User talk:Rosslessness: Difference between revisions
Son of Sin (talk | contribs) m (removed white gackbround sig) |
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) (→So...) |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
I don't want to discuss Q2019 in your suggestion's voting section. | I don't want to discuss Q2019 in your suggestion's voting section. | ||
Q2019's game guide should've been developed years ago, and to my knowledge, there was a wiki or talk of a wiki ([http://forum.quarantine2019.com/index.php/topic,4838 wiki discussion thread]), and no one wanted a wiki like this wiki, so they chose a game guide instead which still lacks vital information (but there's [http://play.quarantine2019.com/beta a hidden "tools" page], must be logged in to see it). Anyway, I agree with you; a wiki is better than no wiki because players want/need game guides. But the system operators here are biased and act like U.S. Supreme Court justices. Sysops, moderators and administrators should be neutral and ignore their own personal opinions (no discretion!). So I don't know what a good balance for a wiki should be: moderator-only edits or player edits. I dislike the moderator-only wiki, but the game usually has a forum and in-game chatboxes for players to communicate, which still have to be moderated which requires man-hours. IRC sucks because it's player-moderated which leads to a lot of biased bans. I'm trying to tie this into why this wiki is looked down upon...but why it has been successful (for retrieving game-related information). -- [[User:Son of Sin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Chiller; font-size:medium">→'''Son of Sin'''←</span>]] 03:59, 2 August 2012 (BST) | Q2019's game guide should've been developed years ago, and to my knowledge, there was a wiki or talk of a wiki ([http://forum.quarantine2019.com/index.php/topic,4838 wiki discussion thread]), and no one wanted a wiki like this wiki, so they chose a game guide instead which still lacks vital information (but there's [http://play.quarantine2019.com/beta a hidden "tools" page], must be logged in to see it). Anyway, I agree with you; a wiki is better than no wiki because players want/need game guides. But the system operators here are biased and act like U.S. Supreme Court justices. Sysops, moderators and administrators should be neutral and ignore their own personal opinions (no discretion!). So I don't know what a good balance for a wiki should be: moderator-only edits or player edits. I dislike the moderator-only wiki, but the game usually has a forum and in-game chatboxes for players to communicate, which still have to be moderated which requires man-hours. IRC sucks because it's player-moderated which leads to a lot of biased bans. I'm trying to tie this into why this wiki is looked down upon...but why it has been successful (for retrieving game-related information). -- [[User:Son of Sin|<span style="color:black; font-family:Chiller; font-size:medium">→'''Son of Sin'''←</span>]] 03:59, 2 August 2012 (BST) | ||
:You already have a game guide, it just needs to be, well finished. http://www.quarantine2019.com/game-guide/index.html could be really useful, but when even the 6 main topics don't all have pages, its not only frustrating, its also off putting to new players. So now you have forums. Forums attract a certain kind of person, whereas wikis attract another kind. The ease of a wiki, especially a huge one like this, is you can search for almost anything and find it without having to interact with anyone. Infighting on UDwiki is based off having several moderators, and its fair to say some of them historically have been terrible, grim s, thad etc, but I don't feel thats the case now, at least based off the levels of vandalism, misconduct and general drama we put up with these days. --[[User:Rosslessness|Ross]]<sup>[[User:Rosslessness/Persons Of Note|'''WHO????''']]</sup>[[User:Rosslessness|ness]] 09:02, 2 August 2012 (BST) |
Revision as of 08:02, 2 August 2012
|