Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Clean Slate on Wiki?  (Read 3685 times)

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Clean Slate on Wiki?
« on: April 08, 2010, 04:26:11 am »

Am I doing something wrong, or has the Wiki effectively been excised of a lot of old information?  Went there for the first time in ages, today (via Google, so there's a chance I hit on a new version if I haven't spotted it's a new URL) and several things I searched for led me to pages like "DF2010:Strange mood" which are currently empty (prepped for 2010 version updates) but without any apparent way of getting the pre-2010 information.

Oh, hang on, never mind, just found that http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/40d:Strange_mood is the old-version counterpart of the 'current' "Strange_Moods" (a.k.a. "DF2010:Strange_mood") page.

Still, as I couldn't find mention of this shifting around here on the forum[1] or obvious mention of this mechanism on the Wiki itself, I might as well continue to add as a F.Y.I. for anyone else confused and unable to find information.

(If I really did manage to overlook a glaringly obvious notification of said change, someone let me know and I'll lock/remove this thread, or whatever I can do to it to let it get buried and forgotten.  I've already made at least one other glaringly bad comprehension error today, so it's quite possible. :))

[1]
Did look,
 Didn't find.
Could just be,
 That I'm blind.
Logged

Thor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2010, 05:55:54 am »

You aren't at blame.

To be honest the way the Wiki was "updated" was terribly executed. They should of kepted everything as it was, and done the information change in stages, maybe leaving a "This is out of date" tag on top, not removing everything even things that weren't even changed.

Yes I am a sour old man.
Logged
Heroes Of My World.
Astesh Delightinks the Pungent Trust of Towers

Mason11987

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2010, 06:24:05 am »

You aren't at blame.

To be honest the way the Wiki was "updated" was terribly executed. They should of kepted everything as it was, and done the information change in stages, maybe leaving a "This is out of date" tag on top, not removing everything even things that weren't even changed.

Yes I am a sour old man.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
(That was long, lol)
tl;dr:
Your suggestion of how it should be done has a lot of problems.  These problems were discussed and we asked people to give their opinion.  You also need to actually explore the wiki a little before you so seriously criticize it.  40d information is not gone

Shades

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2010, 06:41:35 am »

1) A slow edit-by-edit change into "this is now up to date" means we don't have easily accessible and updatable information about the previous version, which some will likely play for the significant future.

Irrelevant, you can create a backup which would have matched the current 40d, in fact the name spacing was a sensible way.

2) It would be impossible to look at an article that is several pages of DF2010 and 40d information mixed together and at some point declare "this is now up to date" without going through each item yourself and specifically confirming it was still accurate.  This will lead to one of two scenarios: A) it will be a long time before we have pages that we can rely on, B) eventually people will just start from scratch. 

2a) It's a wiki, it will never be accurate but working from existing data will result in faster page changes. Furthermore a lot (most?) of the old information is still valid as is.
2b) I don't see this is a downside at all? but under the current system you forced that.

I wish I noticed the discussion on going before these changes were made as it's fairly easy to point how how flawed the final choice is. In any case I'm sure it won't be too long till some of the pages have data again.
Logged
Its like playing god with sentient legos. - They Got Leader
[Dwarf Fortress] plays like a dizzyingly complex hybrid of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims, if all your little people were manic-depressive alcoholics. - tv tropes
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right. - xkcd

Kazindir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2010, 06:43:32 am »

However it would have been nice if the search defaulted to 40d info pages if the 2010 ones don't have content - which I believe would have cut down a lot of the complaints as most of them are along the lines of "I searched for X and all I got was a placeholder page".

No idea what manner of sorcery would be involved in that though.
Logged

Shades

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2010, 06:46:50 am »

However it would have been nice if the search defaulted to 40d info pages if the 2010 ones don't have content - which I believe would have cut down a lot of the complaints as most of them are along the lines of "I searched for X and all I got was a placeholder page".

No idea what manner of sorcery would be involved in that though.

The cheapest way would probably have been to have a redirect to the 40d version on the newly generated blank pages, would have made it hard for editors though. At this point I've have just suggest cut and pasting old data that is (at least as far as you know) correct when you come across empty pages.

You can get to the old 40d stuff from a link on the df2010 page.
Logged
Its like playing god with sentient legos. - They Got Leader
[Dwarf Fortress] plays like a dizzyingly complex hybrid of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims, if all your little people were manic-depressive alcoholics. - tv tropes
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right. - xkcd

Retro

  • Bay Watcher
  • o7
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2010, 06:51:12 am »

I should add to Mason's statements that people still play 40d. Besides, if you get redirected to a blank page, there's a link readily available to access 40d information, which will likely be able to help - usually all we're waiting for is someone to take the time to proofread the old 40d information and copy it over after making sure it's still correct, which requires more editors and/or more spare time. Editing the pre-existing articles would've been absurd esp. with many more hypothetical releases in the next few years.

