mvnForum Homepage

Print at Dec 22, 2014 5:27:45 AM
Posts: 61   Pages: 3   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 | Next Page | Last Page]
View all posts in this thread on one page
Posted by Whitefire at Jun 1, 2006 7:40:27 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
I seem to be seeing the underlying reason for all this HWFO is as follows: "We who maintain the Wiki want to have stricter guidelines for these vanity pages, and thus MUST remove all existing pages that don't meet the newer, stricter guidelines." Is this correct or not?


First, using HWFO loses you lots of points. Secondly, no, you're missing the point.

 
Regardless of all this, folks seem to be against this automatic purging and no amount of saying "There's a whole 21 days to correct things!" will mollify that.


Would you have known about the 21 day lijmit without this thread?

Posted by imwamphyr at Jun 1, 2006 7:47:01 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Can I ask a question? Valid points and solid arguments aside, why did you start a new thread instead of just posting all this in the other thread? Just so it could be parley? Instead of perhaps, requesting it be moved here or something?

In any case, I don't edit personal pages for one reason. I'm still not clear which information is vanity and which isn't. It still appears to me that trivial common info is vanity on one page, and desired content on another. I can't think of a single thing to say about anybody that doesn't seem to fall under the definition of "vanity" or "common". And I can always think of something to say, I mean, come on! It's Me, Muroni...
----------------------------------------
Selling my Grunion Collection!
174 ships, 164 sloops, ALL GRUNIONS!

Posted by ponytailguy at Jun 1, 2006 7:58:58 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Hmm? There's no such thing as "vanity information" under the current guidelines. There's irrelevant stuff, but nobody will be pushing the big red baleet button because you mention you have gray eyes and 4 kids in an article about your pirate.

You own a townhouse you've made an effort to paint/furnish/are otherwise proud of? Put it in! You own/manage shoppes/stalls/inns/whatever else? Put it in! You have boats with names that amuse you? Put them in! As long as there's a solid base of factual, relevant information, and you meet the requirements for a pirate page, you've got a lot of slack for getting quite Teen Magazine about the rest of the article. If you go overboard, expect some clippings by other users, but if there's a few cool facts about you that would be appropiate to an article about your pirate, go ahead and include them.
----------------------------------------
The Ghost of Oceans Past

Posted by Whitefire at Jun 1, 2006 8:02:30 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
Can I ask a question? Valid points and solid arguments aside, why did you start a new thread instead of just posting all this in the other thread? Just so it could be parley? Instead of perhaps, requesting it be moved here or something?


Because this was not public knowledge. A different section of the population reads Parley oppossed to T&T. You know, public awareness of the public knowledge database and all.

Posted by imwamphyr at Jun 1, 2006 8:03:15 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Now you have me so confused. That bit I quoted in the other thread about information which is "not noteworthy" no longer applies? It's outdated guidelines? Boy, if you tell me that, I'm going to feel like a moron...
----------------------------------------
Selling my Grunion Collection!
174 ships, 164 sloops, ALL GRUNIONS!

Posted by ponytailguy at Jun 1, 2006 8:06:08 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
Now you have me so confused. That bit I quoted in the other thread about information which is "not noteworthy" no longer applies? It's outdated guidelines? Boy, if you tell me that, I'm going to feel like a moron...
You're not a moron. It's a double-standard, and it sucks. (And I'll say that as an administrator who has engaged in stubbifying articles that really probably should have been deleted. I'm a hypocrite. Zogm!) Hence why we're trying to fix it.
----------------------------------------
The Ghost of Oceans Past

Posted by Whitefire at Jun 1, 2006 8:08:36 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
Now you have me so confused. That bit I quoted in the other thread about information which is "not noteworthy" no longer applies? It's outdated guidelines? Boy, if you tell me that, I'm going to feel like a moron...


I'm with you. Talking about the things you have is pretty much the definition of vanity.

EDIT: PTG Snipped me, so I have this to say:

Then don't delete anything unless it's unreadable.

Posted by atteSmythe at Jun 1, 2006 9:05:15 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
I hate to point this at Whitey, but others are guilty of it as well:

"I know it, and it's not in the wiki, but I'm not going to put it there" means you're part of the underlying problem.

