Uhm wth wikia?

[Yugl]

It's really not that hard at all. Almost all game quests have been added now in our own original words. None of them were copy/pasted off allah like otherwiki loves to do and not credit them for it. So before you decide to make fun of BGWiki again, you might want to visit the site and do your research before you decide to look like an idiot.

This is almost done already.

This is pretty much done as well. It's just a shame no one bothered to look at them.

So I point out ways in which we can speed up the process and solve problems that people might have when they want to contribute to BGwiki, and here you are talking trash. You know, I think certain people are onto something.

[Cadsuane]

Tell me, where did you get your FFXI information from in 2003?

Without importer community, the first 6mos of FFXI was basically Brady Guide or nothing.

Uh, yeah. I did get it from brady guide, until mysterytour, and from mysterytour until somepage. That's the point; importers didn't know shit besides the painfully obvious like don't play combos like drk/smn, and really, EVEN THAT would've been a stretch from your average importer.

[Mojo]

Mystery Tour!


semi-joking aside, dunno why people are so upset over BGwiki. If you don't like it, don't use it, but it's silly to act like it shouldn't exist at all.

The issue isn't about BG wiki, per say, it's about people constantly being criticized for using the original wiki and then being told to use BG wiki instead when it's clearly not even a remote second choice (not to mention the reasons for even telling someone to do this are based highly on perspective and the majority don't agree.)

[Kaeko]

When people seem to put info on Wiki, they often leave out the research/source. My guess is that they don't want to seem like they're stealing info? I honestly don't know. But posting info w/o a source/research makes it difficult to verify the data. To re-use the example I used before, they have level correction formulas for accuracy, but no source/research on it. It turns out the the formula seems to be correct, but it had to come from somewhere. I'd like to know where the testing came from so I can differentiate it from misguided info. (Also interested in the testing mechanism used.)

To give an example of my own research, the victory march page contains the /1024ths tiers. (Again I don't care at all that no credit was given to me, or anyone else.) But nowhere else on the wiki is the /1024th system discussed or explained. Someone who reads this wiki would have no idea how /1024ths was able to be deduced to test for themselves (or design their own tests for something related.) In fact they have no way of comparing it to some of the false info that ends up there sometimes. Unfortunately this is true for a bunch of articles.

I probably should have explained in my first post. I'm not anti-wiki. I use it myself because it does what I need it to do majority of the time. But it's a personal gripe of mine that I can't find out where certian formulas and testing came from. Like you said, that involves the people who update the wiki, not the wiki itself~

I know the thread has gone in a very different direction, but Kirschy's reasoning is something I definitely agree with. A strength of, for example, the normal Wikipedia, is the fact that mods demand citations, which allows anyone interested to dig further at a topic. Dumbing things down on a Wiki is fine, but ultimately a little citation not only gives credit where credit is due, but also helps people wishing to dig further into topics.

Now some topics don't exactly warrant a citation (e.g. random Bastok NPC), but others such as the derivation of how Haste is stacked does - because it is a model, not 'game fact'. To keep using Kirschy's work as the example, the information is not "fact", but just a person's theory. It is propelled into common knowledge if it withstands criticism and people accept it, but it is ultimately still a model; and a simple link to how such a model was originally conceived really should be standard.

**********

As far as BG vs. Wiki, these are just mediums for players to discuss and pool information. Unless you are intimately involved with running either, I would venture to say you probably don't care all too much about the site itself (or who created/maintained it) as much as who or what is on it. I'm not trying to say running such a site is easy - just that the average person just plain doesn't care that much and takes advantage of it.

Just because you help run a successful forum does not mean the forum-goers will care when you try to start another project (say a Wiki). Just because someone happens to be probably sort of a liar/douche, doesn't mean people will stop going to his site if it's useful. People care about stuff that is useful to them - not who maintains/creates it.

In many ways, this is a good thing. It's not necessarily smart to blindly follow someone into new ventures based on their unrelated successes in the past. In my opinion, the big lesson to take home from BGWiki is not to repeat the same thing for FF14 (if people so choose to go that route). It's nothing to take personally - it's just the way people are.

[Bockage]

So I point out ways in which we can speed up the process and solve problems that people might have when they want to contribute to BGwiki, and here you are talking trash. You know, I think certain people are onto something.

I originally read your post wrong. What I thought you were saying is that our wiki was devoid of content. I was harsh to you and for that I apologise. Most of those things you pointed out are in fact in the wiki already. They are all original content, or cited when copied.

