Like I said, though, there isn't as strong a dichotomy between users and editors as you seem to think, and you seem to want to encourage there to be one.
I neither presume nor advocate a clear distinction between users and editors. I'm not sure why you think I would.
I do, however, recognize the fact that editors will likely have some baseline understanding of game concepts, including the concept of quality. If someone doesn't understand what quality means in DF I doubt they'd try to edit articles.
This is true, but if it doesn't
have to be confusing, then it
shouldn't be. The ironic usage of "fine" as a tag for something substandard is amusing and sensible to someone's who's very familiar with the game, sure, but it's better for that irony not to be there in the first place.
If it doesn't have to be confusing (to anyone, users or editors) then it shouldn't be. This doesn't have to be, so it shouldn't be.
Also, I've mentioned before how quality ranks, page templates, etc. are actually useful for users, even if they do not edit. If I read an article about something I know little about - say, on Wikipedia, or on the DF wiki, or any other wiki - I want to
know if there's controversy about it, or if it's leaving stuff out, or if there are disputes about its accuracy, or, on the other hand, if there has been a consensus that the information is complete and reliable. This is always true, unless you're some sort of robot who takes every word on every article at face-value to the same degree regardless of how reliable knowledgeable people think it is.
I largely agree with your statement regarding the desirability of turning users into editors, but I think it's more accurate to say that the purpose of the wiki is (1) to educate and inform new players of game mechanics and concepts, and (2) to consolidate game information from the forums and other sources for the use of all DF players. Obviously, I think the primary purpose of the wiki is to serve new players.
The question, then, is how do we do that? Questions regarding what form the quality labels should take should always start by asking what role they serve in furthering the greater purposes of the wiki. I believe that quality labels have little direct relevance for new players and primarily (not exclusively, but primarily) serve the second purpose.
You say we need to warn new players about unreliable/incomplete information on the wiki. I think the other mechanisms we have in place (D for Dwarf, disclaimer on the front page, discussion pages) sufficiently address this concern. I also think the quality of the articles is self evident, even for new players. I refer you to the examples in my prior post.
Those don't solve it because they are very incomplete. People are very unlikely to even visit the discussion page, the "D for Dwarf" is intended for comic content only, and the front-page disclaimer tells you nothing about a particular article. Also, a discussion page will get edited less often if it's not as clear on the article itself what its problems/weaknesses are; this is why wikis use templates.
Also, I'm aware of the
purpose of the wiki, but I'm talking about what the wiki
needs in order to fulfill it. One of those needs is to encourage users to become editors, and one very important tool there is to make known problems as obvious as possible.
The only way I see quality labels being directly relevant to a new player, so new that they aren't familiar with DF's quality hierarchy, is if they see it, say "I wonder what that is", and click on it. Of course, if they do that, they will not only clear up any confusion regarding the article's quality but also have a chance to learn about the game concept "quality". 
You shouldn't have to click on
anything to know what the quality rank means, at least in a very general sense. Either way, the rank is going to make an immediate impression on the person seeing it, and someone who isn't familiar enough with DF to get the joke (which, I might add, is a highly subjective joke that even someone who KNOWS about the game might not understand quite as well as the people arguing about it on this thread) will, in fact, get the
wrong impression.
As I said before, if it doesn't have to be at all confusing or misleading, then for obvious reasons, it shouldn't be.
Author
Topic: Real-world information in the Wiki? (Read 42747 times)