Next time someone pisses you off on the forums, click the YPPedia link and fill in an article there instead of responding to the bait. Both communities will be bettered for it.

Smythe,
off to follow his own advice
----------------------------------------
 
Attesmythe receives loot: [Gauntlets of Social Responsibility]
Attesmythe receives loot: [Ring of Mandatory Selflessness]


Posted by Whitefire at Jun 1, 2006 9:20:20 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
"I know it, and it's not in the wiki, but I'm not going to put it there" means you're part of the underlying problem.


Oh, but I am contributing. Just not at the rate that the editors would wish.

Posted by TheRack at Jun 1, 2006 10:47:15 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Ok, I'm diving in here, and openly admiting I don't know all the facts... I'm reading this in my break at work, I intend to come back latter and read properly..... However....

I like the fact I can use the wiki, pick a random pirates name who appears in parley and go why are they famous? Look top wiki and go, oh ok, they used to be the Govenor of Z Island. 9 times out of ten, if your looking up a pirate, thats all the infomation you want. the rest is fluff.

I guess the greater issue is that the policy of famous pirates monarchs needs to have some sort of Fame requirment...
----------------------------------------
Cephalopod, on poker, wrote: 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it isn't rigged.

Period. End of story.


Posted by emerson at Jun 1, 2006 11:02:09 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Good, a thread in Parley, where I can let loose with how I REALLY feel about this whole debacle.

To the Wiki Editors: You are now REQUIRING that all pirates who might have an entry on the wiki (and possibly not even know it!) pay constant attention to everything that goes on in the Wiki discussions. That is bull, I'm sorry. In fact, the ONLY reason I heard about this whole mess is because one of the editors mentioned something in passing to the island designers. It is bull that you guys are demanding so much work (and it IS a lot) with absolutely NO FORMAL WARNING ANYWHERE IN THE GAME.

Is it on the front page's announcements? No. Is it in a game announcements? No. Is it on the front page of the Wiki? It is now, but it wasn't when I heard about it through the veritable grapevine. Indeed, it was added TODAY! DAYS after the original discussion started in a thread I was paying no attention to because I am not a wiki editor.

Now, to make matters worse, even YOU cannot decide on what is an appropriate method of fleshing out the pirate pages. It is unacceptable to demand that pages conform to a standard even YOU cannot come up with. I am not going to waste my time farting around with not only my own page, but those of people I'd like to prevent from being deleted, only to find out a few days later that my changes are no longer falling within the guidelines of what is "appropriate to prevent deletion."

Before you go off on me about how you have guidelines, let me clarify: You make examples of fleshing out a character's bio with things like "Prefers duty stations over carousing, and is a firm believe of keeping sails fully filled as testified by his sublime/ultimate rankings." That may be entirely true. It's easily figured out by stats. But my god, talk about DRIVEL. When I read an encyclopedia, I want the facts, and I want them fast. I do not understand why people are pushing for "pages that take less than 12 seconds to read will be deleted." I mean, wtf. Is the wiki now having to report metrics along the lines of "eyeball seconds per page?"

Don't get me wrong--I love reading the long pages, if they're well written. And I'm disappointed if I stumble across a page that's a stub, and I really want to know more. But I'd rather stumble across a page that's a stub than be reading an article where someone's name shows up in RED because there's not even a page to click to! Heck, even if the stub only says they're in such-and-such crew on that ocean, that's more info than I would have had if I just saw a red name! Or are we going to get rid of those, too?

As for deleting people like Rifkind and other folks who have long passed into the mists of history, good god. I mean...good god. Yeah, it's unfortunate that there's no info there. But do we delete parts of the geologic record because no one's figured them out yet? Leave the damned things in there, and if someone's motivated enough to research and write up the stuff, they have a point to start from. If there's no stub to even get someone's attention, then no one's going to do it, I can assure you of that. Maybe keep a list of these pirates with "incomplete info" in a spot on the Wiki where people can be encouraged to research and submit information...

Let me quote from The Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing articles to be changed by anyone with access to a computer, web browser and Internet connection."

