Uhm wth wikia?

[Mayareira]

All sky gods are /whm!!!1111

[Sci]

It's pretty much safe to say that the general population does not care enough to remedy the situation with Wikia and BGwiki for FFXI. But just remember what happened and take it to heart, and for FFXIV choose to put your info and findings into a wiki you trust. Keep in mind that building a community and a following is the livelihood of some people on the internet. Information is not free, especially good information. So you'll surely have plenty of people jumping up and saying "Put your information here!!!! I have cake!". Most of them aren't setting up wikis, or the like, to do you a favor or for altruistic reasons. So you should at least remember the people who did make and support a community for others benefit, then throw your support that way in the future.

[Stellar]

FFXIclopedia does have amazing guides that teach you how to play your job to its utmost potential.. For instance now I know that March should only be used on a Ninja after reading.. "Bard: Guide to Songs 101". I'll link this amazing article so you other bards out there can learn to use the correct songs.

Bard: Guide to Songs 101 - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more

"Within this same large variety, many Bards will make simple errors in song choice that are truly ineffective. This practice can continue a long time since many parties like to avoid telling a BRD what to do at all costs, BRD can typically find a party very easily and parties fear losing one. Some Bards will use March songs, assuming the +Haste will make a major increase in party efficiency. However, this is not so, the first march song is very weak, with a +10% Haste increase (I believe). The second is not much better at only +15% (also not certain of this). The only uses of these songs would be on a Ninja, but it takes a very skilled Bard to avoid interfering with this song with Minuet and Madrigal needed on the other Melee."

How could you not use this wiki?!?

[Ashira]

Just out of plain old curiosity, what was the page and dispute you were having?

IF YOU USE A WS AND ARE PARALYZED YOU LOSE TP

omfg let the fucking debate begin

[Ashira]

Wiki info is taken from everywhere. I put together the Salvage page for the BG wiki, am I an intellectual thief because I learned about Salvage from the FFXI wiki, blogs, here and my own experience?

It's common courtesy to be cited. It was odd for me to be doing some research on Sandy missions because I finally needed to finish them, backed up one quest too many and saw my own recitation of soloing a BC as a solo strategy on clopedia.

I don't mind sharing the info, it's why it was on my blog in the first place, but it's kinda jarring to see stuff you figured out slapped up on a page with absolutely no mention.

[Khamsin]

Then... oh, "edit it!" See what I did there? XD

Easier to edit mistakes then add new info I think

The argument that people should just edit inaccuracies in otherwiki cannot be used, if people are also complaining about contributing to bgwiki using the exact opposite argument.

[Killkenny]

requesting a cite for information taken isnt hard.

and people should always have the option to request their own information not be posted.

These are 2 really invalid points. Who cares whether BG or a BG poster gets credit for posting information, some of the best known contributors (Kaeko being the most obvious) don't have massive egos that need stroking every time they post something. Looking at it from otherwiki's perspective, when a piece of information is copy/pasted from these boards without citing it, it wasn't otherwiki doing it, it was an individual which is the entire point.

As for information not being posted, you can request til your lungs turn blue and your fingers cramp but it doesn't mean shit. This is a public forum and when you post something you have no right or claim to it, if somebody wants to keep information from public viewing then don't post it at all (and we have seen several cases of this in the past year).

In the end the vast vast majority of people don't give a shit about the Ganiman drama (there is a lot of different ideas on the drama itself which invalidates it as a reason even further), that includes the people who are aware of what happened. BGwiki was a noble idea but its perfectly accurate when people say its crap or pointless, information will normally end up on otherwiki anyway. Using the "update it yourself" arguement in retort to any negative comments against BGwiki has no impact, and if anything will put people off.

[Demosthenes11]

is it just me or are the only people that are still butthurt about otherwiki all a part of the BG "in" crowd?

[QuePsiXI]

I'm almost willing to bet in the week or so since I first posted, not one article on BG Wiki hasn't been updated. Look at a lot of these posts, and people keep referring to BG Wiki as something that died and is being given a proper burial. Fix the goddamn wiki or shut the fuck up, if you care so much. But you don't, and the proof is in the wiki.