Really, I see all the "argh wiki is so useless" complaints as either them not taking the time to look at the 40d pages when confronted with a blank stub or not realizing that with a brand new release it takes more than a week (or even a day; the first criticisms came quickly) to gather all the appropriate new information. The new system is clearly not perfect but it was handled quite well imo, definitely far from "terribly executed."

Kazindir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2010, 06:56:55 am »

I know, but it's a small link that many people apparently have missed and in some, seeing the stub page seems to induce the sort of rage that many people get when they see "under construction" pages on websites. :)
Logged

Shades

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2010, 07:00:10 am »

Editing the pre-existing articles would've been absurd esp. with many more hypothetical releases in the next few years.

No, it would have been the sensible way to do this. After making the clone at 40d of course. Or do you want a reset every 'major change' release? Because lets face it the majority of the articles on there aren't likely to need much change.

Under your scrap everything logic we may as well wait for the next version before making new pages so we don't have to scrap all the hard work again...
Logged
Its like playing god with sentient legos. - They Got Leader
[Dwarf Fortress] plays like a dizzyingly complex hybrid of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims, if all your little people were manic-depressive alcoholics. - tv tropes
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right. - xkcd

Retro

  • Bay Watcher
  • o7
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2010, 07:25:43 am »

Under your scrap everything logic

I'm not sure where you got 'scrap everything' from out of my post, but using extremes like that is a ridiculous way to debate an issue.

Both points of view involve having two versions of each page, one for each game version (plus 23a where applicable). Your view does not use namespaces and would instead tack on a "this information has not been checked to be currently accurate" template on while storing the original. The way it was executed does basically the same thing but from the other direction: Move the original stuff, then copy it back in once it had been check over so as to not confuse new players with out of date information; and it uses namespaces for current articles rather than waiting for the next version. There is rather little difference; I don't see how one can be terrible while the other sensible when they're so similar.

The legacy information has not been scrapped in the slightest. It is simply one single click further away. Main links like url.com/Creatures now go to current version redirects, so whenever the next major version change comes out the non-namespace links will be just as effective. Namespaces will be required for each and every major version that is released. 99% of pages will need one copy per version anyhow. There is little difference between leaving it for now or for later as we have redirects. Really I see both methods as equally effective and with equal flaws.

Mason11987

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2010, 07:39:20 am »

Editing the pre-existing articles would've been absurd esp. with many more hypothetical releases in the next few years.

No, it would have been the sensible way to do this. After making the clone at 40d of course. Or do you want a reset every 'major change' release? Because lets face it the majority of the articles on there aren't likely to need much change.

Under your scrap everything logic we may as well wait for the next version before making new pages so we don't have to scrap all the hard work again...
However it would have been nice if the search defaulted to 40d info pages if the 2010 ones don't have content - which I believe would have cut down a lot of the complaints as most of them are along the lines of "I searched for X and all I got was a placeholder page".

No idea what manner of sorcery would be involved in that though.

The cheapest way would probably have been to have a redirect to the 40d version on the newly generated blank pages, would have made it hard for editors though. At this point I've have just suggest cut and pasting old data that is (at least as far as you know) correct when you come across empty pages.

You can get to the old 40d stuff from a link on the df2010 page.

However it would have been nice if the search defaulted to 40d info pages if the 2010 ones don't have content - which I believe would have cut down a lot of the complaints as most of them are along the lines of "I searched for X and all I got was a placeholder page".

No idea what manner of sorcery would be involved in that though.

1) A slow edit-by-edit change into "this is now up to date" means we don't have easily accessible and updatable information about the previous version, which some will likely play for the significant future.

Irrelevant, you can create a backup which would have matched the current 40d, in fact the name spacing was a sensible way.

We DID create a backup.  It's at 40d:Article.

2) It would be impossible to look at an article that is several pages of DF2010 and 40d information mixed together and at some point declare "this is now up to date" without going through each item yourself and specifically confirming it was still accurate.  This will lead to one of two scenarios: A) it will be a long time before we have pages that we can rely on, B) eventually people will just start from scratch. 

2a) It's a wiki, it will never be accurate but working from existing data will result in faster page changes. Furthermore a lot (most?) of the old information is still valid as is.
2b) I don't see this is a downside at all? but under the current system you forced that.

I wish I noticed the discussion on going before these changes were made as it's fairly easy to point how how flawed the final choice is. In any case I'm sure it won't be too long till some of the pages have data again.
[/quote]

We CAN work from existing data, in fact on most pages that data is at a link prominently displayed right at the top.  Because most but not all information is up to date you can use the old information to add to the new articles after you've checked it.