[Spider-Dan]

Uh, yeah. I did get it from brady guide, until mysterytour, and from mysterytour until somepage. That's the point; importers didn't know shit besides the painfully obvious like don't play combos like drk/smn, and really, EVEN THAT would've been a stretch from your average importer.

Because "painfully obvious" things like yokodama and blink tanking were totally covered in the Brady guide, right?

I mean, seriously... you're defending the Brady guide as a perfectly legitimate STRATEGY source for the first six months this game was out? The Brady guide was good for exactly two things:

1) Mission/quest walkthrough
2) Item/gear lists

The strategy in that guide was utter trash from day 1, and I'm not sure why I'm the first one to point this out to you.

[Ksandra]

I dunno where he said bradly guide was a strategy source, just where he got his info from, which is what you asked. Stop getting angry over nothing.

[McGoonagle]

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.

The reason for citation is to allow the reader to go and check the original source to see if it is consistent with what the citing author claims. If they cite you and misquote or misinterpret what you said, it will be found out. If they don't cite you, they get away with being idiots.

[QuePsiXI]

heheh w/e man if you cant admit that the information derived on the bg forums has changed the way the game is played... and that information is now on the originalwiki... i just dont know what else to say.

Let's never get confused that I put up with the fail of these forums for the benefits of this community, which is learning a whole lot about endgame and the game in general. I am the girl that R. Kelly pissed on just to experience ''love," and get a little bit of a payout. I am Tyler Durden's tolerance for pain.

You would have lost that bet.

Recent changes - BGWiki

Sigh. And so here's the point. BG by far has the most knowledgable english-based community. No comparison. One would think that this community's wiki would by association be excellent, as it would be devout of all the stupid spam posts and "ftfy" and this's that make it hard to find good info in a regular thread. But, for whatever reasons, this wiki is absolutely terrible. Just because there have been 500 edits(from period changes to actual articles) to maybe make it slightly less terrible, I guess my other post was proven wrong. Fine. Well done, /golfclap.

For whatever anybody has to say about Septimus, he's right saying that this fail wiki is not the BG linkshell's fault, but this community's fault. Personally? I don't care, the wiki can stay terrible as long as you all want it to be. Hell, I haven't even generated enough concern to go update my own Bard guide. But a great amount of people that want to bash the other wiki as if it's no good, certainly aren't using this one(yet), and that's really all I'm trying to say.

[Seraph]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Long story short: if you are so inclined, you can print out every single page of FFXIclopedia and sell it for eleventy thousand dollars, and you do not have to give anyone (including FFXIclopedia) a dime of money or a word of credit. Ever hear of something called Linux? Yeah, it works pretty much the same way.

If you are somehow dissatisfied with this arrangement, you should stop posting your Top Secret Valuable FFXI Information to the open internet, and continue to stockpile it in your Knowledge Vault.

If you seriously believe that typing up a post on an internet forum makes you The Owner of whatever concept you were discussing, you have a fatally broken view of how copyright works. You have some ownership of the actual words you write (i.e. direct quotations), but not the ideas behind them.

No one patented Rune Chopper zerg.

Besides arguing me on semantics, you haven't really disagreed with me. My issue isn't that they copy (since you have to keep requesting clarification on 'steal') information, it is that they make no attempt (and by they, I specifically mean the wiki staff, not the casual editor) to credit work where it is due.

It's not about legal 'right and wrong', it's about being a bigger asshole than the typical BG member, which is honestly quite a feat. I never claimed that BGwiki was better than Otherwiki, I just get annoyed when people march in here and say that Otherwikis shit doesn't stink, because it does. How quickly we forget...


Edit: And I'm not suggesting people stop posting their findings, I'm suggesting that both wikis need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to citing information, and respecting the wishes of those who would rather their work wasn't published. In the end, I can't really see Otherwiki bothering to do this, because enforcing it does nothing to increase their profit margin, which is the entire point of the site; to attract as much traffic as possible. That would also be why they try to grab new info as quickly as possible and post it. Are you starting to see the cycle I'm /facepalming over yet?

BGwiki might have an easier time doing this, since as people have been putting it, it's a project of passion more so than a project of money. People do some research, something comes from it, and they get their name posted in a little footnote. Would be just one more thing around here powered by ePeen, and for a change I would welcome it.

---

[Demosthenes11]

waaaaah i don't get credit saying hades santi > destroyers QQ they are such assholes

video game, life, etc

[Seraph]

waaaaah i don't get credit saying hades santi > destroyers QQ they are such assholes

video game, life, etc

Lulz nothing matters let's not try to make it better.

