PDA

View Full Version : DDOwiki - What should I do?



Borror0
11-02-2008, 11:57 AM
As some of you may know, the wiki got offline for unknown reasons of me. at the beginning of the month. Thankfully, it came back up. The reasons for this is that I currently have no control over the wiki. At all. The wiki is currently hosted on the server of a man I cannot enter in contact with anymore. Plus, he doesn't really care that much of the wiki in the first place.

That means that I can't:

Upgrade to a better version of MediaWiki.
Change the ugly skin.
Add new extensions.
Guarantee the wiki will get back online.

Given the current situation, I have a few plan B's.

First option would be to create a new wiki and create a copy the current wiki onto it.

Like that, I would be 100% sure to have access to the wiki at all times and could update it as needed.

Second option would require more work from you guys. Keeping a wiki is a lot of work. While I get help from Yoko once in a while (if you are reading this bro, your work is really appreciated), it is not enough to keep the wiki up to date. So, the plan is that I would set up a chat channel (Where? I don't care.) to ease communication. I would then teach the basics to those interested and then we start editing. The wiki is extremely out of date on a lot of stuff. I am using less and less when I need to look up some info.

It would also be a good opportunity to take the user-written guides and add their content to the wiki.

Third option would require even more work, but would be the most rewarding in the end. Any user must have seen, by now, the tag "Migration status: Database unlocked" at the top of the screen. The plan was to make a second wiki from scratch. That's more work than the second option, but it is far more rewarding. The wiki has a lot of useless pages or incorrect ones. And missing ones. Plus, there is a lack of structure.

Starting from scratch allows a more consistent wiki. But, that is more work.

The first option doesn't require much time from me. But, the data will get outdated with time. So, if I don't get much response that is what I will do. However, if I get enough players interested in doing either of the options, that would be Awesome! I just can't put enough time in the wiki to make it survive. On top of it, there are very little users editing it. It leads me to think that it will die with time.

So, what should I do?

Anyone is interested in putting some time into the wiki to revive it?

Just write down what you guys think I should do. If you are interested in putting some time on the wiki, just let me know. Either by posting on this thread, or by sending me a private message (http://forums.ddo.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=37042). If you are a EU player reading our forums, and you are interested in giving the wiki a hand, you can contact by sending me an email through the wiki (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Special:Emailuser/Borror0) or sending me a private message on the EU forums (http://forums.ddo.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=37042) (I'll get an email telling me you PM'd me).

Anyway, thanks for reading.
-Borror0

Kistilan
11-02-2008, 12:04 PM
Hey Borror0-

Since some really cool cats are leaving, I don't have much else to do 'cept my Chronotrigger Alliance Initiatives, revamp the CGMG and update the Path to Power. In other words, I wouldn't mind helping out with the entire wiki.

If you can teach enough skills, I'd also be up for the most rewarding path and revamp it into a visionary's project.

Count me in on what I can offer, regardless of what path you chose.

V/R.

-Kistilan (Argonnessen Scholar)

PS: Afterthought, if HolyAlliance ever does a new promotional video for DDO, I'll be working that project too. Also, may help make a negative campaign bit for Nat Gann.

Borror0
11-02-2008, 12:14 PM
If you can teach enough skills, I'd also be up for the most rewarding path and revamp it into a visionary's project.
Thanks a lot.

I intend to make some sort of chat channel/forums to ease communication and teach the basics.

I understand that editing the wiki may seem scary at first, but it is really really easy if someone shows you how to.

Mockduck
11-02-2008, 12:21 PM
I love the DDO wiki. That said, I definitely understand how much time it must take to keep it running.

If you want to keep the wiki going, I'd say a total revamp might be the best option.

Thing is, with the DDO Compendium now around, and with the ability of the user base to update it, maybe a fourth option would be to use the time we all have to keep that up to date and usable over the wiki. Now, the wiki has stuff in it the compendium doesnt, and probably wouldn't, but maybe having two compendiums is just more work than it's worth?

