Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: Shade on August 16, 2010, 12:20:00 am
-
While happily browsing along on this fine morning, I came across This Thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70960.0), where the poster expressed the opinion that War in Heaven might just deserve the Featured Campaign slot more than Vassago's Dirge. And that got me thinking a bit. Well, actually, what it did was annoy me, but since the topic was locked I couldn't reply to vent my righteous wrath, and annoyance was eventually replaced by me thinking hard about why it annoyed me.
And on consideration, the reason I was annoyed was that War in Heaven doesn't deserve to be the featured campaign. And as it happens, neither does Vassago's Dirge. Why, you say? But these are excellent, even superior campaigns, you say! I agree. They are. And both have been highlighted here on the forums for just that fact. But on the wiki, their pages are rubbish. Boring. Bland. Anonymous. And while the practise of featuring sub-par articles has been going on for a long time now, in my opinion such articles really should not be featured on the main page, regardless of how epic the underlying subject matter of those articles may be.
As an example of how to do it right, Fate of the Galaxy (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Fate_of_the_Galaxy) have done a great job on their wiki page. And they haven't even released yet. Now compare that to Vassago's Dirge (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Vassago's_Dirge) and Blue Planet (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Blue_Planet). See the difference?
Now, I'm in no position to dictate what goes and doesn't go on the wiki (or at least, not without abusing my powers), but I'd really rather like featured articles to at least approach the level of FotG's. And if someone feels that a campaign deserved to be the featured campaign, then instead of complaining about it on the forums, the first stop should be to improve the article for the campaign in question to a point where it is actually worthy of being featured. And once that's done (and spellchecked, grammar-dehorrified etc.), then by all means, change it - With the caveat that I also think any campaign that gets the feature spot should stay there for at least a few weeks, perhaps even a month, so I'd be ill disposed towards anyone who goes and changes it every other day.
So yeah. It's early morning and I may be a bit grumpy, but I needed that off my chest. But either way, I'd like people's opinions on this question: Should we start to require some degree of effort for featured articles, or just continue with the status quo where the featured campaign is little more than an advertisement that something exists rather than a link to a well written and informative article? My own stance should be pretty clear from the rest of those post, I think, but as I said before, I'm not about to go on a dictatorial rampage and ram my own opinion down everyone's throats... however tempting it may be ;)
-
The man has a point.
-
Meh. It's just my opinion but time and effort is better spent on actual mod development than wiki pages. Wiki and homepage more or less have similar purpose as far as information about mod goes. Hence I'd just put the time and effort into getting homepages into shape and then put a logo and shoddy link in wiki page pointing to the homepage.
I don't see much point in spending time on wiki page when BP has trouble to find time to keep even homepage up-to-date. Hence lately all outdated stuff has been culled from BP homepage, leaving it rather barebones. Not to mention the homepage still uses really out of date images for its background and stuff.
Alternatively put wiki page into shape and put a shoddy link to the homepage pointing to the wiki page. Either one works for me as long as dev team gets to focus on getting the mod done instead of making pretty pages. But like I said, it's just my opinion.
-
My idea is to keep a campaign feature cue. Each released campaign that has a wiki page can stay featured for a x amount of time (I'm thinking three weeks).
I tend to agree to some extent about the article quality argument. I wouldn't mandate a good wiki page, as the community mostly simply neglects the wiki, and thus their articles are mainly a staff list, an introduction to the campaign's story, and a collection of links.
As for unreleased projects (thinking specifically of FotG): I'd rather give them the opportunity to feature their work on release.
-
It's just my opinion but time and effort is better spent on actual mod development than wiki pages
Certainly. But it doesn't need to be the team itself who improve the wiki page. One of my points was actually that whoever was going to complain about it not being featured should be the one to do it, since complaining that a page is 'deserving' of a feature is so very wrong when said page is just a bare-bones blurb.