Stellar acts like "lol, look at that terrible link on other wiki, scrubs, let me go right back to the BG wiki, which is the greatest wiki of all time. OF ALL TIME." Meanwhile, the reality is, constantly asking What's Better, and commenting on Fuck or Duck(side note: I LOVE THAT THREAD) is not making a bad wiki any more worthwhile. But you all fight the good fight, I guess.

[ringthree]

It's common courtesy to be cited. It was odd for me to be doing some research on Sandy missions because I finally needed to finish them, backed up one quest too many and saw my own recitation of soloing a BC as a solo strategy on clopedia.

I don't mind sharing the info, it's why it was on my blog in the first place, but it's kinda jarring to see stuff you figured out slapped up on a page with absolutely no mention.

Get over yourself, it's a wiki. If you don't get the concept then don't use the internet.

And way to bring up years old wiki issues. Some people are stupid on the internet, I thought some of you would have figured this out by now.

[ronin sparthos]

FFXIclopedia does have amazing guides that teach you how to play your job to its utmost potential.. For instance now I know that March should only be used on a Ninja after reading.. "Bard: Guide to Songs 101". I'll link this amazing article so you other bards out there can learn to use the correct songs.

Bard: Guide to Songs 101 - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more

"Within this same large variety, many Bards will make simple errors in song choice that are truly ineffective. This practice can continue a long time since many parties like to avoid telling a BRD what to do at all costs, BRD can typically find a party very easily and parties fear losing one. Some Bards will use March songs, assuming the +Haste will make a major increase in party efficiency. However, this is not so, the first march song is very weak, with a +10% Haste increase (I believe). The second is not much better at only +15% (also not certain of this). The only uses of these songs would be on a Ninja, but it takes a very skilled Bard to avoid interfering with this song with Minuet and Madrigal needed on the other Melee."

How could you not use this wiki?!?

That's why you dont read the "guides" or take them with a grain of salt. Besides, it'd be ideal to read multiple guides or *gasp* ask bards ingame about their opinions on some guide you read on the wiki.

[Kirschy]

It's common courtesy to be cited. It was odd for me to be doing some research on Sandy missions because I finally needed to finish them, backed up one quest too many and saw my own recitation of soloing a BC as a solo strategy on clopedia.

I don't mind sharing the info, it's why it was on my blog in the first place, but it's kinda jarring to see stuff you figured out slapped up on a page with absolutely no mention.

I've had a few of my tests posted on wiki w/o any credit. It doesn't bother me much since I don't do testing to get my name out there, but it does bother me that Wiki purposely won't put links to research. It makes it much harder to deduce how/why something was figured out. If you look up "Calculating Magic Damage" there's 6 sources listed and a ton of text in the discussion. But if you look up "Hit Rate" or "Accuracy", there are 0 sources listed and limited to no discussion on testing techniques, or where the formulas came from. This frustrates me =/. The info came from somewhere if it was put on the wiki. They should be kind enough to include links to the research behind it.

[Cutriss]

is it just me or are the only people that are still butthurt about otherwiki all a part of the BG "in" crowd?

I pretty much said the same thing on Page 2.

[Spider-Dan]

is it just me or are the only people that were ever butthurt about otherwiki all a part of the BG "in" crowd?

fixed

[Spider-Dan]

I've had a few of my tests posted on wiki w/o any credit. It doesn't bother me much since I don't do testing to get my name out there, but it does bother me that Wiki purposely won't put links to research. It makes it much harder to deduce how/why something was figured out.

Are you saying that FFXIclopedia, as a policy, prohibits links to research? Because otherwise, your complaint is pretty pointless; Wikia does not control whether or not people want to take the time to cite their sources, any more than BGwiki does.

The alternative is to go the Wikipedia route of "requiring" a citation for everything (as well as "no original research"), which is beyond pointless for a game wiki.

[Cadsuane]

If ffxiclopedia was accrediting "BG forums" for all the info supposedly pilfered from here, I wonder if anyone would take issue with that and bother to point out that nothing comes from BG that doesn't come from its users.

... Nah.

