Wiki

[Rui]

I was talking about Wikia when I said MediaWiki, sorry for the confusion (or are they the same?).

I really don't want to be limited to Warcraft III and Starcraft II anyway. Besides, if that means I can't deposit roleplaying themes' lore there, then I'm not up for it, because that was the main reason I wanted the Wiki.

 

[Ash]

By talking about having a Wikia, you're effectively taking away administration from the Hiveworkshop leadership. You lose all rights to your own work, and the intellectual property belongs to wikia.

If you're going to have a wiki, something which ralle has already expressly said he disagrees with, then you host it on the hiveworkshop, or not at all. It's the only safe way.

And, if you do, I'd more than gladly beseech my help to the wiki, as I have a fair bit of knowledge in the wiki department. Just to save replies, I'll list what I've done:

• I'm the main admin of HIVEWiki,
• I was a sysop at the urbandead wiki,
• I'm a bureaucrat at the RedRum wiki.

I know you've got the hive's best interest at heart, but if you're really content on running a wiki, then you're going to have to really, seriously lay down the guidelines from the go ahead, and host it via the hiveworkshop. And I'll be here to help you from the off.

On the same note, you can't have it about hive users. I know you've already said this, but let me just re-illiterate how important it is that your main focus is on hive maps and projects, and not the users. If you have it about users, you're effectively opening the floor to trolling.

I suggest that, if the wiki idea gets the go ahead, you set the system up much like the UDWiki; a fresh, clean mediawiki install, prevent unregistered users from editing, only userpages can be about users, projects get main pages, characters/lore/etc get subpages (I.E wiki.hiveworkshop.com/THISISAPROJECT/Lore ) and you have an effective administration team.

Personally, I think this would be an extremely hard and ineffective idea that'll take up valuable server space. Projects can be accurately defined by their creators upon submission, and there is no need whatsoever for an endeavour of the wiki kind.

However, I'll still lend my help if you decide to create one.

EDIT: I took a little read at posts above Rui's:

Remember the last Hive Wiki? It was thrown away. (Well I dont really know what happened) But it went ka-blam. Although I like the idea of the lulz there really wouldnt be a purpose for a wiki.. Unless its to show all the people, and who they are.

No, no it didn't. The wiki still exists, as does the whole of HIVEChan. See my sig.

It was never a real project, it was more something aimed at loling at people from the hive which has since evolved into a purposeful tool to archive epic events (in both the 'real life' and internet world) and a collation tool for the 'Terrestrial Red' gaming project.

 

[AJalex]

I was talking about Wikia when I said MediaWiki, sorry for the confusion (or are they the same?).

I really don't want to be limited to Warcraft III and Starcraft II anyway. Besides, if that means I can't deposit roleplaying themes' lore there, then I'm not up for it, because that was the main reason I wanted the Wiki.

MediaWiki is the software designed for wikipedia but it's open source so you can download and use it whenever you want and however you want.
Wikia is a website that you request wikis to ... kind of a free wiki hosting website.

 

[Hawkwing]

As long as it's part of the Hive Workshop domain we should stick to what the Hive Workshop stands for: Warcraft III.

 

[Deathcom3s]

MediaWiki is the software designed for wikipedia but it's open source so you can download and use it whenever you want and however you want.
Wikia is a website that you request wikis to ... kind of a free wiki hosting website.

You also hand over complete rights to the wiki when you use Wikia, so it's really not that great.

Agreed, Hawkwing.

 

[~Void~]

As long as it's part of the Hive Workshop domain we should stick to what the Hive Workshop stands for: Warcraft III.

What about a D3 section, or a SC2 section? Or NOT a WoW section?

 

[Hawkwing]

What about a D3 section, or a SC2 section? Or NOT a WoW section?

D3, SC2, and WoW I wouldn't mind so much. But completely unrelated things like Twilight, Star Wars, and Naruto would be taking it a bit too far.

 

[Traxamillion]

Well since this is also a community doing sections about user database wouldnt be far off.

 

[Ash]

It would be.

Userpages were created for a reason.

 

[Samuraid]

It would be.

Userpages were created for a reason.

Agreed.

If we do anything with a wiki, it will be for tutorial/informational purposes. It won't be a surrogate chatroom/forum/userpage.

 

[Ash]

The way I see it, we'd ideally have 3 bureaucrats and 5 sysop's (bureaucrat = Sysop +10). Projects get their own 'root' title, and any lore/character/etc information goes into a subpage, for example:

Pyrities_Fagventure/characters, or Pyrities_Fagventure/lore.

The same goes for spells, triggers, JASS and the what not, theirs would look a bit like this:

JASS/Damage_System or spells/meathook.

Now, we get back to the administration. I was going to leave this till a bit later, but I figure that if things are actually going to go ahead, I may as well drop it now and test the water.