And the thing is, we already have the forum highlights for advertising excellent releases. But people don't go to the wiki for advertisement, they go there for information. So anything featured on the wiki should be chosen based on whether the article is up to par in that respect. What I don't like is seeing features which, after you've clicked them to read all about this snazzy campaign they're telling you about, leave you thinking they wasted their time because the article didn't tell you what you wanted to know, and still in the dark about whether you'd actually like to play the campaign.
My idea is to keep a campaign feature cue. Each released campaign that has a wiki page can stay featured for a x amount of time (I'm thinking three weeks).
This is a good idea, but in my opinion some degree of effort put into in the article should still be required. Again, people go to the wiki mainly for information, so when they read a featured campaign's article they should at least have some idea afterwards about what that campaign is actually about.
I wouldn't mandate a good wiki page, as the community mostly simply neglects the wiki, and thus their articles are mainly a staff list, an introduction to the campaign's story, and a collection of links.
Indeed they are. And I simply don't think such an article warrants a feature, regardless of how awesome a campaign it may belong to. If the community neglects the wiki, the wiki should be perfectly well allowed to neglect them :p I certainly wouldn't require every article to be as good as FoTG's, but even a little effort can go a long way towards getting there. A few screenshots, some info about the difference between the factions (if any), maybe some user comments... or whatever. There are many ways to improve an article, and as long as it gets done I don't care about the details.
An example of a decent article for a released campaign would be Silent Threat: Reborn (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Silent_Threat:_Reborn) - It has a link to a walkthrough, comments from players, developer notes and even a feature list. In short, it is informative. And while a walkthrough might take a long time to write, the other things do not. For that matter, The Second Great War Part II (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Second_Great_War_Part_II) is a good campaing article, despite the questionable quality of the campaign itself, because it is well laid out and gives you an excellent idea about what the campaign is actually about. Despite the campaign author having had nothing to do with the article.
As for unreleased projects (thinking specifically of FotG): I'd rather give them the opportunity to feature their work on release.
No argument there. I simply picked FotG as an example because their article is a good one - Possibly even the best. Released campagins or mods should be what's featured, not ones that are in the pipeline.
-
And the thing is, we already have the forum highlights for advertising excellent releases. But people don't go to the wiki for advertisement, they go there for information. So anything featured on the wiki should be chosen based on whether the article is up to par in that respect. What I don't like is seeing features which, after you've clicked them to read all about this snazzy campaign they're telling you about, leave you thinking they wasted their time because the article didn't tell you what you wanted to know, and still in the dark about whether you'd actually like to play the campaign.
TRUTH!
-
I tend to agree that the wiki featured campaign shouldn't be another advertisement for current campaigns. Anyone who uses the wiki probably knows HLP well enough anyway.
Perhaps we should have a featured campaign quality drive. We select a campaign every month a bring it up to the standard that these articles should be. Then the next month it is the featured campaign and the drive starts again.
-
That seems like a really great idea.
-
i don't think the featured campaign even needs to be a new one. seems like this would be a good place to bring some attention to high-quality older campaigns that newer members may not know about. as it has been stated already, it's pretty hard to miss all the advertisement surrounding the release of new campaigns.
-
i don't think the featured campaign even needs to be a new one. seems like this would be a good place to bring some attention to high-quality older campaigns that newer members may not know about. as it has been stated already, it's pretty hard to miss all the advertisement surrounding the release of new campaigns.
THIS.
EDIT: I find it how when you hit "more" on the Vassago's Dirge campaign feature thing, you arguably get less XD
-
There, I added some more stuff to the wiki page. Are you guys satisfied yet? :p
-
EDIT: I find it how when you hit "more" on the Vassago's Dirge campaign feature thing, you arguably get less XD
Hey! There are pictures on that page! Which is the only thing people came to see!
