WoWWiki is still the devil!

[Mikk]

Heh, that got yer attention didn't it :D

I was just reading the (semi-)recent threads on "SoL vs WoWWiki", and was thinking to myself... "Wow. Talk about total clash. There's some serious misunderstanding being done here."


Let's see... where to start... I've seen repeatedly the view expressed that WoWWiki ("them") is a major source of disinformation, and that it is poisoning the people of the world with erronous information.

At the same time, I'm seeing talk here about creating a "proper" site, where only gospel is to be displayed.


Now, this is what gets me thinking... And pardon me if I'm sidetracking here a bit, part of my real-life job is getting people to work together properly, and that means I try to train myself to think like people from both "sides".

- Who will be editing Scrolls of Lore? Just one person? Or several people? I'm guessing the latter.

- Who edits WoWWiki? Several people. WoWWiki is not "the man". It's not some for-profit organization run by some evil dictator at the top. It's people. People like you.

- How does Scrolls of Lore decide what goes on a page when there is conflict? Through discussion here in the forums.

- How does WoWWiki decide what goes on a page? Through discussion in its talk pages.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there's a lot in common here, rather than two opposite poles.


Now... I've seen the argument for how wikis are inherently broken because lots of people can edit them. I've also seen arguments that WoWWiki is an impossible project because WoW lore evolves. To me, the former is the answer to the latter. A site describing WoW lore cannot ever be "done". It needs to evolve, because the lore evolves.

So, there needs to be people doing the job of keeping stuff up to date.

Because, even now, what happens if you guys here at SoL were to say "we're done! let's take a break for half a year now!"... And then some arsehole (let's assume it's me) comes along and posts reams of crap that's totally wrong in the forums... Isn't SoL just as broken then? What keeps this from happening to SoL? Aye, it's people again. People that care. Except in a forum environment it usually means posting a response far down the thread, where in a wiki you just edit out the stuff that's wrong so that it doesn't even appear anymore.


So... I'm going to toss you a hilarious and obviously impossible idea: How about you guys stop waiting for The Ultimate SoL Site, that's going to be, frankly, just another collaborative work, full of controversy and hotly debated information. How about you fix the site that's the source of all of your hatred? Noone's going to stop you. Really.

I'm not trying to borg you guys. Hell, there's nothing to borg you into. WoWWiki is a database for people interested in warcraft written by people interested in warcraft. There's people there that love arguing just as much as everyone here, and reaching consensus on if something is to be displayed, and how it is displayed.

I'm not even suggesting for you to abandon SoL. No way. In some ways, forums are much better for discussing things long term. And much easier to find which discussions are actually going on.

How about taking all the knowledge that you've amassed here (and not presented anywhere actually useful) and chucking it into WoWWiki, where, after all, those pesky people keep coming all the time. You know, those everyday muppets that go there for tactics and in-game info and whatnot, and then happen to read about "fire nagas" or whatever and then start showing off their newfound knowledge to their friends and guildies.

Like it or not, the WoWWiki userbase (I'm talking visitors here) is ridiculously larger than SoL, and it will likely remain so, just because SoL is so much more targeted. Joe WoW player won't be going here to find the gospel truth. Even if you get your site up here, you'll still get pissed off by people finding erronous information somewhere else (WoWWiki for instance) and spreading it by word of mouth. At least, as long as there's noone around to fix that information in the first place!

And how do you keep info from being ruined, you may ask, since anyone can edit it? Well, that's what watchlists are there for. And does it work? Heck, why do you think some of your changes (read: unexplained mass deletions) got reverted? Someone that cared about the page had it watchlisted, and reverted the change when he saw it the next time he came online. - And why did they just up and revert it, you may ask? Probably because there was no reason given for the change. WoWWiki editors want to know why something gets changed, just as everyone here does. Can they be wrong at times? Hell yeah. That's what collaboration is all about. If one guy (let's call him Baggins for argument's sake) has gotten something wrong, and five people that he has gotten to know and learned to respect come along and tell him that he is wrong, possibly even pointing to the right facts from a trustworthy source, do you not think he'll listen? And, frankly, if this hypothetical someone doesn't budge, poke an admin and this someone will be 1) bitchslapped to hell n back and/or 2) booted out.