What you folks are doing are removing the volunteer aspect of it. We are now voluntold. "Fix this now, or you or the articles you might be interested in are history." Even Wikipedia has a lot of unhelpful links, but they're not running around mowing those down... they're hoping that some day, someone will come along and provide more information. Without a stub to work from, the impetus to do that research will not appear.

Emerson
</end ranting>
----------------------------------------
Cleaver shouts, "I lub this island."
Personally I think that TITS are a technique if they are used less than once every three moves. Any more than that, and you're just waving your exploits in their faces. - Flamer

Posted by Dorien at Jun 2, 2006 12:31:23 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
*starts a slow clap*

Pages that are usless for any number of reason should be removed, but pages that seem useless because they're not *yet*completed should be supported and fleshed out, not mowed down.
----------------------------------------
Lord of Tyr's Own, Ambassador and SO of the Fifth Fist

I've never met a keg o' Rum I didn't like!

Posted by Pianoman1125 at Jun 2, 2006 12:57:09 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
/me bows and tips his hat to Emerson.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well. Bravo.

~Muffy
----------------------------------------
Muffynz
A Cartographer

Member of Crimson Tide
YPPedia Admin
Not-so-secretly conducting the oceans since 2003.

Posted by Rick9109 at Jun 2, 2006 1:10:26 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Eh, the way I see it, these people who don't do all that much in the game do a bunch of extra work out of game and don't get anything for it. So if erasing stuff about CT (or anyone else who's done more in the game than them) is their only way to get us, well, as Homer Simpson says, "let the baby have its bottle."
----------------------------------------
Rome
Pirates of the Damned, Crimson Tide.
Played more this week than many so-called active pirates have played in years.

Posted by sweetnessc at Jun 2, 2006 1:38:48 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Well said, Em.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.

Posted by ponytailguy at Jun 2, 2006 7:04:34 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
Eh, the way I see it, these people who don't do all that much in the game do a bunch of extra work out of game and don't get anything for it. So if erasing stuff about CT (or anyone else who's done more in the game than them) is their only way to get us, well, as Homer Simpson says, "let the baby have its bottle."
Does Fannon known you think she's a baby who doesn't do anything in-game?
----------------------------------------
The Ghost of Oceans Past

Posted by quiglin at Jun 2, 2006 8:41:46 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Hey Whitey, if you plan on doing a history of Eta I, please contact me, I would like input on the day, mainly for the whole "other side of the conflict" part. Thanks.

Also, huge thanks to Thunderbird who saved my page b/c I did not know about the deletion police.

Posted by MiniMoses at Jun 2, 2006 8:48:08 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
Ok, i may have over looked something here...
but..

I thought a decision was made that personal pirate pages would be moved the the USER: page rather than a fully floated article?

Having a page on the USER: section still stays within the volunteer part doesnt it?
Its just not on display?

Is there an issue with server space which is why this deletion is taking place?

As this is a volunteer encyclopedia, maybe those pages of dead or thin pages be laid to rest in a davy jones section away from the main pages yet still accessible?
Alternatively, and even though the admins do seem to do a lot of work, take away the volunteer aspect of the yppedia and make it a formal factual archive and then you get more control.
People can then add their own vanity pages on their private webhosts no?
----------------------------------------
Drake
Captain of Clueless
Prince & Politician - Castigo Final.
squirt wrote: 
I'll take your word on this one, that he really doesn't mean to pick fights.. He's just.. British


Posted by imwamphyr at Jun 2, 2006 8:50:48 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
PTG, please go back and re-read Rome's comment. I'm not defending it, but I'll spank him later, but I believe you totally misunderstood who was the person who "doesn't really do anything in game" and who was the "Baby". Please re-read, and ask Rome to possibly clarify, because I believe you got it backwards.

*runs off to spank Mr. Inflamatory with some Preparation H*

I should make a PrepH alt character...bwahaha
----------------------------------------
Selling my Grunion Collection!
174 ships, 164 sloops, ALL GRUNIONS!