I don't know, just thinking out loud here. I'd be up for doing some work with ya on the wiki, but I'm not very good at number crunching, and I'd prefer to have "assignments" - aka - do this page, etc.

Kistilan
11-02-2008, 12:23 PM
We (as players) don't have direct access to updating all of the DDO Compendium, however to my understanding. Is that correct?

Is there a way that Turbine could allow honorary editors? Obviously it might require a little bit of a screening process, but this could streamline the Compendium and the DDO Wiki into something amazing?

I want to have hands on abilities....

Borror0
11-02-2008, 12:30 PM
Thing is, with the DDO Compendium now around, and with the ability of the user base to update it, maybe a fourth option would be to use the time we all have to keep that up to date and usable over the wiki. Now, the wiki has stuff in it the compendium doesnt, and probably wouldn't, but maybe having two compendiums is just more work than it's worth?
There is a huge difference between the two.

It is a very limited place. On so many levels. First of all, we don't even have access to parser functions! It's practically impossible to have a good wiki without parsers, unless it's all done in-house (like Turbine does) and that is not a wiki anymore. Secondly, the official tags are confusing to the user, a pain in the butt for the editor and make the page look much less appealing. Thirdly, I hate the current look of the Compendium. The skin they used is not very resting for my eyes. Fourthly, I cannot add any extension. Fifthly, I can't even edit the Home page! And the list goes on...

Turbine want to control everything. That is not a wiki.

Borror0
11-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Is there a way that Turbine could allow honorary editors? Obviously it might require a little bit of a screening process, but this could streamline the Compendium and the DDO Wiki into something amazing?
I have talked about that with Tolero (there are level of editors coded into the wiki, so it would require no work from them). However, I am scared that the way their official tags are set, they can only update something by redoing a Compendium update. If that is the case, I have suggested they scrap the official tags and use Flagged Revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions).

Never got an answer.

RTN
11-02-2008, 01:46 PM
Our wiki is better because we tend to have hard stats on many things that the official version never has. The official compendium describes functions, but usually not the actual numbers behind them. A fan created and support wiki is superior (we can also put in things they would ban/remove). I greatly appreciate all the effort you've put into it.

geoffhanna
11-02-2008, 04:00 PM
edit oops nevermind someone already suggested combining into the Compendium

so instead of my original post, instead I vote "Please do that" :)

Borror0
11-02-2008, 04:04 PM
Is there a plan where all of the great work in the wiki is migrated and included into the Compendium?

Well, if someone would feel like doing it, he could. Just copy and paste it all to the Compendium.

However, don't count on me for that. I know how much of an headache that would be and what of an inferior product that would be. The Compendium is a non-wiki that tries to be a wiki. They made a website that you can edit some part of, not a wiki. Edited pages look ugly and you can't correct the incorrect or incomplete data.

Currently, it is not an option for me given the nature of the Compendium.

PS: Oh, as an argument against the Compendium, the EU players can't edit it. That adds to the list.

stockwizard5
11-02-2008, 04:35 PM
I for one really appreciate the Wiki and use it as my first reference source.

Although I can't promise to do any editing, I can promise to continue to provide data to those that are willing to do it.

So I vote for do it over so its the best it can be and maybe we can find more people to help out?

Kistilan
11-02-2008, 11:02 PM
However, don't count on me for that. I know how much of an headache that would be and what of an inferior product that would be. The Compendium is a non-wiki that tries to be a wiki. They made a website that you can edit some part of, not a wiki. Edited pages look ugly and you can't correct the incorrect or incomplete data.

I completely agree with your assessment there, Borror0. Part of the Compnedium was used in an attempt to clean-up guildlistings, of which I'm an intricately involved member as the former Argonnessen (now Aargos) and currently CGMG in Guild Match-Up. Unfortunately, I think the interface on the Compendium is a little less than desireable. I'd love to be able to clean up my CGMG to utilize its panels, but I think the layout and overall design could be cleaned up. There are simply too many categories in that one section alone. Scrolling through that much information and links should be by choice, not default.


So I vote for do it over so its the best it can be and maybe we can find more people to help out?