With a wiki being what it is, we're bound to have incidents that can't be covered by vandal banning or can't be as clearly cut as things on the forum can. Thus, enter arbitration.

Now, arbitration I still do on the Urban Dead wiki, and its main purpose is to solve disputes between users; for -- another -- example, this case:

UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Stuartbman vs Darkmagic - The Urban Dead Wiki

At the end, the case is suitably resolved, and everyone lives happily ever after until the next case.

In terms of the Hiveworkshop Wiki, I suggest that we have an Arbitration team (preferably the Sysop's, Bureaucrat's and a few trusted users) to sort out anything that can't be addressed by vandal banning, Sysop Misconduct and the like.

Another thing that's worth bringing to the table is the fact that a Wiki is not a clear cut case of 'ADMINS, MODS AND USARZ'. Wiki's involve a shead load more diplomacy and, whilst admins still exist and banned forum users can be banned from the wiki too, there is room for users to report sysop misconduct. It'll be a tough choice deciding if we actually have a wiki or not, but I'm really, really serious when I say you'll have to have absolutely everything figured out and outlined before you start the wiki off.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Quick question, why are you all debating the content of the wiki when Ralle already said what it would be about?

 

[Elenai]

Because they just can't pass up a 'good argument'.

 

[~Void~]

The way I see it, we'd ideally have 3 bureaucrats and 5 sysop's (bureaucrat = Sysop +10). Projects get their own 'root' title, and any lore/character/etc information goes into a subpage, for example:

Pyrities_Fagventure/characters, or Pyrities_Fagventure/lore.

The same goes for spells, triggers, JASS and the what not, theirs would look a bit like this:

JASS/Damage_System or spells/meathook.

Now, we get back to the administration. I was going to leave this till a bit later, but I figure that if things are actually going to go ahead, I may as well drop it now and test the water.

With a wiki being what it is, we're bound to have incidents that can't be covered by vandal banning or can't be as clearly cut as things on the forum can. Thus, enter arbitration.

Now, arbitration I still do on the Urban Dead wiki, and its main purpose is to solve disputes between users; for -- another -- example, this case:

UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Stuartbman vs Darkmagic - The Urban Dead Wiki

At the end, the case is suitably resolved, and everyone lives happily ever after until the next case.

In terms of the Hiveworkshop Wiki, I suggest that we have an Arbitration team (preferably the Sysop's, Bureaucrat's and a few trusted users) to sort out anything that can't be addressed by vandal banning, Sysop Misconduct and the like.

Another thing that's worth bringing to the table is the fact that a Wiki is not a clear cut case of 'ADMINS, MODS AND USARZ'. Wiki's involve a shead load more diplomacy and, whilst admins still exist and banned forum users can be banned from the wiki too, there is room for users to report sysop misconduct. It'll be a tough choice deciding if we actually have a wiki or not, but I'm really, really serious when I say you'll have to have absolutely everything figured out and outlined before you start the wiki off.

Damn, Stuartbman is a dick. But I understand what you mean by talk pages.

 

[Rui]

(...) If you have it about users, you're effectively opening the floor to trolling.

Why do you say that? The idea was for people to tell a friend about their story and ask that friend to write the individual's biography.
If you're worried about lies, then we just need to live with it. Most autobiographies out there are not one hundred percent true.

I suggest that, if the wiki idea gets the go ahead, you set the system up much like the UDWiki; a fresh, clean mediawiki install, prevent unregistered users from editing, only userpages can be about users, projects get main pages, characters/lore/etc get subpages (I.E wiki.hiveworkshop.com/THISISAPROJECT/Lore ) and you have an effective administration team.

Unregistered users being unable to edit was also planned. Besides, my idea was that only a few users would get an account. Meaning, you cannot create an account. The administration creates one for you.
For that reason, using userpages might limit things a bit. But it's a good idea nonetheless.

I don't know exactly what a subpage is, but in my opinion, lore characters and places should have the same rights as the rest of the pages.

---

What about a D3 section, or a SC2 section? Or NOT a WoW section?

Sure. But limiting the Wiki to Warcraft is basically calling our wiki WoWWiki 2. It's as ridiculous as it sounds and it's obviously meaningless and unnecessary.

 

[Pyritie]

Unregistered users being unable to edit was also planned. Besides, my idea was that only a few users would get an account. Meaning, you cannot create an account. The administration creates one for you.

As if the admins don't have enough responsibilities already.

 

[Rui]

I was referring to the administration of the Wiki.

 

[AJalex]

You can add tutorials for modding the other games the wiki supports and thus making the wiki more used.

For example: [Tutorial]WoW UI or [Tutorial]Jass etc. And for projects you should make portals and for lore and characters you should use the following: [Project Name]Lore/Characters etc.
You should follow those suggestions if you want to have an organized wiki.