Posted by bel_pirates at Jun 2, 2006 9:15:47 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
[quote=PTG"]... reasons why it would be more trouble than it's worth:

1) It would generate false activity. People would update pages, then never be seen again. We'd have to continue to hold them at regular intervals, which means continuing to provide prizes and incentives for people to do so, even though this is supposedly a volunteer gig.

...


3) I obviously can't speak for all of the administrators or users, but my worst nightmare, as an administrator, is everyone from the forums suddenly using the wiki. Things like accountability, useful information and a lot of hard work from a lot of people will be reduced to "HI EURYDIKE I NO U FRM HUNTIR UR MEEN U BANNID ME!!!!11!!!1!!" or "u shd teem on teh brigund captin 1st okk?", the Shore Leave and docktart in-jokes overtake the community, and it essentially gets reduced beyond any hope of usefulness. We already have enough trouble with people who edit (totally random, I might add) pages to add stuff like "im bannid ho do i get bak in teh game? :(:(:(:(", and regardless of what you think of the content at present, I think you'd agree that that's not a direction we want to go in.[/quote]

So hosting events to have new people contribute good information for the wiki in a way that generates positive PR for the wiki is too much work for a volunteer gig? And your worst fear is people actually starting to edit things on the wiki, thereby reducing your eventual workload?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your (and other editors') comments, but it sounds like many of you need to step away from the project for a while. Take a break. Most of your posts sound like you're on the verge of having a coronary or something. Too much work for a volunteer position? Then quit! No one is forcing you to do this job.

I'll also agree with Emerson's position. Demanding people to do the work or you'll be deleting articles is not the best way to generate support for the wiki. I'm definitely stealing the "voluntold" line for use in my real life job.
----------------------------------------
Belgarion
Retired (for now)
The Shop Tool

Posted by ponytailguy at Jun 2, 2006 9:23:14 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
First of all, anyone who thinks that this suggestion saw the light of day because it was intended to spur on content creation is just plain wrong.

Second of all, way to steamroll past the very points you're quoting. Perhaps you're expecting a parade for recognizing that wikis improve when communities improve, not when articles improve? It's basic wiki theory: fixing the pages fixes the symptoms, fixing the people and people problems (which, in this case, means adding more bodies and making it easier to use for those already here) fixes the underlying causes, and, by extension, quality grows as a result. This is something that I've already recognized, and in fact recognized and proposed a solution to in the very post you're quoting.

In retrospect, this is tartier than I intended. Still, it's very frustrating to be told "You're not doing enough, you should be doing X" when you're already doing X.
----------------------------------------
The Ghost of Oceans Past

Posted by TarnumTheRed at Jun 2, 2006 9:27:28 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
Ok, i may have over looked something here...
but..

I thought a decision was made that personal pirate pages would be moved the the USER: page rather than a fully floated article?

Having a page on the USER: section still stays within the volunteer part doesnt it?
Its just not on display?



The difference between pirate pages and user pages is that everyone can have a user page, whereas pirate pages are designated for people of importance (specific guidelines on who these people are). At least this is what I gathered from reading some of the info on the wiki.

/me runs off to create his page and one on Dies Irae.
----------------------------------------
Tarnum

Darvid wrote: 
I guess it's just fun to poke the retarded bunny.
Muroni wrote: 
Who isn't sure that leif will let me enter him, but I'm willing to try.


Posted by atteSmythe at Jun 2, 2006 10:26:09 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
I thought a decision was made that personal pirate pages would be moved the the USER: page rather than a fully floated article?

It's not possible to move pirate pages to user pages, because we don't know the forum account names that are attached to the pirates.
 
Perhaps you're expecting a parade for recognizing that wikis improve when communities improve, not when articles improve? It's basic wiki theory: fixing the pages fixes the symptoms, fixing the people and people problems (which, in this case, means adding more bodies and making it easier to use for those already here) fixes the underlying causes, and, by extension, quality grows as a result. This is something that I've already recognized, and in fact recognized and proposed a solution to in the very post you're quoting.