We forced it because if it was gradual then there's noway to know if every part of an article has been verified for the new version unless you did it yourself.  In this way it can be added to the new article piece by piece and we can know that DF2010: stuff IS accurate because someone has checked it.

I wish you had known to, but then again these statements were addressed then as well.

However it would have been nice if the search defaulted to 40d info pages if the 2010 ones don't have content - which I believe would have cut down a lot of the complaints as most of them are along the lines of "I searched for X and all I got was a placeholder page".

No idea what manner of sorcery would be involved in that though.

Sure, that would be neat, but it's not an editor-level change, something like that if possible would have to be hacked into an already unreliable wiki system.  But then I think it's likely those placeholder pages wouldn't have been filled in as quickly as they are.


However it would have been nice if the search defaulted to 40d info pages if the 2010 ones don't have content - which I believe would have cut down a lot of the complaints as most of them are along the lines of "I searched for X and all I got was a placeholder page".

No idea what manner of sorcery would be involved in that though.

The cheapest way would probably have been to have a redirect to the 40d version on the newly generated blank pages, would have made it hard for editors though. At this point I've have just suggest cut and pasting old data that is (at least as far as you know) correct when you come across empty pages.

You can get to the old 40d stuff from a link on the df2010 page.

"at least as far as you know" isn't exactly what we're looking for.  DF2010 pages are supposed to not be stuff that MIGHT be accurate as of this version but stuff you can be SURE is because someone actually checked it instead of copy-paste a 4 page article.  This is the best way to accomplish that.

I know, but it's a small link that many people apparently have missed and in some, seeing the stub page seems to induce the sort of rage that many people get when they see "under construction" pages on websites. :)

Valid criticism: the links to 40d versions should be more prominent (especially if the page is short?).

Agreed.

Editing the pre-existing articles would've been absurd esp. with many more hypothetical releases in the next few years.

No, it would have been the sensible way to do this. After making the clone at 40d of course. Or do you want a reset every 'major change' release? Because lets face it the majority of the articles on there aren't likely to need much change.

Under your scrap everything logic we may as well wait for the next version before making new pages so we don't have to scrap all the hard work again...

We didn't "reset" we didn't "scrap" things.  Nothing is gone.  Many of the articles are extensive and so MOST will have some kind of change.  A discussion came to the conclusion that "almost accurate" and "probably right" isn't exactly our goal, and that's the best you can get without requiring newly written articles.  We saw the concern about scrapping things so the solution was to have an old version accurate as of that version, and a new version accurate as of the new version.

Under your scrap everything logic

I'm not sure where you got 'scrap everything' from out of my post, but using extremes like that is a ridiculous way to debate an issue.

Both points of view involve having two versions of each page, one for each game version (plus 23a where applicable). Your view does not use namespaces and would instead tack on a "this information has not been checked to be currently accurate" template on while storing the original. The way it was executed does basically the same thing but from the other direction: Move the original stuff, then copy it back in once it had been check over so as to not confuse new players with out of date information; and it uses namespaces for current articles rather than waiting for the next version. There is rather little difference; I don't see how one can be terrible while the other sensible when they're so similar.

The legacy information has not been scrapped in the slightest. It is simply one single click further away. Main links like url.com/Creatures now go to current version redirects, so whenever the next major version change comes out the non-namespace links will be just as effective. Namespaces will be required for each and every major version that is released. 99% of pages will need one copy per version anyhow. There is little difference between leaving it for now or for later as we have redirects. Really I see both methods as equally effective and with equal flaws.

I slightly disagree, the way it was done is better then the way he is proposing.  The fact that he keeps stating things were "scrapped" when they weren't doesn't mean there must be equivocating on our end about the discussion.  The plan was great.  The execution was fantastic given limited (volunteer) manpower.  The outcome is very useful as far as I can tell.  Other methods could have worked but not as well imo.

Edit - ARGH quotes messed up.  Sigh - I have to go to work :(

andrewas

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2010, 07:46:44 am »

Under your scrap everything logic we may as well wait for the next version before making new pages so we don't have to scrap all the hard work again...

Scrap? The 40d namespace has lost nothing, except there are still a few links that need to be fixed. The bot, in retrospect, could have done a better job, if it had normalized links before the move this would have been a lot easier. And as always, if everyone who visited made just one fix, the problem would have lasted an hour at most. As it is, one week on and its still being fixed.

