Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tarran]

Um. This isn't exactly a flamewar, Locriani. If you can't handle the conversation, that's fine, but don't ruin it for everyone.

What are you talking about again? Isn't this thread supposed to be for 'Real-world information in the Wiki?' and not this talk about admins? Briess had enough of it because you derailed it, Briess no longer wants to participate in this pointless argument.

[G-Flex]

It's not even just about derailing the thread. It's about all the chest-thumping vitriol going around by people who would rather just complain than try to actually figure anything out and participate constructively.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?

Why is this such an inflammatory, "chest-thumping" question?

[Tarran]

Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?

...
Look at the first post. What you are talking about has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

[G-Flex]

Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?

Why is this such an inflammatory, "chest-thumping" question?

What the fuck? Seriously. Are you doing this on purpose?

The "real-world information" was referring to the inclusion of information about reality in the wiki, for in-game topics. How can you not know this? It was not referring to arbitrary information about the real world, like who's running the wiki, or who won the World Series in 1987, or what color my dog is.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Tarran: You mean "real world information" like, say, who's actually running the Wiki?

Why is this such an inflammatory, "chest-thumping" question?

What the fuck? Seriously. Are you doing this on purpose?

The "real-world information" was referring to the inclusion of information about reality in the wiki, for in-game topics. How can you not know this? It was not referring to arbitrary information about the real world, like who's running the wiki, or who won the World Series in 1987, or what color my dog is.

G-Flex, you've been on the Forum for a while now. How is it that you don't know how to act in a civil manner? I'm not the one causing a disruption here. I came to the thread for help with the Wiki, and found very little help, and quite a bit of animosity towards the "newcomer". I'm trying to work to correct that, but unfortunately, you're ready to perpetuate the status quo.

I don't want the next person to have to go through what I did, and there's a lot of things going on with the Wiki that seem downright weird to me. If I had gotten real help in the first place, instead of a bunch of people telling me how clueless I was, I'd be long gone by now, and happier for it.

[Tarran]

You're complaining about G-Flex being uncivilized, when you have much larger problems yourself. You are responding to us with things that have nothing to do with the argument, like this post. Stop responding to us with things that have nothing to do with the argument.

[G-Flex]

You're not trying to help in a civil fashion no matter how much you claim to be.

Let's use "I can't track this talk page!" as an example.

Civil:

• Attempt to discovery the functionality on your own. This would likely solve the problem, since there's a big "watch" button right up top.
• If that fails, ask someone knowledgeable (there are plenty) where the functionality is, or if it exists. If the last step didn't solve the problem, this one would, and without any hostility being exchanged, or anyone having to complain or be negative about anything, and without this as the result.

Uncivil:

• Complain that the functionality doesn't exist before even asking anyone or making a decent effort to find it, and do so in a fairly aggravated manner.

Also uncivil:

• Being intentionally dense about what the topic was originally about in order to presumably make things more difficult for other people or to make yourself appear more "right", or simply because you can't be bothered, again, actually checking for yourself.

This is the problem with a lot of discussion in a place like this. People run their mouths, complain, yell, complain, complain, make harsh judgements, complain, and complain some more, even if they don't know anything about the subject in question and are unwilling to figure it out or ask first.

I'm not trying to "perpetuate the status quo". I've been identifying issues I have with the wiki systems to Locriani fairly regularly, lately. I'm also not attempting to prevent new people from using or editing the wiki, as is clear on my position regarding things like article quality labels and the factual-information templates.

I'm not being hostile towards you for being a newcomer, or not knowing things. Everybody is like that at some point. That's cool. I'm being hostile towards your lack of concern for actually trying to figure shit out, or have someone else help you figure shit out, before you complain about it needlessly, and your tendency in general to complain about things the second they enter your head before thinking them through or seeing if it's actually necessary to do so, or when a less negative tone would be more productive.

[Retro]

Glancing at the current argument I don't really see its immediate relevance to anything DF-related, especially as the original 'real-world info on wiki' discussion has more or less moved to the wiki. However since SirHoneyBadger has said that the questions in his first post in the thread weren't answered thus causing a hubbub, I thought I'd go back and answer them!

I don't understand why whoever's managing the Wiki couldn't simply replace old section with updated ones, in a piecemeal fashion, instead of simply wiping large portions of (often still very useful, if not always 100% accurate) information, research, and charts--some of which represent years of work and testing.

The idea behind the entire thing is that with a new version and the old previous versions in play, having just one page per item wouldn't work - each version needs a 'baron' or 'dragon' page etc. etc. The process was thus: A template was created that told you at the top of each page what version it was for as well as links to other versions. If a page was empty, editors could grab the material from the 40d page, proofread and edit it to make sure information was still relevant, and then insert it into the new page. Thus the material is not completely gone, merely not yet reconfirmed (and in the meantime is still just an extra click away on the relevant 40d page). The other theoretical way this could have been implemented would be to create the new 0.31 pages with the old information, leading to temporary inaccuracies until they got proofread, but it was decided to do it the other way due to reasons I can't remember anymore. There was another big heated thread about that too. Here's two relevant posts from it that will hopefully clear things up: One, two.

Basically, if a page seems empty, try looking at the 40d page until an editor checks over the 40d page and moves it to 0.31. The data's not gone, just not immediately noticeable. Hopefully that helps!

[G-Flex]

Yeah. The new version's articles need to be blank by default, because we can't always be 100% sure what has or hasn't changed, so things need to be verified. However, keeping the wiki around for the 40d material as well is sensible, as some people do still play it, and it makes a good reference regardless.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I don't have a clue what you mean about not being able to "track this page".
I never said that?

You're also assuming I didn't attempt to figure things out on my own.

Based on what? What evidence do you have? Any?

In every case (and I thought I stated it pretty clearly), I tried to come up with a solution on my own. And, when I brought up how confusing it was, I got blatant hostility in return. Not always from admins--who in most cases were pretty civil.

Things weren't as obvious to me as some others thought they should be. That might be entirely my fault, but even so, I should still be able to expect a certain amount of--non mocking--assistance.

Either way, the fact that things weren't obvious, and the fact that I didn't recieve what I would consider good help, led me to want to fix what I consider pretty large problems.

[Grey_313]

ACT I: The fall of reason
   enter wikieditors 1-10

wikieditor1: WOE IS ME, MY ADDITIONS TO THE WIKI HAVE BEEN REVERTED BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN REAL LIFE INFO
wikieditor2: haha that sucks
wikieditor3: there's too many jokes on the wiki
wikieditor1: WHAT WILL EVER BE DONE ABOUT THIS TRAVESTY

   enter wikiadministrator locriani
locriani: Hrm, well, I can see where factual information is confusing.  Let me play around with a template to separate your factual information so LIFE CAN GO ON
   exuent wikiadministrator locriani
   wikieditors begin song and dance number "it's all about the carp"

wikieditor4: BUT I DON'T LIKE FACTUAL INFORMATION
wikeditor5: AND I DON'T LIKE INJOKES
wikieditor6: elf human dwarf is RACIST
wikieditor7: yeah article rating sucks

   enter wikiadministrator locriani
locriani: consensus says
   locriani begins brief song about the three points of article rating:
      it should be simple
      it should be light hearted
      it should be three levels
      so it should be fun, fun, fun
      so it should be fun, fun, fun

   exuent wikiadministrator locriani

   wikieditors begin song and dance number "THE WIKI SUCKS"
   wikieditors begin song and dance number "IT'S HARD TO FIND OLD VERSIONS"
   wikieditors begin song and dance number "THE WIKI SUCKS"

end act I









ACT 2: lol article rating
   enter wikieditors 1-10

wikieditors (in unison): WE ARE DRONES, FROM DIFFERENT AREA CODES
wikieditor8: it should be about the editors
   wikieditors begin song and dance number "The dwarfwiki is for porn editors"
   enter wikiadministrator mason and locriani, both looking frazzled
mason: that makes no sense!
wikieditor9: YOU'RE AN IDIOT
mason: What?
wikieditor9: I SEE A LITTLE SILHOUETTE OF A MAN
wikieditors: SCARAMOUCHE SCARAMOUCHE
locriani: he can't do the fandango
wikieditors: THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTNING VERY VERY FRIGHTNING
mason: to me? bull shit, you're giving me an idiot headache I'M ALLERGIC TO IDIOTS
locriani: um, 70% of wiki users have never played the game before.