PTG, this is exactly why people are wondering why a baleetefest is proposed as a 'solution' to poor-quality pirate articles. Removing them arguably improves their quality, but it certainly doesn't improve the community.
----------------------------------------
 
Attesmythe receives loot: [Gauntlets of Social Responsibility]
Attesmythe receives loot: [Ring of Mandatory Selflessness]


Posted by ponytailguy at Jun 2, 2006 10:34:18 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
The solution I'm fond of is creation of a new namespace.

No pirate articles allowed in the main namespace. But anyone, regardless of standing within the game, can have an article in the Pirate: namespace. We can disable the search function from automatically searching the namespace, so if you search for "bilge", you'll only get articles on bilge, and not a few dozen pirates who like the puzzle. (Which is also an improvement on the current system in this regard, I might add.)

Several people have pointed out that server space isn't scarce... it isn't. The wiki is not in danger of exceeding space or bandwith limits at any point in the forseeable future. (I'm actually not sure that we've ever purged the deleted images and pages, so we may very well have a copy of every single thing that's ever been added to the wiki stored somewhere... to put that into context, every individual itineration of every page, including deleted ones, might be stored somewhere, even if it hasn't been used for months. If we can afford that, we can afford to give people pirate pages.)

But I again underline a point... nobody advocated for this because of server space, or because of desire to maliciously delete articles, or as a means of (directly) spurring on content creation. The problem of low-quality articles is solved by fixing community, not fixing articles. Treat the underlying problem, not the symptom. And we're trying to set things in motion to make this happen... better tutorials, more accessible administrators, greater focus on content creation (we're... well... I'm kickstarting barnstars, trying to establish a wiki trinket, and I've managed to put content creation on the map as a core requirement for new administrators) and greater involvement of the wiki in-game (We're being used for OCL, OMs are linking to us in petitions and off the notice board, people are using the wiki for events, and a bunch of other things like that.) will all help with this.
----------------------------------------
The Ghost of Oceans Past

Posted by Chavez67 at Jun 2, 2006 11:00:53 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
The idea of "let's hold an event" has been discussed...

1) It would generate false activity. People would update pages, then never be seen again.


So? All you want is the existing pages upped to a higher standard, so you can then impose that standard on new pages without being seen as hypocritical. Who cares if the editors remain active? You just need them once.

 
We'd have to continue to hold them at regular intervals, which means continuing to provide prizes and incentives for people to do so, even though this is supposedly a volunteer gig.


See above. You need it once, to dress stuff up to the new standard. Everything posted after that, you can just delete because it doesn't conform to your new standard, and nobody's the worse for wear.

 
I have no problem with scratching together a bit of PoE here and there, and I've actually advocated for the introduction of a trinket for service to the wiki, as something we can give to people who don't necessarily want or merit admin status, but who really should get something for their efforts.


I hear that blue named pirates can crap trinkets out their earholes. Perhaps ask for some.

 
Regardless, this is a wiki, not a game show.


No, it's a puzzle pirates wiki, which should by all rights make it very akin to a gameshow.

 
2) I've been working on a plan to basically completely change how people are introduced to the YPPedia...


I have one comment about this: Ruh Row Shaggy..

 
3) I obviously can't speak for all of the administrators or users, but my worst nightmare, as an administrator, is everyone from the forums suddenly using the wiki.


Which speaks directly to my original point. Why put a minimum fluff requirement at all?

Furthermore, if you're worried about the miasma of children trying to enter the event, have a preliminary round where you weed out the children in a safe manner. Puzzle bakeoffs have a requisite skill to enter, there's no reason yours has to be any different.


Anyway, like I said above, I think you missed your opportunity, and now you're stuck. Personally, I fear that the reasoning behind the decision (read: ruh row shaggy) might provoke more outrage in the future if you're not much more mindful of your target audience than you were this past time around.

 
The solution I'm fond of is creation of a new namespace.

No pirate articles allowed in the main namespace.
.

I invoke Shakespeare: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Moving pirate info to a different area in cyberspace doesn't change the quality of the content, nor does it help the level of information available in the wiki. Same problem, different url.

Here's another example of the kind of thing (under the table personal attacks) you don't need to say to your friendly volunteer staff:
 
Does Fannon known you think she's a baby who doesn't do anything in-game?

----------------------------------------
 
 
 
I did it.
clarify
It was me.