[Mojo]

stuff

Again, BG wiki copies information too. There is no BG wiki birthright for information that gets posted into BG forums. Saying that they don't credit who does the work is just ignorant. It's actually wikis policy to cite sources and the admins are very diligent about certain things. If something important gets added to the wiki, it will be cited within a period of time.

Also, people add stuff to BG wiki without citing any sources as well. There are entire sections of information that have no citations, some of them are high profile sections too.

If you seriously think that wiki has no incentive to cite sources then you're letting bias cloud your judgment. There is certainly passion within the admins there to maintain the wiki, otherwise it would never have come as far as it has. They get paid based on advertising too. The better their site is the more people will visit it. If anything, they have more of an incentive than BG wiki to maintain a higher quality standard.

[Seraph]

If you seriously think that wiki has no incentive to cite sources then you're letting bias cloud your judgment. There is certainly passion within the admins there to maintain the wiki, otherwise it would never have come as far as it has. They get paid based on advertising too. The better their site is the more people will visit it. If anything, they have more of an incentive than BG wiki to maintain a higher quality standard.

They have far less incentive to take the time to cite as opposed to putting up more material. In addition, the argument that 'quality material' will produce more revenue than quantity of material is a really tough sell in my opinion. In fact, 'higher quality standard' really means 'more material'.

In addition, I posted a direct example where an admin there posted information and didn't cite it (and then removed it instead of just citing it, and then very likely altered it, and re-posted it to avoid having to cite), so don't just blow off that argument. I find it really hard to believe that they took the same shot, in the same position, from the same angle, with the mob facing the exact same direction, and oddly the picture distorts where a character used to be standing. Oh, and they cropped it the exact same way too.



I'm not trying to make this a witch hunt, I'm just tired, and impressed, by the insane level of up-ass-smoke-blowing going on here.

Edit: And I am also suggesting that the admins there don't always follow all of the wikia policies, so you can't really use wikia policies when defending otherwiki, specifically the admins. People are judging them based on what they do (or have done), not by what they are supposed to do.

[ringthree]

Also, there are many things in life that were created because of drama/bad people, but in the end became good. (i.e. I love my vw bug, doesn't make me a nazi). Both can be said of either wiki, and people have the right to choose which to use based on their preferences.

As a car enthusiast I would just like to say that owing a VW Bug pretty much does make you a Nazi.

[ringthree]

I know the thread has gone in a very different direction, but Kirschy's reasoning is something I definitely agree with. A strength of, for example, the normal Wikipedia, is the fact that mods demand citations, which allows anyone interested to dig further at a topic. Dumbing things down on a Wiki is fine, but ultimately a little citation not only gives credit where credit is due, but also helps people wishing to dig further into topics.

Now some topics don't exactly warrant a citation (e.g. random Bastok NPC), but others such as the derivation of how Haste is stacked does - because it is a model, not 'game fact'. To keep using Kirschy's work as the example, the information is not "fact", but just a person's theory. It is propelled into common knowledge if it withstands criticism and people accept it, but it is ultimately still a model; and a simple link to how such a model was originally conceived really should be standard.

That's a stretch. We are playing a video game here, not doing surgery or putting together a car engine. Kirschy's work is great, but explaining aspects of a video game isn't novel or unique. While it is a "model" in the most strict sense of the term, and it would be nice to link back to Kirschy's work for completeness, there is no expected right of citation or anything else once it has moved into the realm of common knowledge. Your standard for citation is so ridiculous that we would have to cite every word and thought we type.

[Mojo]

They have far less incentive to take the time to cite as opposed to putting up more material. In addition, the argument that 'quality material' will produce more revenue than quantity of material is a really tough sell in my opinion. In fact, 'higher quality standard' really means 'more material'.

In addition, I posted a direct example where an admin there posted information and didn't cite it (and then removed it instead of just citing it, and then very likely altered it, and re-posted it to avoid having to cite), so don't just blow off that argument. I find it really hard to believe that they took the same shot, in the same position, from the same angle, with the mob facing the exact same direction, and oddly the picture distorts where a character used to be standing. Oh, and they cropped it the exact same way too.



I'm not trying to make this a witch hunt, I'm just tired, and impressed, by the insane level of up-ass-smoke-blowing going on here.

Edit: And I am also suggesting that the admins there don't always follow all of the wikia policies, so you can't really use wikia policies when defending otherwiki, specifically the admins. People are judging them based on what they do (or have done), not by what they are supposed to do.

If you truly believe that they have less incentive, so be it, but it really doesn't make sense to say that. It's user based content, so everyone who adds content has different priorities. The admins are there to mostly review what is put up. They do it heavily and, again, if something important is added then it's going to receive a citation.