Is there some rule that you don't agree with? Well, again, WoWWiki is a collaboration just as Scrolls of Lore is. Get the rule changed. Basically none of the policies and guidelines are set in stone; anything can be changed by someone making a better suggestion and having people vote for it. (Yeah, it really is that simple! :) )


Yeah, I know that SoL is your site. You guys have been hanging out here for god knows how long and have a fun and knowledgeable community going. So? I'm not suggesting you stop. Make WoWWiki "your" site too! The "we" that Kirkburn kept mentioning isn't some corporate board "we" with trained spokesmen expressing the company's best interests. Heck, we're just a bunch of gamers that like writing stuff that we think others want to read about. We're not getting paid for it :) Do you absolutely detest MoM Appendix III? WELL COME ON WOWWIKI AND SAY IT FOR GOD'S SAKE! The other WoWWiki contributors can't see all your complaints from across the 'net :)


Wow. That was longer than I intended. Ok, now I've pissed on everyone's shoes well and proper, and pointed loaded rifles at the babies of some of the people here.

Let the counterflame begin! (Just, please, read what I'm saying before just shooting me down? If there's one thing that makes me a sad panda it's pent-up bile pouring out that doesn't contribute to making anything better.)

[Kerrah]

The main problem of WoWwiki is that it is supposed to be "The Ultimate Source of Lore", but it isn't since it's mainly a WoW wiki.

WoW and lore do not go together, thank you very much.

[Flamestrider]

Let me go on the record and say I have no hostility towards any members of the wowwiki community, or towards the site itself. I wish people would stop being such nationalists (er, websiteationalists) in general. That's all.

[Skyfire]

The main problem of WoWwiki is that it is supposed to be "The Ultimate Source of Lore", but it isn't since it's mainly a WoW wiki.

WoW and lore do not go together, thank you very much.

One question for that.

Where does it say anywhere on the site that WoWWiki is supposed to be the "Ultimate Source of Lore"? :confused:

Edit: Lol at Flamestrider. :D

[Kerrah]

One question for that.

Where does it say anywhere on the site that WoWWiki is supposed to be the "Ultimate Source of Lore"? :confused:

Well, each time you ask for a source of lore from your avarage wow player, he links WoWwiki.

[Skyfire]

True.

Does that mean it is the ultimate source of lore? Hardly. ;) No; it just means that it is the most used. :kawaii:

[Mikk]

The main problem of WoWwiki is that it is supposed to be "The Ultimate Source of Lore", but it isn't since it's mainly a WoW wiki.

WoW and lore do not go together, thank you very much.

Um, wait. Wasn't it a main source of griping in earlier threads that WoWWiki contained too many sources of lore?

And tbh this connects wonderfully with what I was saying before. Wikis are all about adding stuff that's missing :kawaii:


Well, each time you ask for a source of lore from your avarage wow player, he links WoWwiki.

Aye, hence my outrageous suggestion :) I mean.. wouldn't it be cool if it was "your" info that he was linking to rather than "their" info? I know that's certainly what suckered me into wiki editing way back then ;)

[Crash Torrian]

Yeah, I know that SoL is your site. You guys have been hanging out here for god knows how long and have a fun and knowledgeable community going. So? I'm not suggesting you stop. Make WoWWiki "your" site too! The "we" that Kirkburn kept mentioning isn't some corporate board "we" with trained spokesmen expressing the company's best interests. Heck, we're just a bunch of gamers that like writing stuff that we think others want to read about. We're not getting paid for it :) Do you absolutely detest MoM Appendix III? WELL COME ON WOWWIKI AND SAY IT FOR GOD'S SAKE! The other WoWWiki contributors can't see all your complaints from across the 'net :)

And on that note does anyone actually like the Appendix III at WoWWiki other then "Baggins"?