Edit: To Rui's post and Pyrtie's , You should allow people to create accounts but let them edit only some pages, if you don't then the already registered users will have a hard time filling the wiki.

 

[Ash]

@Rui, subpages just mean that it doesn't clutter the main 'level', if you will.

For example, you have a character called 'Jimmy the Giant' and I do too, that means we have a page conflict. I.E, we both want to use 'http://www.hiveworkshop.com/wiki/Jimmy_The_Giant. Sub pages doesn't mean the pages are restricted in the slightest, it just prevents several thousand people complaining about who gets what page. In the UDWiki, there are two groups. One's called 'U.B.C.S' (Umbrella Biohazzard Countermeasure Service) and the 'Umbrella Corporation'. Now, they're not affiliated in the slightest, but they're about the same thing. Myself, and others, have ruled in arbitration that they have to use subpages when they create articles so that they don't 'run over each others tracks', as per say.

I just thought it'd be a good idea to introduce that before we hit all the problems.

I also don't think it's entirely fair to restrict who does, or doesn't, have access to the wiki. It's a pretentious idea, at best. And, lets be fair, until proven otherwise everyone deserves a chance.

You also mentioned pages for people; I can't really see a point in an autobiography, but I can see where the idea is coming from. Would it not be better, however, to focus on the actual projects themselves instead of the people that made them?

If someone wants a page to detail the size of their ego, they use their userpage. It's not lies I'm worried about, I just know for a fine fact it'll lead to trolling/a lot of problems.

Take, for instance, MasterHaosis. Whilst he thinks he was a good map reviewer, some do not. Therefore, when he gets a page and states how amazing he was, and user X comes along and wipes it out... Cue Editwar and NPOV misconduct reports.

Do you see what I mean, or...?

 

[Rui]

Yes, I do.
In that case, our politics could be similar to those of Wikipedia: you cannot create your own userpage.

Creating and using them could be left for a later debate.

 

[Ash]

Urrr, wikipedia lets you create your own userpage

When you sign up, you get your own page (user:[name]), I'm sure.

 

[Elenai]

Trolling in any form would be swiftly dealt with, and harshly punished. I personally would deal with it, if it ever arose.

Inaccuracies and blatant stupidity would be removed (similar concept to spam)

Biographies of users: in positive light = good

Tutorials for various areas of modding = good

Lore for warcraft, diablo, starcraft, diablo = good

Lore for warcraft, starcraft projects = good

Tutorials for things like VB, Java, modeling outside of warcraft, etc = good

IE: useful information that applies to the people in the community, a way to share that collective knowledge.
___

Lore for LOTR, DnD, etc, information on little tidbit things = good, if perhaps contained, and in a certain area.

IE: you can't make a page for meatspin, but a page on a rather nice RPG, book, or etc that warcraft has its roots in, is neat. Or perhaps a general page on what a user may be interested in. Heck, even pages on proper grammar would be useful for many users on the site!

Warcraft 3 is dying, the community isn't.

 

[Pyritie]

Tutorials for things like VB, Java, modeling outside of warcraft, etc = good

IE: useful information that applies to the people in the community, a way to share that collective knowledge.
___

Lore for LOTR, DnD, etc, information on little tidbit things = good, if perhaps contained, and in a certain area. .

Except Ralle already said it will only have WC3/SC2/etc stuff.

 

[Rui]

Urrr, wikipedia lets you create your own userpage

When you sign up, you get your own page (user:[name]), I'm sure.

When I first registered in Wikipedia, I don't think they allowed you to. At least not in the Portuguese version of it. You have a page for discussion that you can use, yes.

 

[Ash]

Trolling in any form would be swiftly dealt with, and harshly punished. I personally would deal with it, if it ever arose.

Inaccuracies and blatant stupidity would be removed (similar concept to spam)

Biographies of users: in positive light = good

Tutorials for various areas of modding = good

Lore for warcraft, diablo, starcraft, diablo = good

Lore for warcraft, starcraft projects = good

Tutorials for things like VB, Java, modeling outside of warcraft, etc = good

IE: useful information that applies to the people in the community, a way to share that collective knowledge.
___

Lore for LOTR, DnD, etc, information on little tidbit things = good, if perhaps contained, and in a certain area.

IE: you can't make a page for meatspin, but a page on a rather nice RPG, book, or etc that warcraft has its roots in, is neat. Or perhaps a general page on what a user may be interested in. Heck, even pages on proper grammar would be useful for many users on the site!

Warcraft 3 is dying, the community isn't.

You're saying it like it's black and white, it isn't.

Besides, nobody even mentioned you being a sysop in the wiki, did they?

When I first registered in Wikipedia, I don't think they allowed you to. At least not in the Portuguese version of it. You have a page for discussion that you can use, yes.

Oh. I was sure you can in the English version...

Yeah, yeah you can on the English one: Wikipedia:User page - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Elenai]

You're saying it like it's black and white, it isn't.

Besides, nobody even mentioned you being a sysop in the wiki, did they?

This is knowledge, it had better be black and white.

 

[Ash]

It's not just black and white, in an ideal world it would be, though

 

[Samuraid]

Bear in mind that we might not be using mediawiki. Don't tie your plans inseparably to it.

 

[Ash]

Well, most wiki markup's generally the same.

I'd suggest the use of Mediawiki, although if you decide against it I won't really have a massive problem with it.

 

[Samuraid]

It will likely be Mediawiki or Dokuwiki. Doku integrates with vB more cleanly and runs a lot faster for small to medium wikis. It doesn't scale well to large wikis though, which obviously mediawiki does. We'll see what works out. Ralle still has to give some further input behind the scenes before we can move forward.

 

[Ash]

I think, generally, Mediawiki looks better.

I know there's a vbulletin plugin or seven lying around that bridges e107, but I also know there's a fair few for dokuwiki, too.

We'll just see what happens, I guess

 

[Hakeem]

Wiki pages are crap for conversations. If we do this, I demand a Wiki forum where users talking back and forth is facilitated. Wiki pages are documents, and should be restricted to this. I don't want to see any of this "Talk:" misimplementation.

 

[Rui]

I'd go for MediaWiki. I don't know how other Wikis look (I only remember having worked on a different one and it was crappy), so I'd really prefer Media.

Conversations? I don't remember anyone suggesting that. We have discussion pages attached to each article, so we don't need articles specifically for conversations.

 

[Pyritie]

Well, talk pages are really not very good for discussing things. Forums are.

 

[Elenai]

The wiki itself isn't for discussion anyway...we have chat for that. The Hive Mind is just a place to gather the collective knowledge of the HIVE populace.

 

[Ash]

Discussion pages work better than a forum filled up with 2379623658793426587346568923765 active threads.

To elaborate, slightly. Keep the discussion pages on topic and not just for general discussion purposes. User talk pages serve generally the same purpose as the current Hive userpages and a forum would just be, as I'd said, a clusterfuck full of a shit load of threads.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Or we could just make a Wiki subforum in Off-Topic.

 

[Elenai]

An excellent idea Teh_Ephy.

 

[Ash]

Not really the best of ideas.

The wiki's going to have, naturally, a shed load of articles. If we make a subforum, you're going to have a mass of uncategorised and unorganized topics, and a fair few about exactly the same point. Whereas if you stick with the discussion pages, everything's tidy and sorted out.

You could create a wiki subforum for Wiki issues, like Arbitration, Misconduct, etc, but I'd generally suggest that we leave issues like 'SHOULD I ADD THIS, LOL' and 'is this NPOV' for the discussion pages on the wiki.

 

[Hakeem]

Not really the best of ideas.

I strongly disagree.

The wiki's going to have, naturally, a shed load of articles. If we make a subforum, you're going to have a mass of uncategorised and unorganized topics, and a fair few about exactly the same point. Whereas if you stick with the discussion pages, everything's tidy and sorted out.

If we do manage to get a whole lot of threads, we can add subforums to organize it, or just link the talk pages directly to threads. The latter being the ideal implementation.

I'd generally suggest that we leave issues like 'SHOULD I ADD THIS, LOL' and 'is this NPOV' for the discussion pages on the wiki.

I'd leave that to chatrooms. It's spam that need no log, diff, or any of the other features associated with a document. It's like asking if you can ask a question.


Wiki pages are documents. They are not in any way the ideal way to represent the data structure of a conversation.

 

[Ash]

Wiki pages are documents. They are not in any way the ideal way to represent the data structure of a conversation.

Yet wiki talk pages, the actual discussion pages on the wiki, the pages that are intended to be used to discuss issues about the article in question, aren't.

It's a lot easier, simpler and a whole load more organised to use the actual talk pages (I.E User talk:Wazzz - HIVEChan or Talk:HFR - HIVEChan ) to discuss articles

 

[Hakeem]

So far as I can tell from the implementation, they are exactly the same. The only difference is how they are used. The purpose used for talk pages is something that is best represented as a forum thread, not a wiki document.

The links you provide, lead to documents. What they should lead to is threads, where things like discussion are far more optimized.

 

[Reaper2008]

...to have up a Wiki with articles about website users (not necessarily the Hive's), characters from stories and movies such as Lord of the Rings, Warcraft, custom roleplay themes (my Dawn and Twilight...

That's just it, such a Wiki would be beyond site's subject, which is only WC3.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Way to read the thread before posting. Really. I'm clapping, even though you hear me facepalming.

 

[Ash]

Ephy, I'd rep you if I didn't need to give it some to a few random rejects first.