Your picture example is somewhat interesting, although again, stuff from two years ago isn't applicable anymore and it's by no means important (no offense, but it's just a picture of an NM.) Do you honestly expect people to receive credit for every picture on the wiki or for it to be taken down when you don't actually have any rights to it?

[Spider-Dan]

Besides arguing me on semantics, you haven't really disagreed with me. My issue isn't that they copy (since you have to keep requesting clarification on 'steal') information, it is that they make no attempt (and by they, I specifically mean the wiki staff, not the casual editor) to credit work where it is due.

How can they make an attempt to credit work when they don't know where it came from?

Listen, it's pretty simple. Either they can change the site to start requiring citations (like Wikipedia) and start chainsawing out large chunks of uncited community findings, or they can continue their current policy. Given that this is a wiki about a freaking video game and anything/everything in it can instantly be invalidated by a version update, requiring citations is absurd, particularly since the only benefit of requiring a citation (for this wiki) would be making sure that people get Proper Street Cred.

It's not like Wikipedia (or some other wiki about Real Life) where citing your sources affects the integrity of your site as a factual resource, and said integrity is more important than having a lot of information.

And I'm not suggesting people stop posting their findings, I'm suggesting that both wikis need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to citing information, and respecting the wishes of those who would rather their work wasn't published.

If one doesn't want one's work published, maybe one shouldn't have published it?

To be clear: we are NOT talking about straight copy-pasta of a blog entry/forum post, or something to that effect (a problem that is not solved even by giving credit). We're talking about credit for finding exact numbers, discovering strategies, etc. The only reason to complain about not getting credit for discovering the exact formula for, say, ranged delay is because you want to see your name up in lights, which is, frankly, stupid. You are not the owner of that information.

In the end, I can't really see Otherwiki bothering to do this, because enforcing it does nothing to increase their profit margin, which is the entire point of the site; to attract as much traffic as possible. That would also be why they try to grab new info as quickly as possible and post it. Are you starting to see the cycle I'm /facepalming over yet?

I am forced to wonder whether you apply your cynical attitude towards "maximizing profit at all costs" to other sites that you visit; for example, this one. I don't seem to remember any righteous outrage over, say, the Google AdSense ads that appear on this forum. Do you also believe BG's administration intentionally allows people to cite data from other FFXI sources without Proper Credit Given to "maximize their ad revenue"?

[Seraph]

Your picture example is somewhat interesting, although again, stuff from two years ago isn't applicable anymore and it's by no means important (no offense, but it's just a picture of an NM.) Do you honestly expect people to receive credit for every picture on the wiki or for it to be taken down when you don't actually have any rights to it?

It's just an example of things that leave a bitter taste in certain people's mouths. They seem to have gotten better with it, which is why I usually don;t go out of my way to cause trouble about it anymore.

Also, my suggestion about the 'profit based incentive' comments before were pointed at staff, not casual members. I guess I should have specified, since there are probably many people out there who correct the information, since that's their goal.

[ringthree]

Besides arguing me on semantics, you haven't really disagreed with me. My issue isn't that they copy (since you have to keep requesting clarification on 'steal') information, it is that they make no attempt (and by they, I specifically mean the wiki staff, not the casual editor) to credit work where it is due.

It's not about legal 'right and wrong', it's about being a bigger asshole than the typical BG member, which is honestly quite a feat. I never claimed that BGwiki was better than Otherwiki, I just get annoyed when people march in here and say that Otherwikis shit doesn't stink, because it does. How quickly we forget...


Edit: And I'm not suggesting people stop posting their findings, I'm suggesting that both wikis need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to citing information, and respecting the wishes of those who would rather their work wasn't published. In the end, I can't really see Otherwiki bothering to do this, because enforcing it does nothing to increase their profit margin, which is the entire point of the site; to attract as much traffic as possible. That would also be why they try to grab new info as quickly as possible and post it. Are you starting to see the cycle I'm /facepalming over yet?

BGwiki might have an easier time doing this, since as people have been putting it, it's a project of passion more so than a project of money. People do some research, something comes from it, and they get their name posted in a little footnote. Would be just one more thing around here powered by ePeen, and for a change I would welcome it.

---

I don't get who you are blaming here. Do you expect the admins of a video game wiki to demand that everyone that puts information on the wiki cite the source of the information? The admins can't possibly be expected to research everything that is put on the wiki, and when issues have been found they are pretty good at fixing them, reverting changes or adding citations themselves.

There may be a lot of bitching about it here, but how many people go to the FFXIwiki and demand that something be taken down because it is an original work?