-
There, I added some more stuff to the wiki page. Are you guys satisfied yet? :p
Much better now :)
-
I was the poster that started that thread, I didn't have any attention to annoy so I'm sorry about that. Basically my understanding of the 'Featured Campaign of the Moment' was that it would represent whatever mod or campaign that is at the forefront of the community's mind at that time. When Vassago's Dirge came out, everyone was raving about it, it was very impressive, and that was the campaign of the moment, surely. Then War in Heaven came along, same thing. Perhaps in a little while it should be Spoon's Wings of Dawn.
However, I think how you guys are describing it is more like Wikipedia's featured articles, which is probably the better way to do it. I myself would love to update some of the Wiki pages, but I'm just a newcomer and don't really know enough to feel confident wading in and changing things. But it would be cool to see, say, Homesick as the featured mod. Letting more people know about the classic campaigns on old.
-
I should probably mention that it wasn't your post as such that annoyed me, it was the realization that so many campaign articles weren't up to spec coupled with the fact that the topic was locked so I couldn't vent about it there (I hate being late and wanting to express an opinion but being prevented from doing so by the dastardly and nefarious mods who locked the thread before I saw it :p). I'm actually rather glad you drew attention to the issue, or the status que might have gone on for a long time.
-
However, I think how you guys are describing it is more like Wikipedia's featured articles, which is probably the better way to do it. I myself would love to update some of the Wiki pages, but I'm just a newcomer and don't really know enough to feel confident wading in and changing things. But it would be cool to see, say, Homesick as the featured mod. Letting more people know about the classic campaigns on old.
Well, remember wikipedia's policy be bold when updating articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold) also applies to the Freespace Wiki. You may want to be a little more careful about editing the pages on the modding portal and policy pages, but in general be bold. Also, remember that your user page as a "talk page" that other members can leave you a message if you are doing something that they don't like. Remember that the Freespace Wiki is a wiki, and as such every page is versioned, so it is trivial to remove a bad edit.
As for the topic, I agree that the we should treat the featured campaigns more like how wikipedia treats its featured articles, and not as yet another advertisement. Also, it also shouldn't be up the the mod creator to update the page (though there is no reason why they cannot), there are many of people that drop by on HLP (like Raiden) that are looking for ways to contribute and updating the wiki is a fantastic way to help as it helps the future and present players of FSO engine based games.
-
Uh, guys, we're not wikipedia and I'm not sure we even have formalized rules, much less their rules. We just don't want our featured campaign article to look crappy. :P
-
Uh, guys, we're not wikipedia and I'm not sure we even have formalized rules, much less their rules. We just don't want our featured campaign article to look crappy. :P
Very true, but that is no reason that just anyone cannot be improving the wiki, because as I said before that is what a wiki is for, the community to improve.
-
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, most Wikipedia rules also apply to the FreeSpace Wiki. :confused:
-
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, most Wikipedia rules also apply to the FreeSpace Wiki. :confused:
Only the ones that actually make sense. ;)
-
Common sense applies to the FreeSpace Wiki. If we were using wikipedia rules, I'd probably have banned half of you by now :p
-
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, most Wikipedia rules also apply to the FreeSpace Wiki. :confused:
Nope, none of them apply to the FSWiki. This is a semi-benevolent dictatorship and the only rules are those that the admins say exist at that moment.
-
Semi-benevolent dictatorship as opposed to an inaccessible and utterly illogical bureaucracy.
-
By "shared rules" I meant proper use of bold, italics, etc. etc. The last time I checked these rules also applied to the FS Wiki.
-
Snail basically said it best.
Wikipedia has some sensible rules. Use those where they fit in with FSWiki. Otherwise ignore them.
-
I see.
On a slightly unrelated note, why don't we have a "Featured Ship of the Moment" and/or a "Featured Code Addition of the Moment"?
-
We have an "SCP Additions" (or whatever it's called) page, but it's direly outdated.
-
Alright, there seems to be a fair amount of support for (and no opposition to) requiring some degree of effort behind featured campaign articles. As such, consider it policy from now on.