Let me go on the record and say I have no hostility towards any members of the wowwiki community, or towards the site itself. I wish people would stop being such nationalists (er, websiteationalists) in general. That's all.

People do not abandon their pride easily.

True.

Does that mean it is the ultimate source of lore? Hardly. ;) No; it just means that it is the most used. :kawaii:

Most people tend to believe that something that's most used is the best or ultimate.

[Cantus]

The reason why wiki's don't work is because they act on the principle that people won't knowingly or unknowingly distort or destroy information without good cause. Considering the number of adolescent minded individuals on the internet, especially surrounding video games, the idea of a WoWWiki is far too much work for its worth.

With SoL there are people who, regardless of personal opinion, are willing to put down lore that is incontravertible fact. Speculations still occur on the boards, theories are still thrown around, but they aren't placed within the lore section itself.

And yes, Warlock, Keith, Scythe, and Ken are all still human, but the difference is that they are completely aware of fact from fiction. When Joe Warcraft decides he's discovered something about the lore at WoWWiki, he can edit some out of the way page and create a whole host of problems.

If Joe Warcraft comes here, he can talk about it first, and then (and only then) is it considered for addition to the mythology.

Think about it this way, your anthropology professors are all human too, so why do you follow their word over the word of someone who's friends with a junior archaeologist?

The day we can quickly and easily correct misinformation on WoWWiki is the day I'll use the site without caution, but until then I go to the people who have made a far more extensive study of the lore before I ever think of WoWWiki.

[Timolas]

Aye, hence my outrageous suggestion :) I mean.. wouldn't it be cool if it was "your" info that he was linking to rather than "their" info? I know that's certainly what suckered me into wiki editing way back then ;)

That's the problem. Real lore isn't my info or yours... it's Blizzard's. That is how people get mislead.

[Mikk]

The reason why wiki's don't work is because they act on the principle that people won't knowingly or unknowingly distort or destroy information without good cause. Considering the number of adolescent minded individuals on the internet, especially surrounding video games, the idea of a WoWWiki is far too much work for its worth.

Funny that. It's working just fine for everything else at the moment, as is so many other wikis around the world. If it's not working for lore, it's just because there's not enough of the right people threre.


The day we can quickly and easily correct misinformation on WoWWiki is the day I'll use the site without caution, but until then I go to the people who have made a far more extensive study of the lore before I ever think of WoWWiki.

That day arrived long ago. If there has ever been a problem of SoLer edits on wowwiki, it's been because someone quickly nips in, yanks something out, and does not explain why. This someone is not known to existing editors. Existing editors must then assume that it's joe videogamer that's just being a dick, and they back the change out.

If SoLers were to make themselves known (perhaps by signing themselves up on the Lore team?), I think things would be a lot smoother. Remember that wowwiki isn't some anonymous entity with quasi-human robots sitting around following some strict rule set, nor filled with obstinate arses that have nothing better to do than back out any changes done to a page that isn't their own. There's people there. Lots of them. Ones that care about what's happening to pages in their area of interest.


Remembering that we're all human = win :)

[Yuber8900]

Remembering that we're all human = win :)

Everyone on the planet's a robot until I say otherwise!

[Cantus]

Let me repeat, all wikis have a problem, WoWWiki is far from the only example.

I have a friend who believes that if Wikipedia wasn't created by God, than he had a part in it. He uses it for everything, homework, tests, recreation, and he continuously espouses that it will be the future of our world. It's an admirable thought, but right now here's the reason why I don't trust it or any other wiki...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html?ex=1330750800&en=f79cc41f899c2de6&ei=5090

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is the fact that you cannot trust the userbase, whether or not there are trusted editors, that steers me clear of the wiki mania.

The day has not and probably will never come that I can trust a wiki because the internet is filled with dubious trolls and hooligans who delight in nothing more than screwing around with society. This says nothing to the people who are genuinely attempting to put in information, but are ignorant to the truth.

To put it one way, there is no Democracy in an encyclopedia, so attempting to open up the avenues of editing information to the masses is an exercise in futility. All you achieve is the dissemination of untrustworthy information that can and will do harm if it's ignored (which it regularly is in many cases.)