[McGoonagle]

Citation is a common courtesy and the ffxi wiki does not have rules against it. You will see pages that cite their sources. It is much more likely that a significant fraction of the people who write the pages may simply not understand the practice. Wiki does record who made the edits, but not the source of the new material. So, somebody could get credit for doing something they never did just by being lazy.

If an author does want to get snippy, they probably could file a complaint of plagiarism if their work gets quoted too extensively without appropriate citation. (I'm trying do to that right now. Large sections of my web site appeared in a book from a highly reputable publisher.)

Works, including web pages, are copyright to the author (they are born copyrighted), but you may want to place a copyright statement on your site saying that someone is free to quote with attribution.

[Kaeko]

These are 2 really invalid points. Who cares whether BG or a BG poster gets credit for posting information, some of the best known contributors (Kaeko being the most obvious) don't have massive egos that need stroking every time they post something. Looking at it from otherwiki's perspective, when a piece of information is copy/pasted from these boards without citing it, it wasn't otherwiki doing it, it was an individual which is the entire point.

When the whole enmity model was produced on my LJ, I specifically stated I would not want it regurgitated on the wiki. Even today it's still not reproduced there - either by respect or laziness (try reproducing 1000+ spells/abilities), but they do offer a brief overview (followed by info I would consider suspect or just plain wrong/irrelevant), then cite me.

My reasoning for not wanting my work regurgitated there was that I made a ton of ninja edits to the tables. If someone else was try to reproduce said values, even with citing me, you would have 2 sources of the "same" information, but one of them is updated by the researcher and one is not. The result is a high probability that the information on the wiki becomes outdated quickly without my personal verification. This causes both confusion, and attribution of 'bad info' to myself and those involved in the actual research. You could argue I could have directly edited the wiki instead of my own site; however, Wiki is a community editor, and I did not want my research next to stuff like "Koenig body is for tanks and has +20CHR, therefore CHR must affect hate" and stuff like that.

Even still, there are a few people on wiki that think/thought I was attention whoring or being an asshole for asking not to have the tables reproduced there. You can see this argument on discussion - I even made a wiki account just to reply to this guy.

In summary, of course I would like to be cited for something I spent a lot of time writing and researching on; it's not that I specifically spent the time to get e-props, but recognition would be nice. I definitely get this so I would never complain about that aspect. What worries me in terms of wiki is perhaps the opposite happening - people attributing bad information some random editor writes next to my info to me. Other than this, I really don't get that bent out of shape about sharing info.

The absolute only thing that I would ever get pissed about regarding something I've done is if someone tried to make a buck out of it. Like if someone wrote literature and sold it with the numbers in it. Beyond that, it's the internet and everything's free right?

[willriker]

1) dont know how people can make fun of the 'BG crowd' for taking pride in their wiki.

2) nothing is free, not even on the internet.

3) dont let people cite you. you never know what they are going to cite or how much they are going to cite. they very well could cite you in context to make you sound like a genious. They could cite you in a way that makes you look horrible, on purpose or by missapplication of your ideas (mistake on their part). Anyone who is, or isn't, cited has the right to be upset or happy with the situation.

4) as for comments undermining the amount of information pilfered from BG... there was/is a reason why the endgame crowd gravitated/gravitates towards BG. Everyone else just kind of followed... for i dont know what reason. It certainly wasnt because they were interested in the cutting edge endgame information that was coming out of BG when its membership had its first major boom. I dont know what it was that brought people like this to the bg forums... but dont think that BG has not made a significant impact on how this game is played.

and dont think that the information derived on bg, well a portion of it, wasnt stolen to be put on the originalwiki. a decent portion of the game impacting information came from bg forums.

[Sci]

The absolute only thing that I would ever get pissed about regarding something I've done is if someone tried to make a buck out of it. Like if someone wrote literature and sold it with the numbers in it. Beyond that, it's the internet and everything's free right?

Well that's the thing about Wikia, they are making a buck out of it. They are in the business of having gaming wikis and serving ads as a source of revenue. And when they can, they try to establish their own. But if some other wiki becomes more popular than their own for a certain game, they purchase it. And they offer the people who were maintaining it previously some pittance to keep updated/moderated. It's a business to Wikia, and they survive on the fact that the game's community will keep the wiki they host updated for no financial benefit.