Seems to be a popular opinion/trend in the polls on this subject! :)

Borror0
11-02-2008, 11:10 PM
Scrolling through that much information and links should be by choice, not default.
Yeah. That is something you have to be careful about with a wiki.

It's easy to make a wiki that is way too modular. Users don't like to click to view their feats/spells/enhancements. However, putting all of it on one page is also a mess. Best is to do both. You create a short version of the page (like we have here (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Feats) for the feats) but then make a page with greater details.

Part of the Compnedium was used in an attempt to clean-up guildlistings, of which I'm an intricately involved member as the former Argonnessen (now Aargos) and currently CGMG in Guild Match-Up.
I laughed when I saw Turbine attempting to do that. Experience has thought me that the normal user is not capable of editing a page that well.

Kistilan
11-02-2008, 11:29 PM
Yeah. That is something you have to be careful about with a wiki.

It's easy to make a wiki that is way too modular. Users don't like to click to view their feats/spells/enhancements. However, putting all of it on one page is also a mess. Best is to do both. You create a short version of the page (like we have here (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Feats) for the feats) but then make a page with greater details.

I laughed when I saw Turbine attempting to do that. Experience has thought me that the normal user is not capable of editing a page that well.

Yeah, I sort of had a short dialogue about that with Tolero. It would be nice to find a medium. I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone (that did happen once, but for the most part I'm on good terms with the particular individuals I offended then in a misunderstanding with a dash of shenanigans). Anyway, I'm completely objective (for the most part...) I think I've only offended permadeath since then as I catergorized them under Role-Play (they wanted their own catergory).

Anyway, I'd be all for some revamped works. I'm getting ready to do an update to the CGMG as it is.

Desteria
11-03-2008, 02:23 AM
Well, if someone would feel like doing it, he could. Just copy and paste it all to the Compendium.

However, don't count on me for that. I know how much of an headache that would be and what of an inferior product that would be. The Compendium is a non-wiki that tries to be a wiki. They made a website that you can edit some part of, not a wiki. Edited pages look ugly and you can't correct the incorrect or incomplete data.

Currently, it is not an option for me given the nature of the Compendium.

PS: Oh, as an argument against the Compendium, the EU players can't edit it. That adds to the list.

Second the 'the commpendium suck' part again.....

The lack of REAL data IE hard numbers and functions and RECIPIES vers fluff descriptions IS a huge downer for me the only time i actuyl use the ddo commpendium is when i'm on strange remot machines and don't actuly have my link to the reall wiki avlible.

Solmage
11-03-2008, 10:32 AM
I once used to be a lot more active on the wiki (back in the day, researching the real values for burning hands f.ex and not the joke that was the official documentation). But then I grew complacent.. :o

While I would tend to favor the third approach, and would help as much as I can, I don't know enough about wikis to give an informed opinion on exactly how much we would gain by re-doing it.

Can you go into more detail on that?

Borror0
11-03-2008, 01:43 PM
I once used to be a lot more active on the wiki (back in the day, researching the real values for burning hands f.ex and not the joke that was the official documentation).
You mean the DDO information project (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/DDO_information_project)?

Hopefully Mael will give us access to his spreadsheet and some us some time. ;)


Can you go into more detail on that?
Well, the advantage of using the current wiki are related to how lazy we will be as editors. If we start from scratch, we will have to complete at least the basics otherwise we will have an incomplete wiki. Working from the current wiki allows us to get lazy and not finish a work.

Working from zero allows us to have a better structured wiki.

The current wiki wasn't build following guidelines, rules or anything close to it. Everyone added its piece the way they felt like and became what it became. (Which explained pages like that one (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/index.php?title=Multiclassing&oldid=26299).) We can decide "That's how we are going to do it" and be consistent. It also forces us to revisit every page, put them up to date and make them more complete than they were. (Good examples of that are the Potency page (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Potency), the Adamantine page (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Admantine) or the Morale page (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Morale).)

