformation to be presented with no disclaimer. I'm proposing updating the information and adding a disclaimer. That's it.

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