If you want to help solve the problem, you can add {{av}} templates to the stub/nonexistent articles you are complaining about. That will at add the links to the older version of the article. Obviously content needs to go into these articles as well but it has to be verified as you go, otherwise we wind up with a wiki full of information that everyone 'knows' is correct and there will be no procedure in place to check it for errors. That will take years to sort out completely.

Or if you just want to get straight to the 40d version of the article, then add '40d:' to the search string and you go straight there.
Logged

Blacken

  • Bay Watcher
  • Orange Polar Bear
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2010, 07:50:18 am »

Your suggestion of how it should be done has a lot of problems.  These problems were discussed and we asked people to give their opinion.  You also need to actually explore the wiki a little before you so seriously criticize it.  40d information is not gone
Virtually impossible to access in a user-friendly manner is the equivalent of "gone" to 90% of people. Bad links everywhere (and a link that doesn't take you where you want to go is by definition a bad link)? Awesome. Opaque interface (and don't go "hurr DF has a bad interface and you play it", you expect a Wiki to not fail)? Even more awesome!

I have explored it, and it's still a really shitty solution. Sorry that that upsets you (and I mean that honestly), but it really, really is. An in-place migration over time--snapshot all the pages of 40d to the 40d namespace, add a "this is potentially out of date, for the last 40d version of the article hit up this link, add DF2010 information here"--would actually allow users to find things. It's not like data storage is a constraint.


Really, I see all the "argh wiki is so useless" complaints as either them not taking the time to look at the 40d pages when confronted with a blank stub or not realizing that with a brand new release it takes more than a week (or even a day; the first criticisms came quickly) to gather all the appropriate new information. The new system is clearly not perfect but it was handled quite well imo, definitely far from "terribly executed."
You're wrong. Sorry, but your opinion is poisoned; you are too close to the process to be capable of analyzing the course of action taken in an uninvested manner. Sorry, but even an open-source project would be crucified for a migration that was handled as slipshod as this. I realize that you're doing it in your spare time, and that's fine, but when you are managing what is essentially the "official" wiki (the wiki is pointed at in the DF executable - it's as official as there is), you have an implicit obligation to your users to be usable.

This method of migration did not uphold that obligation for a lot of users, and they're saying so. One of the most important things for project teams to ever, ever learn is that a user saying "X sucks" cannot be interpreted to "the user doesn't understand it" or "the user doesn't consider Y and Z." It means "X sucks." It may be deeply personally offensive to you that they've been indelicate about it. That's unfortunate. It doesn't change that, for the user...it still sucks. You can take umbrage about their tone...it still sucks. You can argue 'till you're blue in the face...it still sucks.

All you can do is take a breath, learn from it, and make it suck less in the future.

The legacy information has not been scrapped in the slightest. It is simply one single click further away. Main links like url.com/Creatures now go to current version redirects, so whenever the next major version change comes out the non-namespace links will be just as effective. Namespaces will be required for each and every major version that is released. 99% of pages will need one copy per version anyhow. There is little difference between leaving it for now or for later as we have redirects. Really I see both methods as equally effective and with equal flaws.
Do the links on 40d pages go to where the user expects? (No.) Do the search terms put in take the user to an informational, usable page? (Generally not.)

That means, as far as a user cares, it's gone.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 08:04:55 am by Blacken »
Logged
"There's vermin fish, which fisherdwarves catch, and animal fish, which catch fisherdwarves." - Flame11235

Shades

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2010, 07:51:59 am »

I mentioned the 40d backup and agreed with that copy, in fact you quote my agreement. I thought that that would make it clear the scraping comment was pointed at the new articles. I guess not.


Logged
Its like playing god with sentient legos. - They Got Leader
[Dwarf Fortress] plays like a dizzyingly complex hybrid of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims, if all your little people were manic-depressive alcoholics. - tv tropes
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right. - xkcd

Retro

  • Bay Watcher
  • o7
    • View Profile
Re: Clean Slate on Wiki?
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2010, 08:56:23 am »

Much as I would like to rebut I don't really see this debate going one way or the other, so I'm just going to bow out. I'm kind of surprised that anyone who feels that the wiki change wasn't 'horribly handled' is automatically assumed to have been a part of the process, though. I simply agreed with it - I'm not really involved with the wiki as anything but an editor, and even that is recent. My positive feelings towards the change cannot be discounted via condemning my opinion as 'poisoned.'

I leave with the final sentiment of 'give it time.' 40d links can and will be fixed to fit the new within-its-own-version template. It's the seventh eighth day of release. Have some patience.

(and don't start with that 'users don't have patience therefore it sucks' again; if they're willing to either look around the wiki or inquire here as the OP did they will find out what's going on easily enough)

ed- I need to sleep more; the days are all blending together o_o
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 09:09:54 am by Retro »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3