Posted by Talisker at Jun 2, 2006 11:16:50 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
But I again underline a point... nobody advocated for this ... or as a means of (directly) spurring on content creation.


Surely with the implentation of "OK, y'all fix these articles in a week or they're gone," you can see the confusion.

 
The problem of low-quality articles is solved by fixing community, not fixing articles. Treat the underlying problem, not the symptom.


You keep saying this. How does this decision improve the wiki community? You listed a number of things that weren't the intent, if the intent was to fix the community, how was this meant to aid in that?
----------------------------------------
Leif
The Forums
Gunnermooch wrote: 
I can't respond because I do not understand what the hell you are talking about. Sorry.

Av by Ecastasy

Posted by Gloraelin at Jun 2, 2006 11:25:54 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
I've restrained myself thus far, even if atteSmythe did think I was hard-assed. You have no idea how much worse it can get, believe me. Being a former debater, coach/judge, and doing what I do for work, I have no qualms about stating very bluntly what's about to come.

I honestly don't think you all care. This all seems to have been carefully shoved under the carpet, without much attention drawn to it. As I've stated previously, a thread bump in T&T doesn't count, nor does a talk page. A sweeping change like this, that affects the entire damn forum/wiki community, needed to have been shouted from the rooftops. Was it? No. Was there an effort? Not really. Sure, at least telling us in the thread was trying. But I noticed that nothing was put on the front page of the wiki until the massive outcry started, and even then, it wasn't till atte suggested it.

We objected, you steamrolled over us, saying "It only takes 5 minutes, and if you don't, you obviously don't care!" or "If it doesn't get fluffed, that page didn't deserve to belong!" Bullcannon. As you all are so incredibly fond of saying, there are over 150 pirate pages on the chopping block you've created. It can't happen instantly, nor does not adding mean I don't care. I have a full-time job, I have a life outside of PP, and I'd prefer to spend my small amount of free time not poring over old forum posts and trawling through stat pages just to fluff a damn wiki page. Especially when such stuff we're supposed to be adding has NO BEARING upon an encyclopedic work. In the past, saying something like, "She started on the tiny isle of Winter Solstice one cold, dreary day. Her favorite puzzle is treasure drop (as evidenced by the number of trinkets in her case with TD inscriptions), and she's also an island designer and former Shanty Jockey." would have been slapped with either a {{vanity}} or {{d|no content}} within 24 hours. And yet now that's what you're requiring? Talk about major policy shift, something that's not even been finalized yet! At the very least, you could have done that before getting heavy-handed with the tags.

I refer you back to my sig. It stands true: why, as a debater, would I insert random high-sounding words into something that needs to be concise and to-the-point, except to confuse the opposing team? That's essentially what you're asking us to do. And why? Simply because it's short. How completely lame.

I'll do what I can to save the pages marked from being gone forever, mostly because I wanted to work on some of them anyway. But I do it under massive protest, hoping that this idiocy of a rule will be revoked before anything gets dumped. You are threatening to remove the history of this fantastic game, this community, all because you don't like the way it looks. Whitefire made an incredibly short list, naming Misery, Rome, Pokey, and others who are set to be wiped. You don't care that they've made sweeping changes and contributions to the game, you just want things to look pretty. And you refuse to listen.

For shame.
----------------------------------------
Jen wrote: 
yes glor.. your boobs are vuluptously awesome.
 
Ye have received a trade request from Thunderbird.
Those two offers are identical, what's the point?


Posted by Whitefire at Jun 2, 2006 11:56:40 AM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
Hey Whitey, if you plan on doing a history of Eta I, please contact me, I would like input on the day, mainly for the whole "other side of the conflict" part. Thanks.


I asked atte first, he suggested you since he wasn't there, heh. In any case, I'm going to do that one (if I can get ahold of Aiziril) and Rifkind' List of Hate this weekend.

Posted by ponytailguy at Jun 2, 2006 12:00:53 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
 
The idea of "let's hold an event" has been discussed...
1) It would generate false activity. People would update pages, then never be seen again.
So? All you want is the existing pages upped to a higher standard, so you can then impose that standard on new pages without being seen as hypocritical. Who cares if the editors remain active? You just need them once.
Nope. As I've said several times in this thread, including the one you quoted, fixing stubs has to come from something longer-term than just "add artikle gif trinkt ok???".
 
