Author Topic: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition  (Read 3514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CannibalSmith

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • COBoard Wiki
    • Email
COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« on: May 28, 2008, 12:48:43 PM »
I see the coming 4th edition as an opportunity to give the wiki a new boost. New edition, fresh start.

What are the obstacles that prevent you from contributing to the wiki? If I reorganized it to accomodate the new edition, would you consider contributing to it? What else, in your opinion, could I possibly do to encourage people to contribute to the wiki once the 4th edition comes?

Speak your mind, everyone.

Edit: I'm such a dumbass - I didn't even put up a link to the thing we're talking about. HERE!
« Last Edit: May 28, 2008, 10:22:46 PM by CannibalSmith »

heffroncm

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
    • Email
Re: COBard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2008, 12:52:26 PM »
I think this is a great idea.  I'll lend what efforts I can.

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: COBard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2008, 02:26:07 PM »
Make it known. That's the most important thing you can do.

Shigunaru

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • I am your "friend"
    • Email
Re: COBard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2008, 02:39:56 PM »
Quote
COBard Wiki 4th Edition

Maybe writing the name right? :P

Just joking. I am actually writing a HUGE rogue handbook. When I am done I'll put it here and in the 3.5 CO Wiki aswell.

About 4th edition... We'll see.
Posting guidelines. Read 'em. Use 'em. Love 'em.

DaveTheMagicWeasel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • If you optimize it, they will come
    • Email
Re: COBard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2008, 02:48:30 PM »
Most handbooks start out as smaller works in progress, and the thread itself is then used to debate and highlight other tactics, feat choices, builds, etc.  Doing it in wiki format doesn't offer the same convenience for "living documents".

Now, possibly you could work on them for a while before copying and pasting them over once tehy're done.  But it's never truly "done", and copying and pasting isn't as likely to be a labour of love like writing a handbook.

There's also visibility - put a handbook on the CO boards and that's where people will see it, and where less regular visitors will look for it.  When not even all the CO regulars know about the wiki (and while I know about it, I never check it) it's never going to get the same level of traffic.

If it takes off from the beginning of 4e, and if the various handbooks end up split between here and gleemax, then a central wiki for them might make more sense.

Tbh I doubt it, but to increase the chances make sure it's got the same functionality on offer as the wotc boards (sblocks, etc), and make it well known.

CannibalSmith

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • COBoard Wiki
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2008, 03:43:23 PM »
Maybe writing the name right? :P
:blush

Most handbooks start out as smaller works in progress, and the thread itself is then used to debate and highlight other tactics, feat choices, builds, etc.  Doing it in wiki format doesn't offer the same convenience for "living documents".
How do I convince people of the opposite? Because not only there is a talk page for every article, the article itself can be edited (read: corrected, improved) by anyone, and there's no overhead like "oh, you misspelled this" or "you need to swap those two feats", and two weeks pass, and the first poster is like "ooh, sorry, I'll update it as soon as I can". A wiki has everything a forum has and more.

There's also visibility - put a handbook on the CO boards and that's where people will see it, and where less regular visitors will look for it.  When not even all the CO regulars know about the wiki (and while I know about it, I never check it) it's never going to get the same level of traffic.
It's a Catch 22. People don't go there, because people don't put stuff there, because people don't go there, and so on. I must somehow flip it over. I hope that I'll be able to do that with the 4th edition because the material to cover would be small enough that I alone could possibly do it. So I had stuff, and people would come and put more stuff in.

DaveTheMagicWeasel

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
  • If you optimize it, they will come
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2008, 04:58:15 PM »
Maybe writing the name right? :P
:blush

Most handbooks start out as smaller works in progress, and the thread itself is then used to debate and highlight other tactics, feat choices, builds, etc.  Doing it in wiki format doesn't offer the same convenience for "living documents".
How do I convince people of the opposite? Because not only there is a talk page for every article, the article itself can be edited (read: corrected, improved) by anyone, and there's no overhead like "oh, you misspelled this" or "you need to swap those two feats", and two weeks pass, and the first poster is like "ooh, sorry, I'll update it as soon as I can". A wiki has everything a forum has and more.

There's also visibility - put a handbook on the CO boards and that's where people will see it, and where less regular visitors will look for it.  When not even all the CO regulars know about the wiki (and while I know about it, I never check it) it's never going to get the same level of traffic.
It's a Catch 22. People don't go there, because people don't put stuff there, because people don't go there, and so on. I must somehow flip it over. I hope that I'll be able to do that with the 4th edition because the material to cover would be small enough that I alone could possibly do it. So I had stuff, and people would come and put more stuff in.

Well, imx the talkback options on wikis aren't as good as a forum (or at least, aren't as convenient and easy as a forum, which in your 21st century easy access tech is just as important) - e.g. I've been in PbP that had character sheets/builds on a wiki page, but discussion about builds, backgrounds etc naturally gravitated into the threads on the (pre-)game board.

Trying to fight what people find most intuitive is an uphill battle (you'll lose).  So, what I'd suggest is just go with the flow - handbooks on the wiki with discussion thread on the boards (make the first post a simple link, maybe an introduction to the class to wet people's appetites).  Put a thread on both the boards.  Also, make sure the wiki has a good history collection in case of trolls, I'd probably have it so that the creator of a page had "admin" rights.  Yes, it's slightly less collaborative, but it's a halfway point between current ownership of a handbook and a community project.

And better still - lead by example.  Make it your mission to make the first 4e handbook and start it with a link in a discussion thread.  IF it works then others will follow your lead (e.g. look how many people use DM's colour scheme - I did).

Lokathor

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2008, 08:41:09 PM »
For example.... there hasn't been a link to the wiki at all within this topic. So the folks (like myself) who don't know where it is are left a bit lost.

I'm totally for contributing to a wiki. What kind of wiki engine are you using? I use mediawiki for my own DM note and campaign info stuff, so a wiki is a natural format for me.

Shigunaru

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • I am your "friend"
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2008, 08:42:48 PM »
For example.... there hasn't been a link to the wiki at all within this topic. So the folks (like myself) who don't know where it is are left a bit lost.

Uhm... CannibalSmith signature. :wall
Posting guidelines. Read 'em. Use 'em. Love 'em.

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2008, 08:52:47 PM »
For example.... there hasn't been a link to the wiki at all within this topic. So the folks (like myself) who don't know where it is are left a bit lost.

Uhm... CannibalSmith signature. :wall
The tiny little link that is so easy to miss because the light blue blends in with the rest of the board?

Shigunaru

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • I am your "friend"
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2008, 08:56:19 PM »
For example.... there hasn't been a link to the wiki at all within this topic. So the folks (like myself) who don't know where it is are left a bit lost.

Uhm... CannibalSmith signature. :wall
The tiny little link that is so easy to miss because the light blue blends in with the rest of the board?

I just noticed the  :wall smiley make my post seem offensive. This wasn't my intention. I should have used :P instead...
Posting guidelines. Read 'em. Use 'em. Love 'em.

Lokathor

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2008, 10:20:15 PM »
Now I see it..... Definitely too small and out of the way.

Also, after most of the monstrosity that is the WotC sigs... I've mostly just stopped reading them entirely.

CannibalSmith

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • COBoard Wiki
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2008, 10:42:52 PM »
There. A proper banner.

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2008, 10:51:54 PM »
There. A proper banner.
Ah, much more noticeable now. Now if only I could get used to navigation and the like being on the right instead of the left...

CannibalSmith

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • COBoard Wiki
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2008, 11:09:48 PM »
I picked the current skin, called Quartz, mainly because it contains less ads than the other skin, Monaco, which has navigation on the left. I could switch the default skin by popular demand.

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2008, 11:20:12 PM »
I picked the current skin, called Quartz, mainly because it contains less ads than the other skin, Monaco, which has navigation on the left. I could switch the default skin by popular demand.
I'm just saying, compared to the Guild Wars wiki the CO one is just harder to look at (damn yellow). But yeah, out of those two skins I prefer Monaco, mostly because I have Adblock like a sensible person and thus don't even realize there are ads.

CannibalSmith

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
    • COBoard Wiki
    • Email
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2008, 03:52:15 AM »
Note that Guild Wars Wiki does not have a default skin set, and Wikia will show it with whatever skin you have set in your preferences, or default to Monobook (Wikipedia skin) if you have not logged in.

Also, an idea: be the first to index the 4th edition (like the Where do I Find in Surreal's list and timjoh.com).
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 03:54:54 AM by CannibalSmith »

AlienFromBeyond

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: COBoard Wiki 4th Edition
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2008, 04:38:55 AM »
Offering something like that would help to draw in a crowd. Also, you may want to consider a "wipe", as it were, to start a clean slate for 4th Edition. People may get confused looking at it with both unless a clear, simple delineation between the two is made.

And if I read your post right, if I make an account for it I can change what skin I see on the wiki? *tries it out* Wow, that looks much better now in Monobook, but that front page is pretty damn sparse.

Try to see if you can get Meg to give you a plug or something, or an easily accessible link. Wikis are all about gathering enough people to hit critical mass so they start making articles, and people come because there are articles, which makes them work on the articles, and so on and so forth. Being supported like that would help a bunch in getting people to come.