It's a very elitist view, one that has likely kept society in the dark for a very long time, but it's better for the world that we have only verified fact to base our assumptions off of than to allow the possibility of fiction infecting and disseminating through the world like so many times before.

[Kerrah]

And yes, Warlock, Keith, Scythe, and Ken are all still human, but the difference is that they are completely aware of fact from fiction. When Joe Warcraft decides he's discovered something about the lore at WoWWiki, he can edit some out of the way page and create a whole host of problems.

If Joe Warcraft comes here, he can talk about it first, and then (and only then) is it considered for addition to the mythology.

This morning I wrote almost ten rows of stuff trying to explain that exactly same thing, but deleted it since I'm bad in debating. Just assume this is my exact opinion about this matter. (which it is close to)

[Cantus]

This morning I wrote almost ten rows of stuff trying to explain that exactly same thing, but deleted it since I'm bad in debating. Just assume this is my exact opinion about this matter. (which it is close to)

The only way to get good at debate is to actively pursue it, even if you sound terrible or your ideas are met with hostility. I'm terrible at it myself, but i'm also persistent, so it works out in the end.

[Nephalim]

The thing about the Wiki and lore is that it validates every little rumour and speculation that occurs to every member of the team. Rumours are posted in the same article, as are apocryphal or otherwise illegitimate lore on the characters. Yeah, fine, they're marked appropriately, but it influences how people perceive the character or what they can expect later or conclusions they come to on their own.

[DeathsAdvocate]

Well, each time you ask for a source of lore from your avarage wow player, he links WoWwiki.

Well, if he linked here I doubt he'd find what he needs either

[Warlock]

My only real issue is that I don't think the wiki format works for something as delicate as lore. If you just want to find out which actors played in a movie, or what the release date of a video game is, or the definition of a word, ya, wiki can be great. That is just fact information, and usually it's pretty self-contained to the point where a moderator can keep the stupid out. It's also usually thoroughly cited. Though of course, even then you generally want to go into any wiki with a sense of disbelief anyways.

Now however, you talk about a subject like WarCraft lore, there are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of mysteries, there are a lot of retcons, and overall it's just a huge scope of information, especially since WoW came about. When anyone can write anything it's too much for just a handful of people to moderate. How do you know that Jaina didn't make out with Thrall? How do you know that Flamewakers are not really fire naga who were once tranformed by the Old Gods from Dark Iron Dwarves? There is nothing there that says "No, this is 100% wrong" but common sense and other peripheral information tell you it clearly is. But a handful of people cannot sort through hundreds of articles, fact-checking every single statement for truth. And that's when you get the Blizzard bonus maps as "real locations" or fanfiction about the South Seas that no one even knew were on there until someone else pointed it out.

So then anyone goes to WoWWiki, finds this false information, and assumes it's correct. That's the part I dislike. I also dislike, as mentioned, that opinions, rumors and things clearly not "of the lore" (aka Apdx III) have to be presented "in an effort to be thorough" as that's misleading as well, even if they are marked appropriately.

But one thing I will say - on the flip side - WowWiki is a great source for strategy. I think this is one area where the Wiki format really works, because frankly, how do you screw up strategy? It's all opinion anyways. A strategy doesn't work for *you*, you can call the strategy writer an idiot and try something else. But at least the strategy gave you some ideas on how to proceed.

But overall I'm just saying it's a flawed system because it can't be properly moderated. That's my main gripe.

[Aldrius]

The thing that annoys me about the wiki, is that as Neph says, there's tons of speculation in the article itself. And sometimes it's not clearly marked. (i.e. In one of the articles, I forget which, I think it was Maiev's. They mention that when Tyrande fought off the undead in Lordaeron she 'realized why Tyrande had been chosen as high priestess and not her'. Not under speculation, not under anything. Granted, if you consider WotA as part of tFT canon then it's not completely out there, but it's still an assumption and it's UNPROVEN and it's not even CLOSE to being a completely fair one.)

[Wulfang]

Most of what I'm going to say as already been discussed here in one way or another but I'm going to leave my opinion here anyway.

First of all, I want to say that I don't have anything against the WoWWiki staff: I think all of you are really hard workers and are truly interested in creating a source of Warcraft information that can be visited by anyone.

However, what I don't like is the means through which the wiki functions. Creating pages with information that can be editied by anyone even if they don't have any knowledge of it is a recipe for sure chaos. As has also been said here, the wiki also displays many information that is just rumor or conjecture and, even though it's usually marked as such, it will influence the opinions of less knowledgeable readers. Fine examples of this are the "fire naga" and that "Pandaren expansion" article.

The idea we have in mind about or lore site is that it won't be editable by anyone. Only admins and lorekeepers (Warlock, Keith, Scythe and Kenzuki) will be able to post information on the site. But, before they post it, it will be put on the forums for discussion. After everyone has read the article and said their opinion about it, any necessary changes will be made and it'll be posted on the site. That way, you have a fool-proof method of assuring that the lore presented is as objective and accurate as it could be.

P.S.: Hey Warlock, by the way, any news on the site? If you need any help with a few articles, we're here to help ;)

[Nephalim]

The ultimate problem, though, Warlock, is that what some consider "of the lore" is varied. Everyone always talks about Appendix III because it's the most obvious case of common sense trumping canon. But there are a number of other sources with no clear answer. For instance, you don't consider the RPG's flavour fiction a legitimate source of lore. I disagree. You've made your case and it has its merits, but so does mine. Blizzard hasn't, and likely will never, directly deny their legitimacy, and would have no reason to confirm it.

The gnome history from the APG, the Forsaken relations from the HPG, the philosophical and historical discrepancies between RoC and the WoTA Trology's account of events, game mechanics, multi-factioned questlines, PvP, content patches... there are a lot of lore grey areas, that aren't made into a hierarchy for us and so we are left to make one for ourselves. But the community doesn't agree, and while some opinions may seem immediately dismissable, it gets more complicated with others.

A wiki cannot properly address this issue, by the very virtue of its design. However I don't see how anything else can, either.

[Kerrah]

A wiki cannot properly address this issue, by the very virtue of its design. However I don't see how anything else can, either.

What if the diffrent points of view are presented and their existance is informed, but the archives won't take any stance about which one is right?

[Nephalim]

Isn't that what the wiki does?

[Kerrah]

Isn't that what the wiki does?

Nope, it had to have one point of view presented as the alpha and the omega.

[Nephalim]

Wouldn't that defy all logic about how a wiki functions?

[Kerrah]

Wouldn't that defy all logic about how a wiki functions?

I've never seen it say:

"Things might be this way because some sources say they are otherwise."

It says:

"Things are this way though some sources say otherwise."

[Mikk]

Aight. I'll try to make this my last annoyance here, I promise :kawaii:

And on that note does anyone actually like the Appendix III at WoWWiki other then "Baggins"?

Well, Appendix III is undisputably still "Warcraft", and the wiki purports to display everything that is warcraft, so it'll stay on the wiki for sure. As for how integrated it needs to be in other lore? Well, a new policy was ratified recently (http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Writing/Lore#Policy_Addition), and I think it answers your question. ("Ratified" means it's decided upon, but someone has yet to pick up the ball and make the changes throughout the wiki. Feel free :) )

To be quite honest, this would have happened ages ago if people from here were involved in the decision process.


With SoL there are people who, regardless of personal opinion, are willing to put down lore that is incontravertible fact. Speculations still occur on the boards, theories are still thrown around, but they aren't placed within the lore section itself.


So why can't that be true for WoWWiki? Only because you guys aren't on there making sure it's the case.

The thing about the Wiki and lore is that it validates every little rumour and speculation that occurs to every member of the team. Rumours are posted in the same article, as are apocryphal or otherwise illegitimate lore on the characters. Yeah, fine, they're marked appropriately, but it influences how people perceive the character or what they can expect later or conclusions they come to on their own.

So get on there and change it? How about moving speculation to separate pages with a small link from the main one? Better yet, vote to have the lore policy changed so that this is a requirement? Suddenly, wiki patrollers know what's right and what's not even if they don't know the lore, and can and will help make sure that this is the case. Or at least alert the lore team on the wiki if they're unsure.

But overall I'm just saying it's a flawed system because it can't be properly moderated. That's my main gripe.

Have you tried it? You _do_ know there's such thing as watchlists where you're alerted if pages on your list get changed? And you get to see detailed diffs of exactly what's been changed. And there's even the Recent Changes and New Pages patrol that make sure that things abide by policy. Policy that can be changed.

The current lore team tries to divide lore between them so that not everyone has to watchlist every damn lore page in existance. The problem is really only that they're too few, and perhaps not clued enough. The reason for that? The die-hard lore guys all hang out on a forum site, frequented only by other die-hard lore guys. And Yuber :P *ducks* ;)

To put it one way, there is no Democracy in an encyclopedia, so attempting to open up the avenues of editing information to the masses is an exercise in futility. All you achieve is the dissemination of untrustworthy information that can and will do harm if it's ignored (which it regularly is in many cases.)

See my answer above. And do remember that even the current lore policy states that facts have to be properly sourced. There's no "democracy" behind facts at all. There's some democracy involved as to what gets to be called lore though, and if you've previously been unhappy with the outcome, it's only because you haven't been there to make the difference, to be brutally honest. :)

However, what I don't like is the means through which the wiki functions. Creating pages with information that can be editied by anyone even if they don't have any knowledge of it is a recipe for sure chaos.

That's what I used to believe too. But the saving grace is that people that really do not have any idea about a topic don't give a sh*t about that topic. They won't edit it. Except for a handful of pimple-faced youths that just go on a rampage on random pages, and they're caught by the recent changes patrol and get reverted. Typically within hours.

What really does tend to happen is that you get people that actually KNOW what they're talking about help you out. Or people with better grammar come in and fix your english. Or people with too much time on their hands run around and screenshot stuff and put in nice images in your articles. Or ... or ... or ... :)

And, for the love of god. Remember that this is a bleeping video game we're talking about here. It's not like I'm suggesting we go and create a rocket scientist manual via wiki :D


On a sidenote, I'd love to see "See also" links around the lore section pointing to interesting and valid forum topics here on SoL. It could provide more insight for wiki visitors than can't easily be given in an encyclopaedic article!


I dunno... this all just seems like a win-win situation to me. A win for you guys, getting stuff out that you know is right (cause you've got the sources, right? :) ). And a win to joe warcraft player visiting wowwiki and getting a fix of lore while he's at it.

Is it a win to WoWWiki? Err. WoWWiki can't win. It's a bloody non-profit tool that Rustak lets people use. WoWWiki doesn't give a sh*t. :P (I'd personally be happy though, cause from what I'm hearing here there's been some serious misinformation going on here and there on the wiki, and I personally am not happy about that. Problem is, I really don't care enough about lore myself to fix things.)


If anyone here wants to reach me on the wiki (I'm an admin on there), leave a note on http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Mikk.

If you want to make your presense known to other lore addicts, try http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki_talk:Bookkeepers

Or if you want to get the attention of wiki editors in general, shout out at http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Village_pump


Oh, and on a closing note: If you still want to put up a read-only super lore site here on scrollsoflore... keep in mind that you can just use the wiki as an editing tool and copy&paste stuff over when you're "done"? All contributions are GPLd, so you can just copy stuff over when it's "finished". I'm only suggesting this because I'm seeing lots of forumgoers here offer to help out with creating the site but not really being able to.

[Kerrah]

Specialist Elitism > Total Anarchy.

[Timolas]

Aight. I'll try to make this my last annoyance here, I promise :kawaii:
.............




EDIT: No offense meant by the above. That was just my way of saying that this is a pretty old pointless arguement for SoL and Wowwiki, we should just leave it at this seeing as everyone has individual opinions on the matter that probably won't be changed anyway.