We'd have to continue to hold them at regular intervals, which means continuing to provide prizes and incentives for people to do so, even though this is supposedly a volunteer gig.
 
See above. You need it once, to dress stuff up to the new standard. Everything posted after that, you can just delete because it doesn't conform to your new standard, and nobody's the worse for wear.
Nope. Improving quality is ongoing, and should never end. If we're going to make an effort to gather a number of people, we shouldn't blow all our resources on a week of power-editing.
 
 
I have no problem with scratching together a bit of PoE here and there, and I've actually advocated for the introduction of a trinket for service to the wiki, as something we can give to people who don't necessarily want or merit admin status, but who really should get something for their efforts.
I hear that blue named pirates can crap trinkets out their earholes. Perhaps ask for some.
Now this is just revolutionary... ask the OMs for trinkets. Golly gee. Why didn't I think of that? (Oh. Wait.)
 
 
Regardless, this is a wiki, not a game show.
No, it's a puzzle pirates wiki, which should by all rights make it very akin to a gameshow.
There's no logic here.
 
 
2) I've been working on a plan to basically completely change how people are introduced to the YPPedia...

I have one comment about this: Ruh Row Shaggy..
So you can decry us for mostly imagined attacks, but it's open season on the admins. Nice.
 
 
3) I obviously can't speak for all of the administrators or users, but my worst nightmare, as an administrator, is everyone from the forums suddenly using the wiki.
Which speaks directly to my original point. Why put a minimum fluff requirement at all?
There isn't one. There is a minimum content requirement. If you've got that content, fluff is acceptable.
 
Furthermore, if you're worried about the miasma of children trying to enter the event, have a preliminary round where you weed out the children in a safe manner. Puzzle bakeoffs have a requisite skill to enter, there's no reason yours has to be any different.
Can't do this on a wiki. How do we lock people out from editing some pages but not others? Besides, bakeoffs don't have real preliminaries... lots of Able players fill slots in that preliminary (or preliminaries) that probably ought to go to better players (if your goal is determining who is best in the ocean and not just best on that particular boat) who missed out because they /told the OM a few seconds too late and got on the waiting list instead.
 
 
The solution I'm fond of is creation of a new namespace.

No pirate articles allowed in the main namespace.
.I invoke Shakespeare: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Moving pirate info to a different area in cyberspace doesn't change the quality of the content, nor does it help the level of information available in the wiki. Same problem, different url.
I invoke myself: "You should really read the post before replying."

"...anyone, regardless of standing within the game, can have an article in the Pirate: namespace." No more vanity guidelines, no more squabbles about X is notable but Y isn't, no more double-standards and no more confusion for the vast majority of people.
 
Here's another example of the kind of thing (under the table personal attacks) you don't need to say to your friendly volunteer staff:
 
Does Fannon known you think she's a baby who doesn't do anything in-game?
Because Rome's comment that that was a response to was totally on the level, not inflammatory at all, and clearly an acceptable bit of friendly, productive discourse, right?
----------------------------------------
The Ghost of Oceans Past

Posted by Talisker at Jun 2, 2006 12:14:20 PM
Re: Wiki Stupidity
 
 
Here's another example of the kind of thing (under the table personal attacks) you don't need to say to your friendly volunteer staff:
 
Does Fannon known you think she's a baby who doesn't do anything in-game?
Because Rome's comment that that was a response to was totally on the level, not inflammatory at all, and clearly an acceptable bit of friendly, productive discourse, right?


Because Rome is speaking as himself, not speaking for an organization meant to represent the community, right? As Chavez has stated repeatedly, insulting the very people whose help you require is counterproductive.
----------------------------------------
Leif
The Forums
Gunnermooch wrote: 
I can't respond because I do not understand what the hell you are talking about. Sorry.

Av by Ecastasy

Posts: 61   Pages: 3   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 | Next Page | Last Page]

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2014 Three Rings Design, Inc. All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates