PkHonor

The wiki has collected too much clutter and issues, so I'm launching a public project to fix it.


Significant Work Minor Work Information for New Pages Additional information: Items that need pages, or need more information added to their pages. Edit: All responses to this post need to be directly related to the project. Unrelated posts will be deleted to save space for the important posts.

In fair honesty, I feel like all the guides should have people's name removed from them. This is a community thing, not individually.
As for the wiki, I was waiting until I got my comp (e) to start helping out. But since that's almost ready, I can work on the Skilling pages.

Brant wrote:In fair honesty, I feel like all the guides should have people's name removed from them. This is a community thing, not individually.

What's wrong with recognizing those who put their time in? All names of those who put their time into the guide should be there!

Whiprealgood wrote:

Brant wrote:In fair honesty, I feel like all the guides should have people's name removed from them. This is a community thing, not individually.

What's wrong with recognizing those who put their time in? All names of those who put their time into the guide should be there!

I agree and disagree. All pages need to follow a standard format.

We can add their names to said format.

Whiprealgood wrote:

Brant wrote:In fair honesty, I feel like all the guides should have people's name removed from them. This is a community thing, not individually.

What's wrong with recognizing those who put their time in? All names of those who put their time into the guide should be there!

Double feelings about this. A guide could be completely outdated and need a revamp. Does the person doing a revamp get their name added too? Does a person adding a new detail because of an update get their name added too?


I get that people should be recognized for doing effort on the wiki, sure. Maybe give people a title on the forums if they're a wiki editor, which goes over donator/premium ofc
We don't see people who made pages on Wikipedia leave their name, and I don't think the RS wiki does this either. Idk, a wiki is kind of supposed to show objective, unbiased information about a certain topic. 'GUIDE MADE BY: XXXX' doesnt really belong IMO

Here's the thing, if say 5 people in total worked on a page it would be something like this:

Created by - Bzink00
Edited by - Church
Also edited by - Whip
Further edited by - Mike
Additionally edited by - Raspey

As people leave, other people will continue to update it and take over the page, and this list will continue to go on. On forums, you can be selfish and take credit for your post (since no one else but you can edit it), but once you get to a wiki, you have to conform to the fact, other people will be working on the same page.

Brant wrote:Here's the thing, if say 5 people in total worked on a page it would be something like this:

Created by - Bzink00
Edited by - Church
Also edited by - Whip
Further edited by - Mike
Additionally edited by - Raspey

As people leave, other people will continue to update it and take over the page, and this list will continue to go on. On forums, you can be selfish and take credit for your post (since no one else but you can edit it), but once you get to a wiki, you have to conform to the fact, other people will be working on the same page.

or
Created by Bzink00
Contributions made by Church, Whip, Mike and Rapsey.

FYI:



And this thread neatly demonstrates why: because people always feel the urge to compare and compete. No no, that guy's name can't be right next to mine under "authors" as if we are equals, I did more work so I deserve more credit!

Even if you do something like this:

James toxic wrote:Created by Bzink00
Contributions made by Church, Whip, Mike and Rapsey.

Then you'll get people complaining that the page made by the first author was super basic and they did 90% of the work afterwards. Or worse, they will create their own variation of an existing page just so they can be listed as the main author. Or people start making a bunch of page-placeholders so they are the author on all of them.

This sort of competition between authors hampers progress on a wiki and distracts from the common goal: working together to make the wiki as good as it can be.

But wiki's aren't bureaucracies so, if it really means that much to people then it's OK to put your name at the bottom of a page. That being said I would strongly recommend either listing names alphabetically or listing them chronologically in the order that they were added. That way there is no arguing about it and we can all zip our flies again and put the rulers back in our desk drawers. Chronologically would probably be best, before people start changing their names to something starting with an A or 0.

Rapsey wrote:FYI:



And this thread neatly demonstrates why: because people always feel the urge to compare and compete. No no, that guy's name can't be right next to mine under "authors" as if we are equals, I did more work so I deserve more credit!

Even if you do something like this:

James toxic wrote:Created by Bzink00
Contributions made by Church, Whip, Mike and Rapsey.

Then you'll get people complaining that the page made by the first author was super basic and they did 90% of the work afterwards. Or worse, they will create their own variation of an existing page just so they can be listed as the main author. Or people start making a bunch of page-placeholders so they are the author on all of them.

This sort of competition between authors hampers progress on a wiki and distracts from the common goal: working together to make the wiki as good as it can be.

But wiki's aren't bureaucracies so, if it really means that much to people then it's OK to put your name at the bottom of a page. That being said I would strongly recommend either listing names alphabetically or listing them chronologically in the order that they were added. That way there is no arguing about it and we can all zip our flies again and put the rulers back in our desk drawers. Chronologically would probably be best, before people start changing their names to something starting with an A or 0.

I'm glad you pointed this out. Moving forward please don't include your name on the wikis. They need to follow a format so switching between pages of the same subject can easily be read.

Church wrote:

Rapsey wrote:FYI:



And this thread neatly demonstrates why: because people always feel the urge to compare and compete. No no, that guy's name can't be right next to mine under "authors" as if we are equals, I did more work so I deserve more credit!

Even if you do something like this:

James toxic wrote:Created by Bzink00
Contributions made by Church, Whip, Mike and Rapsey.

Then you'll get people complaining that the page made by the first author was super basic and they did 90% of the work afterwards. Or worse, they will create their own variation of an existing page just so they can be listed as the main author. Or people start making a bunch of page-placeholders so they are the author on all of them.

This sort of competition between authors hampers progress on a wiki and distracts from the common goal: working together to make the wiki as good as it can be.

But wiki's aren't bureaucracies so, if it really means that much to people then it's OK to put your name at the bottom of a page. That being said I would strongly recommend either listing names alphabetically or listing them chronologically in the order that they were added. That way there is no arguing about it and we can all zip our flies again and put the rulers back in our desk drawers. Chronologically would probably be best, before people start changing their names to something starting with an A or 0.

I'm glad you pointed this out. Moving forward please don't include your name on the wikis. They need to follow a format so switching between pages of the same subject can easily be read.

Thats not what rapsey said tho