Print

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

[vidboi]

The problem is that the wiki has about five active people at a time.

True, but that's no reason to spread misinformation. The wiki will get updated, but it'll take no longer than it would if all the info was copied over and then had to be checked and changed.

[orius]

The wiki is supposed to be a source of verified information, yet crap like this somehow works its way in and persists without ever being properly checked. This is why information can never simply be copied from older versions - even if the actual behavior hasn't changed, it's possible that the documented behavior has never been correct.

I have to agree with Q here.  Misinformation can be worse than no information.

[Snaake]

I have to ask: does the wiki have categories/tags for "needs checking for current version"/"not updated"/"unverified" and such?

Would help a lot to have a central place (the category) to check which pages need to be corrected or have their info verified with !!SCIENCE!!

I'm in favor of a bot that copies the namespace, provided it adds this tag.

[Nil Eyeglazed]

I have to ask: does the wiki have categories/tags for "needs checking for current version"/"not updated"/"unverified" and such?

Would help a lot to have a central place (the category) to check which pages need to be corrected or have their info verified with !!SCIENCE!!

I'm in favor of a bot that copies the namespace, provided it adds this tag.

There's the verification tag, which isn't used much, since nobody trusts themselves to be the one to verify, and which doesn't really apply to the article as a whole.  There's the rating system, which isn't used much, but adds a timestamp, and I think it should be assumed that if it's got a relatively current "excellent" that it's been read over (although that's not always the case).  You could always make a new template, but it doesn't seem wise when ratings exist but aren't used much.

The easiest way to make sure that a page has been checked seems like the way it's been happening-- relying on the peeps who copy it over to make sure.

Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is.  When the new namespace was created, and I couldn't find info but was willing to tolerate potentially incorrect info, I looked for the wiki from the previous version.

In fact, I just did a test-- did a search for "dungeon master," and it took me to the 40d page, warned me it was about a previous version, and gave me that info.  That seems like really appropriate behavior for it that allows peeps to easily (maybe too easily!) access info from previous versions.

Richards, maybe you can describe in detail the problem that was occurring?  What were you looking for, how were you looking for it, and what info did it give you?  There might be a nicer way to direct peeps to earlier namespaces.

[Damiac]

I would think the original authors should review the article, edit anything incorrect, and re-submit it for the new version.

Blindly carrying old information forward means lots of wrong information.  If I check the wiki and get bad info 2 or 3 times, I'm just gonna write that wiki off as inaccurate.  If there's nothing there, I just assume nobody's found out how it works yet, and continue to trust what is there. 

If you're bothered by that as an author, why not just bring over the information yourself, if it still is in fact accurate.

[Wellincolin]

If you're bothered by that as an author, why not just bring over the information yourself, if it still is in fact accurate.

This statement sumed it up.
This is an open forum for any user that wants to join, for whatever reasons, and we are free to express ourselves. However, Richards, even though I (kind of) understand your indignation, it does not justify calling Quietust, one of our most important and contributing members ever, a "problem" and demanding anything.

Yes, the wiki is as much ours and Quietust's as it is of the authors, like you said. Then you're not in position to demand.

The wiki is not a simple "complement" to the game, like most wikis. People don't go there to search for quests or whatever. They go there to literally learn how to play, because this game is so complex that it is borderline impossible to be properly played without common shared knowledge, may it be personally inbetween players (which is more than often inaccurate) or through the wiki. The wiki should be as trustworthy as possible.

I'm a D for Dwarf fan myself, and have read most of these articles. I found them extremely amusing and entertaining, even the ones that contained true information amongst jokes and such. But when I was playing seriously, interested in learning more, I mostly skipped these articles. Although most are funny and very well written, they end up not having as much credibility, which is an important point in any wiki (especially when you strongly rely on it's content).

Even today, with all the "scrapped" content you mentioned, there are still inaccurate articles and information spread by people as truth because they see it on the wiki. If one reads a wiki article, he will very likely believe it without questioning, because he'll probably consider it to be tested before getting on the wiki. Most people that are looking for funny DF-related content come to the forums in the first place, the wiki is meant to be a "serious" (as it gets) place with reliable information.