-
As an example of how to do it right, Fate of the Galaxy (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Fate_of_the_Galaxy) have done a great job on their wiki page. And they haven't even released yet.
You may call it shameless self promotion overkill, but in my not entirely unbiased opinion this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Frontlines) is an example of how to do it right. :nervous:
:warp:
-
As an example of how to do it right, Fate of the Galaxy (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Fate_of_the_Galaxy) have done a great job on their wiki page. And they haven't even released yet.
You may call it shameless self promotion overkill, but in my not entirely unbiased opinion this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Frontlines) is an example of how to do it right. :nervous:
:warp:
It is so good in so many ways but it's dark text on a dark background and aaargh.
-
Yeah, that'd be utterly fantastic with a bit of a readability tweak.
-
I see.
On a slightly unrelated note, why don't we have a "Featured Ship of the Moment" and/or a "Featured Code Addition of the Moment"?
Because the front page doesn't need to be cluttered up with ****. That and the average person browsing the wiki is going to care about playing the game, not modding the game. If they want to mod the game they'll already direct themselves to the appropriate section or ask questions on the forum.
.
.
.
.
On another note, my two cents to all involved (or lurking),
Personally, I'm not a fan of "Featured Campaigns". As someone else said, the Wiki's not for advertising, it's for information correct? Anything that's "featured" is a promotion and therefore advertising. Why not instead of having "Featured Campaign of the Moment" just have "Campaign of the Moment".
What do I mean by this?
Have a random script, that draws from a list of all the campaign links and whenever someone visits the front page of the wiki they get a random campaign, aka a Campaign of the Moment (hereafter COTM). You can either restrict it to released campaigns or open it up to campaigns in progress.
Now obviously, this then hits on the core problem of the original post in that, most campaign pages on the Wiki are garbage. Meaning, they're barebones with only the minimal amount of information about the campaign. So one may also want to restrict the list of possible COTM to pages which meet a certain standard for content and information. Also each campaign will need the pic and blurb to fit in the box on the front page.
So what are the advantages?
1. Campaigns which are overlooked will appear on the front page
2. The random nature will mitigating or eliminate any perceived or actual problems of favourtism.
2. Reduced maintenance for the front page. The featured campaign never has to be changed, only the possible list of COTM (ie Add a new campaign to the shuffle when it's appropriate).
Anyone who wants a campaign to appear on the front page need only update the campaign's page of information, grab some screenshots, and create the pic+blurb for the box.
To reduce favourtism/subjectivity even more, one may also want to provide minimum requirements for what the campaign page has to have in order to be a possible COTM. A possible list may include
1. Title graphic (even rudimentary)
2. List of staff members
3. List of mods (ie new ships)
4. At least one screenshot
5. Basic information (number of missions, last known build compatibility, download links)
6. Some sort of introduction to the story and/or universe.
Then of course there is optional information such as:
7. Walkthroughs
8. User Comments
9. etcetera
I would shy away from a set style format (ie user created ships) as it restricts people who want to get fancy (ie Front Lines).
I just think it would be beneficial for all if everyone who visited the wiki had the opportunity to be introduced to a campaign they've never heard. Heck you could have someone visit the page, and get "Procryon Insurgency" and then the guy says "What? This campaign's awesome, but I've already played this". So then he goes to his browser, hit's "reload" and then blammo "Uncharted Territory" and in response "What's this? Never heard of it, looks cool!I better check it out" and so on . . .
That's my two cents. Take or leave it.
Oh, and as a disclaimer, YES, I do have a (partial) campaign Meditations on the Abyss and NO, I don't care if it ever hits the front page. This is not about promoting my work it's about diversifying the freespace experience for everyone in the community. And in turn, it's also about appreciating the work of all of this community's campaign contributors, regardless of whether they're praised or vilified, present or absent.
Give everyone's work a chance to shine (so long as wiki contributors put in the appropriate effort).
