- Try to guess what it the difference between "quest" and "adventure" in DDO. that one is an headache.
- Spell me all base weapons correctly, as they are in-game.
I warn you, both are trick questions. Think about it.
Before you say it's unimportant, it is. The naming used has a lot of impact and is at the core of a wiki's structure. The users must agree on a way to spell and choose the correct naming for everything. If not, the first user that comes in front of this challenge may have to decide himself and it will become the standard. That is rarely a good thing.
The usage of namespace in the Compendium makes little sense because it is against wiki standards (meaning, newcomers have to learn something totally new), because it makes browsing/editing harder and because it causes a lot of problem when trying to add more content on the wiki. Under what namespace do I put AC? Agents of Argonnessen? Charisma?
It's an overuse of categorization, with no gain.
There's a thing called category. Use it Turbine. It serves at purpose, at least.
After reading about namespaces on Mediawiki's meta-wiki I now agree with Borror0. Categories are a much better choice. Namespaces should basically be used for creating sub-wikis (Help, Special, United States, China, Europe, and Japan would likely be the ones used here)
Might I suggest "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" by Abelson and Sussman as the light reading to prepare for the course.
However in a nut shell my one sentance response; Turbine took a bureaucratic approach to the data system causing stove piping of the data to allow for easier manipulation by automated systems.
Keeping a heretical structure, though does make sense. Subcategories take care of that nicely. I was thinking of them like namespaces in code, but that doesn't really apply here. They are very different animals.
In my understanding of media Wiki (as opposed to a different Wiki product we use) Catagories and Subcatagories only effect the way data is displayed not nessecarily the way the data is stored nor how it is interacted with by automated systems.
The wiki we use at my work was chosen because it is a more hieratical structure as opposed to the flat structure of others. This allows the automated systems (Everything from search engines to automated data creation) to ummm flow/run/umm, not the exact word I want but whatever, with fewer issues.
No that is not even close to my "main rebuttal"
I do not fear the wiki. I use ours. I read yours. I've even made a handful of very minor contributions to Wikipedia.
It is not about wiki=good or wiki=bad at all. It is about suitability of the tool to the task. Most of your suggestions are fine - awesome even - for the parts of the compendium that are intended to be user content. But some of the compendium is intended to be the game documentation: professionally designed by graphic artists, easy to use, authoritative, and stable.
I already quoted the guy who invented wiki. Even he believes you do not use wiki for everything. Pick the right tool.
Hammers are great! GREAT! but they make lousy toothpicks.
- Graphic artists: Which page wins for aesthetic this one or that one?
- Easy to use:
- Authoritative: I already addressed that point.
- Stable: Stability is meaningless if it is misinformation.
In other words, a wiki was not editor friendly by nature. Many improvements have been done in the nine years that passed since then. I am not saying it is still not scary for the user, but there is little differences between the current version of the Compendium and a real wiki. The users that would be scared by a real wiki would still be scared by the current version.
I can't defeat repetitive arguments without also becoming repetitive. But there was never a chance of changing your opinion, I knew that going in, and I'm cool with it. :cool:
Turbine, if you read this thread (possible) and made it this deep in spite of all the vitriol on the first page (unlikely), please count my vote on this topic as:
PLEASE DO NOT IMPLEMENT SUGGESTIONS #1, #3, #10 or #12 FROM THE OP.
I'm out :)
New Boss: "What Merc? You have 14 years of Technical Support Experience with various products/companies, and 3 years working specifically with this product? That is nice. We put our tech support team together in about a year and now have 14 techs supporting our customers base. We know what we are doing and you will do things our way."
Me: "Funny, we have 3 techs supporting an even larger user base and getting better service level numbers and work closely with the development team and QA to assure the customer gets what they want with a true flow of ideas, not some hierarchical game of who gets to claim the credit."
We mentioned 4 months ago there would be an issue with international support when we took it over from one of our distributors concerning returning a hardware device. "Oh, well we can address that if it becomes an issue." It will become an issue. "But you don't see it being a 'big' issue, do you?" Well no not too many, but isn't one ticked off customer who can't use our product and therefore is not spending money on it an issue?
So... last week. the issue came up, 2 weeks after we took over for the distributor. Now we have to have meetings about it. The Proposed solution is to send the device to our regional office, then to us, then back to the regional office, and then back to the customer... all international shipping and not by air if there is a cheaper options. So a month later the customer can generate a report for a client or court date? Um... not going to work.
The Web Design team could have explained the possible issues in detail, but management didn't believe it would actually be an issue. Happens ALL the time in business.