Basically, if we are scared to give up before we have a good project, we should stick to the current wiki. Otherwise, the third option is the best.

liamfrancais
11-03-2008, 02:09 PM
I cannot enter in contact with anymore.

Don't restraining stink.

Borror0
11-12-2008, 01:49 PM
So, that is all the help I'll get?

Hafeal
11-12-2008, 02:02 PM
BorroO -

I can help as I can. Not sure where to start or what to do based on which path you choose.

I have had my desire to update my Creature spreadsheet on hold pending on what they do with the DDO compendium and entry of creatures (which has not yet happened).

Since DDO has put time and effort into the compendium I do not think it would be worth a duplication of effort as opposed to ana ctive team of DDO players updating the compendium, spear-headed by a project like this ... just a thought anyway. :o

yk49
11-21-2008, 09:25 PM
Read my PM Borror?

Just another random idea, but cant we consider moving to Wikia Gaming (http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Massively_Multiplayer_Games) maybe?

WoW (http://www.wowwiki.com/Portal:Main) - 66,589 pages
EQ2 (http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/EverQuest_2_Wiki:Main_Page)- 36,630 pages
LotRO (lotro-wiki.com) (http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Main_Page) - 26,099 pages
FF11 (http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) - 25,764 pages
GuildWars (http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)- 17,136 pages
Runescape (http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/RuneScape_Wiki) - 10,196 pages
Asheron's Call (asheron.info) (http://asheron.info/~asheron/index.php?title=ACC_Wiki_Home) - 9,202 pages
SWG (http://swg.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)- 6,489 pages
Tibia (http://tibia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)- 6,414 pagges
AoC (http://aoc.wikia.com/wiki/Age_of_Conan_Wiki)- 5,701 pages
UO (uoguide.com) (http://www.uoguide.com/Main_Page) - 4,592 pages
WAR (http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/HammerWiki) - 3,318 pages
Tabula Rasa (now goin to be shut down...) (http://tabularasa.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) - 2,776 pages
----
DDO (ddo.enterwiki.com) (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Home) - 2,004 pages

... Come on guys, we could use more help!


BorroO -
Since DDO has put time and effort into the compendium I do not think it would be worth a duplication of effort as opposed to ana ctive team of DDO players updating the compendium, spear-headed by a project like this ... just a thought anyway. :o

Another reason not to use Compendium - Moderation.
We probably cant talk about bug, exploit or severe criticism on their Compendium as well.
Our account for Compendium is tied to our forum account, which is tied to our payment account.
Care to expand pages like this (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Ascension_Chamber) ?

yk49
11-22-2008, 12:16 AM
Borror - another PM sent.

Borror0
11-22-2008, 01:05 AM
Yeah, I got the two last PM. I'm thinking what to do, to be honest.

First thing is that we got to change of wiki, if only to have control over the wiki. Elliot doesn't have access to th server and he totally doesn't give a damn about the wiki anyway. At all. I don't know if I told you the content of my last discussion with him before, but it looked like "Well, this is too much work. I don't have time for this. I don't care about this game and I don't see why I should put time on a wiki about a dying game. Talk to Simon if you want help with setting up a new wiki. I'm done wasting my time."

Personally don't see the point in changing to wikia versus having our own. Is there any?

The wiki could use two things: editors and a clean up. Right now, my health and my school doesn't give me the time to put enough time on it to matter enough... so I'm using that time to ponder about what to do. Given the underwhelming response that I got here, I came to wonder if players really care about the wiki in the first place.

yk49
11-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Personally don't see the point in changing to wikia versus having our own. Is there any?

Yes - server hosting not relying on a particular individual.
Individuals are unreliable in the ultimate, for things like this.
They can lose interest in the game, they can lose time putting into it (job change, marriage, having kids...).
In the worst case, they can die by something random like car accidents.
Upon any of the case stated above, exact the same mess we are having right now will happen again.