wikieditors: oh oh oh oh oh oh OHHHHHH.

exuent administrators locriani and mason

end act 2










act3: caught in a landside, no escape from reality
   enter wikieditors 1-10
wikieditor8: OPEN YOUR EYES, LOOK UP TO THE SKIES AND SEE (that we don't care about random visitors)
   enter voice of reason
voice of reason: I'm just a poor (wikieditor), I need no sympathy
voice of reason: because the readers need my sympathy!

enter wikiadministrator locriani
locriani: mama, I almost killed a man
locriani: life had just begun, but now I've gone and thrown it all awa- wait what?
wikieditor8: NOTHING REALLY MATTERS EXCEPT WHO IS AN ADMINISTRATOR ON THE WIKI
locriani: what? that information is right here
wikieditors (in unison) LIES, I DON'T WANT TO DIE
locriani: sometimes I wish I have never been born at all
wikieditor8: YOU'RE JUST A POOR BOY FROM A POOR FAMILY
voice of reason: let's discuss this on the wiki
wikieditors (in unison) NO, BEELZEBUB HAS A DEVIL PUT ASIDE FOR ME (there)
locriani: this is rediculous
locriani: LET ME GO
wikieditors: we will not let you go
locriani: LET ME GO
wikieditors: we will not let you go
locriani: TOO BAD I'M GONE
exit locriani

wikieditors: HE CHEATED
wikieditors: YOU SUCK LOCRIANI

locriani: (from offstage) I'm not listening!





Fin

[G-Flex]

Like I said, if something's not obvious, you can ask.

I don't have a clue what you mean about not being able to "track this page".
I never said that?

You said that it's impossible to see when new posts have been added to a discussion. You said this both here and on the wiki.

You're also assuming I didn't attempt to figure things out on my own.

Based on what? What evidence do you have? Any?

I said it was a possibility, and that if you did try, and couldn't figure it out, you should have asked about the functionality instead of assuming it doesn't exist and complaining about it in multiple places.

Hell, you were pulling this shit two dozen pages ago, complaining about things before even attempting to understand them. It is really, really annoying for users to bitch and moan about how terrible something is before they even verify their suspicions with the people who run the thing in question, or at least people who know more about it than they do.

In every case (and I thought I stated it pretty clearly), I tried to come up with a solution on my own. And, when I brought up how confusing it was, I got blatant hostility in return. Not always from admins--who in most cases were pretty civil.

There's a difference between "I can't figure out X, it's confusing" and "X is terrible/nonexistent!". A big difference.

You've been constantly committing the crucial mistake of complaining about things before talking about them.

Things weren't as obvious to me as some others thought they should be. That might be entirely my fault, but even so, I should still be able to expect a certain amount of--non mocking--assistance.

You get better assistance when you ask about the stuff that doesn't appear obvious to you instead of jumping to conclusions and telling the admins that what they're doing is bad, that the wiki is bad, that a particular aspect of something is bad, that doesn't doesn't exist, etc.

Either way, the fact that things weren't obvious, and the fact that I didn't recieve what I would consider good help, led me to want to fix what I consider pretty large problems.

The quality and civility of help you get is in direct proportion to how civil you are. You will not get good help by jumping to conclusions and making distinct, harsh about things you do not understand.

[SirHoneyBadger]

I wasn't the only one complaining about things being missing. And I was quite pleased to find out that they weren't, infact. It remains that it was, indeed, confusing as hell, had nothing in place to alleviate that confusion, and that nothing was being done to correct that state, even after (and way before me) other people started complaining.

Where you got "2 dozen pages ago" from, I have no idea, other than an attempt to come off as even more bombastic than you already are being.

This is page 8. Where have I been harsh? Actually, make that "where have I been unreasonably harsh"?

[G-Flex]

Okay, maybe a dozen and a half. On page 6 or so, and this is page 24, so... yeah, a dozen and a half. This is using the default forum settings.