[Vicious]

That was just my way of saying that this is a pretty old pointless arguement for SoL and Wowwiki, we should just leave it at this seeing as everyone has individual opinions on the matter that probably won't be changed anyway.

Quoted for truth.

Why are we still discussing this?

Also, big usage of smilies makes us friends. ;)

[Mikk]

Why are we still discussing this?


Mostly because I'm an argumentative old sod that hates seeing will and drive to improve things go, as it were, nowhere :kawaii:

Either way, I think you guys are in for a fun and painful learning experience once you do get things up and running (two and a half years and counting now ? =) ) From the little I've seen by browsing through some threads, there's people with opinions ranging from "it ain't lore until it's in the game" (I assume WoW?) all the way through "the problem with WoWWiki is that it's only about WoW" (which aint' true anyway :P )


Peace and love to all :D


Also, big usage of smilies makes us friends. ;)

QFT ;)

[peppelapuke]

EDIT: No offense meant by the above. That was just my way of saying that this is a pretty old pointless arguement for SoL and Wowwiki, we should just leave it at this seeing as everyone has individual opinions on the matter that probably won't be changed anyway.



Timolas, that was a very rude picture, never post anything like that again. This is your only warning.

[Timolas]

Timolas, that was a very rude picture, never post anything like that again. This is your only warning.

Sweet Jimmy, this thread is so old I'm not even sure what you're talking about.
But you mean to tell me you came back after two years to tell me you found whatever it was that offended your soul, offensive?

If memory serves, whatever that picture was it can't be 'rude'.

[Warlock]

Yeah that was weird :P

[Mark_Romaneck]

Wow a 15 post old admin!

I guess im a newblood

[Kerrah]

What are Beowulf, Peppe and keith up to nowadays, Warlock? You know them IRL, right?

[Vicious]

Most pointless administration i ever saw in a forum.

Ever.

[Aldrius]

6 more days and it would have been a year late.

[Warlock]

What are Beowulf, Peppe and keith up to nowadays, Warlock? You know them IRL, right?

I know them in WoW. Though I haven't seen Beo in ages. Keith is still around the site, he just doesn't post much (i.e. if something is broken, then it gets fixed, that's generally him ;))

[Xarthat]

I know them in WoW. Though I haven't seen Beo in ages. Keith is still around the site, he just doesn't post much (i.e. if something is broken, then it gets fixed, that's generally him ;))

And peppe is walking around, waiting for a purpose to give someone a warning? Really, maybe that was not the man supposed to be under that nick?

[Kakwakas]

Now that I'm actually thinking about this topic...
Why don't we just form a SoL group on WoWWiki and raid the hell out of the place with valid information?

[Mark_Romaneck]

Now that I'm actually thinking about this topic...
Why don't we just form a SoL group on WoWWiki and raid the hell out of the place with valid information?

K but I get plate drops

[peppelapuke]

Post was reported for moderation: Timolas had a lemonparty picture up. Doesn't matter if the post was old, clearly someone ran into it and was offended.

[Yuber8900]

Post was reported for moderation: Timolas had a lemonparty picture up. Doesn't matter if the post was old, clearly someone ran into it and was offended.

My eyes!

[Kakwakas]

Post was reported for moderation: Timolas had a lemonparty picture up. Doesn't matter if the post was old, clearly someone ran into it and was offended.

He probably hotlinked to a site owned by someone that doesn't take too kindly to such things...

[Mark_Romaneck]

O that lemonparty.

That is so not my kind of party

[Darkwind]

Now that I'm actually thinking about this topic...
Why don't we just form a SoL group on WoWWiki and raid the hell out of the place with valid information?

It's not a terrible idea, per se, but I have a feeling we'd be beaten. Mikk said that Appendix III is on there because WoWWiki is meant to be all-encompassing of all things Warcraft.

SoL isn't. It's specifically for Lore, and I'm assuming it's going to be a bit more subjegtive then the wiki is.

[Xarthat]

Post was reported for moderation: Timolas had a lemonparty picture up. Doesn't matter if the post was old, clearly someone ran into it and was offended.