Borror0
11-23-2008, 12:55 AM
Yes - server hosting not relying on a particular individual.
Wouldn't we be more limited as to what we can do?

yk49
11-23-2008, 02:52 AM
Probably, depends on how helpful meta-admins are. Just a thought anyway, looking at it now myself.
Imo, its a solid choice if we are looking to run the wiki next 10 years but its your call.
I think, with current situation, keeping the wiki up, on reliable place has more priority than "i wanna do this, wanna use this extension" type of ego (not offense).
Wiki belongs to this DDO community no matter how "underwhelming" its responses are.


advantage

free server hosting
dont have to write help pages and such ourselves
meta templates are there already
can follow more solid wiki-standards
competition with other communities
can ask meta-admins and other communities for help (maybe not)
...


disadvantage

more limited admin access
compatibility with enterwiki (ncl and such, maybe not)
...

Borror0
11-23-2008, 02:58 AM
I certainly see the perks to it, but it would suck if we can't have the extensions we want.

I wouldn't mind keeping the wiki up even if I would stop playing the game. I will try to look into it soon. If you happen to learn more about it before then, let me know about it. Use this thread over PMs, it will bump it. We might get a person or two more that would be willing to contribute.

Thank you for all your work and dedication. It's greatly appreciated.

Kistilan
11-23-2008, 03:07 AM
I'm still in on this Borror0.

I recently was using the Compendium (this evening) and was frustrated to run into dead ends on BASIC ENTRY LEVEL FEATS. Yep.... Incomplete.

I think you could do well either way. We don't necessarily have to use wikia because you're dedicated enough IMO to keep the boat afloat even if others just show up to navigate the river Styx for you.

On the other hand, if wikia is truly the Gamer's Wiki, and it's interconnected with all those OTHER mmorpgs, it would be handy to score cross-traffic.

On the vice-versa other hand, those same users could come to your game's pages and drop a big stinking turd layered in heckling. It would be funny, but at the same time, somebody has to pick it up and take it to the garbage can for erroneous humour is not necessarily informative (and not everyone will catch every untrue innuendo).

What I really wish could happen is that the DDO Compendium could actually utilize players as content generators as we know where the mistakes are as soon as they happen.

Caveat: Exploits shouldn't be in the Compendium (unless corrected & on a timeline of patches correcting specific exploit X). Those mistakes.... should quietly be pushed to devs.

Borror0
11-23-2008, 03:19 AM
I recently was using the Compendium (this evening) and was frustrated to run into dead ends on BASIC ENTRY LEVEL FEATS. My favorite once is Evasion. There is still no mention that it only works in light armor.

We don't necessarily have to use wikia because you're dedicated enough IMO
The problem is more that if any happens to me or if I become unreachable, you loose the wiki, access to anything more than normal edits and you couldn't promote new bureaucrats. On top of it, wikia has already a structure that is known by more editors and that also means I won't have to think about how it should be.

On the other hand, if wikia is truly the Gamer's Wiki, and it's interconnected with all those OTHER mmorpgs, it would be handy to score cross-traffic.
They might have changed that, but last time I checked a year or so ago, that wasn't the case. It was rated disconnected.

That was the idea Elliot behind EnterWiki. Interconnecting the wikis better. He gave up on the idea, lost his passion for the idea... but it was a good one.

Somebody has to pick it up and take it to the garbage can for erroneous humour is not necessarily informative.
That is not a problem. Anyone that cares about his gaming wiki should have the Recent Changes (http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Special:Recentchanges) page in his RSS feeds.

What I really wish could happen is that the DDO Compendium could actually utilize players as content generators as we know where the mistakes are as soon as they happen.
That sadly will never happen.

You just have to take a look at how editor unfriendly the DDO Compendium is to understand why. You can't correct a lot of mistakes because they are stuck in that silly structure. The have heavy HTML that makes the page look silly if you write outside of it. The didn't even upload the parsers since it has gone live. It's a matter of 15 to 20 minutes and you practically can't have a good looking wiki without these unless you are at Tubine's end and are using that automatically imported from the game HTML structure.

Their wiki is not a wiki. It's a website that tried to pretend it's a wiki.

Turbine doesn't want us to edit their wiki that much.