-
1. Title graphic (even rudimentary)
2. List of staff members
3. List of mods (ie new ships)
4. At least one screenshot
5. Basic information (number of missions, last known build compatibility, download links)
6. Some sort of introduction to the story and/or universe.
Most campaign articles already have those, with the exception of one screenshot, and a single screenshot wouldn't elevate the article's quality very much. Not all mods are about graphics, either.
I would make a minimal length restriction. I'd settle with a minimum of 4k characters.
Give everyone's work a chance to shine (so long as wiki contributors put in the appropriate effort).
This is the #1 problem of the Wiki.
-
I think the current Featured Campaign business is designed to spotlight good campaign articles, not good campaigns. Which at the moment basically means whatever Androgeos Exeunt has been working on most lately.
-
Then why restrict it to campaign articles? Why not feature universe- or modding-related articles as well?
-
Y'know, that's a damn good idea.
-
Give everyone's work a chance to shine (so long as wiki contributors put in the appropriate effort).
This is the #1 problem of the Wiki.
If there's a greater chance of people's articles being read (ie, they're visible on the front page), people might put greater effort into their articles. Though I wouldn't hold out much hope myself, it's possible.
-
Then why restrict it to campaign articles? Why not feature universe- or modding-related articles as well?
Good question, that. It actually *was* that way once, but when and why it was changed to be just campaigns escapes me at the moment.
[Edit] Did some checking, and apparently "Featured Campaign" replaced "Featured Article" on the main page on Jan 19th, 2009, with the inaugural campaign (on the main page anyway, the template had been around for longer) being Silent Threat: Reborn. Still don't know why, but at least the when is sorted. The old FA template still exists by the way, so it would be trivial to put it back in if it comes to that.
-
Good question, that. It actually *was* that way once, but when and why it was changed to be just campaigns escapes me at the moment.
It may have something to do with the absence of pics.
-
Maybe it's because of GOOOOBEEEEEEEER
Remember up until TopAce and I discussed this, every single Featured Campaign pick was selected by the creators of said campaigns.
-
Maybe it's because of GOOOOBEEEEEEEER
Remember up until TopAce and I discussed this, every single Featured Campaign pick was selected by the creators of said campaigns.
Hence why I think the campaign/article should be random based upon a select pool of those that qualify as being "good enuf"
-
I'm pretty sure there will be some debate on "gud nuf"
I still think Zacam's VW article on BoEs is useless except as a historical curiosity, for example.
-
I'm pretty sure there will be some debate on "gud nuf"
I still think Zacam's VW article on BoEs is useless except as a historical curiosity, for example.
Zacam's...?
-
Maybe it's because of GOOOOBEEEEEEEER
Remember up until TopAce and I discussed this, every single Featured Campaign pick was selected by the creators of said campaigns.
Wait, what? Might be the hangover talking, but I remember picking a bunch of featured campaigns myself, many or most of them.
As for why it works better as a campaign, you have to think about what we're working wqith hgere. FS Wiki really works within a fairly tight framework of information. There's not much canon data out there, and what data there is comes from very limited sources. This means that articles on, say, ships, for examples, work very well as templates - but areticles from a template don't really have much to distinguish them from one another, so FA status isn't really appropriate. A few other in universe topics, like, for example species articles, but there's not enough of them to give a proper rotation to FA (and many of these articles aren't particularly speccy anyway, look at the Shivans entry). So we're left with very few canon articles that really fit within the specifications of what we'd want from a FA, and I'm not sure that too many non canon articles can get in their either.
Now, some kind of featured mod of the moment, or gallery of modded ships accessed similarly to the way random screenshots are grabbed, might work. If people want, I can have a look at implementing something.
-
Well obviously by 'every single' I mean 'some fraction between 1/n% and 99%. :nervous:
-
Zacam's...?
Zarathud. Whichever.
The old Subspace Missions article is pretty funny too.
-
The old Subspace Missions article is pretty funny too.
Yeah, grossly inaccurate and completely out of date.