But what made you interested in it after two years of inexistence, according to another users?

Hell, we can try to create our own group on WoWWiki. I already have an account there and using it actively.

[Timolas]

Post was reported for moderation: Timolas had a lemonparty picture up. Doesn't matter if the post was old, clearly someone ran into it and was offended.
Lemonparty?
Wait just a second.

I must have one hell of a memory gap. Because by Jove, I'm not that sick and twisted.

[Kerrah]

I'm going with Kak's theory.

[Aldrius]

And I'm going with Warlock's theory!

...uh... what is your theory exactly, Warlock?

[Kerrah]

That it was weird.

I think this thread ought to be closed, this is getting even weirder by the minute.

[Timolas]

I feel so set up and traumatized!

Oh the angst!

[Aldrius]

Why? Just don't post porn or direct link to websites ever again. =x

[Timolas]

Why? Just don't post porn or direct link to websites ever again. =x

Sure, if I posted porn then sue me. But I didn't.

[Aldrius]

Then you have already taken care of one of the things!!

[Mikk]

It's not a terrible idea, per se, but I have a feeling we'd be beaten. Mikk said that Appendix III is on there because WoWWiki is meant to be all-encompassing of all things Warcraft.

SoL isn't. It's specifically for Lore, and I'm assuming it's going to be a bit more subjegtive then the wiki is.

Correct, WoWWiki is all things warcraft, so if someone were to start deleting e.g. WoW boss tactics, screenshots of WoW mobs, guilds, patch pages, or the MoM Appendix III material because "it's not lore" ... they wouldn't last long.

Having said that, how information is organized, presented, categorized, and what should link to what (and whether or not it's a good idea to mention MoMA3 stuff in other articles)... is another thing entirely.



And on the lemonparty topic: Yeah, that picture was something else entirely when it was posted. I guess the site owner didn't like the hotlink.

[Timolas]

And on the lemonparty topic: Yeah, that picture was something else entirely when it was posted. I guess the site owner didn't like the hotlink.

Apparently. Didn't even know what hotlinking was one year ago.

Now for the love of Jove.

Let this thing rest.

[Aldrius]

You know who's fault this really is?

People who were experimenting with thread necromancy.

[Yuber8900]

You know who's fault this really is?

People who were experimenting with thread necromancy.

Don't look at me with those accusing eyes!

[Mark_Romaneck]

Don't look at me with those accusing eyes!

How come you can look at us with different colored... seductive eyes and we cant look you like this?

[Darkwind]

Correct, WoWWiki is all things warcraft, so if someone were to start deleting e.g. WoW boss tactics, screenshots of WoW mobs, guilds, patch pages, or the MoM Appendix III material because "it's not lore" ... they wouldn't last long.

Having said that, how information is organized, presented, categorized, and what should link to what (and whether or not it's a good idea to mention MoMA3 stuff in other articles)... is another thing entirely.

And, getting back to the original topic, I think that's the fundamental problem with the wiki. It's a decent source of information, but it's too objectionable. Usually, something that is objective is seen as a plus. However, with something like Warcraft where things are constantly in flux, I think taking an objective view overall hurts the flow of information.

The wiki is all-encompasing. Which includes outdated material (Such as a lot of stuff from Warcraft I) and things that are very clearly not canon in lore (Appendix III). Sure, things are labeled, but people are just going to see "This is in the RPG, and may not be in other sources of lore", and not care. And there are things in the RPG that are clearly canon, some that are in a gray area, and some things that simply aren't.

It's also not structured. When it comes to lore, you have to know what you're looking for before you dive in. With something like SoL, you can have a concise timeline and spin off individual articles from there. The only problem with SoL is that it isn't finished and has no timetable as to when it will be finished.

[Mikk]

It's also not structured. When it comes to lore, you have to know what you're looking for before you dive in. With something like SoL, you can have a concise timeline and spin off individual articles from there. The only problem with SoL is that it isn't finished and has no timetable as to when it will be finished.

The only reason wowwiki doesn't have that is because ... well... noone put it in! :D