Talk:Home/Archive03

Suggestion for credibility
(Sent to Tihocan by Ildiko on the DDO forums): There are a number of prominent forum members who are hesitant about the info in the Wiki currently, and are vocal about its inaccuracies. I'd like to propose a program to help win the trust of DDOWiki vistors.

I call the program VIGaS!, which stands for Verified In-Game and Signed. As registered members edit a page, they may add the VIGaS tage at the end of an article, or element. This signifies that the info in that article or element has been checked by that member, and they are signing for its accuracy. The VIGaS "brand" could be just a wiki page link and signature - VIGaSTihocan 10:55, February 24, 2006 (EST). Or is might be an icon that links back to the VIGaS wiki page.

The signature ensures that if people fake verification, we know who they are, while building trust in those members signing legitimately. All of us who contribute to DDOWiki know that it is not 100% accurate, and we all work to make it that way. This program gives the whole site additional credibility with the naysayers and demonstrates our commitment to providing the best and most accurate information.


 * There is already the template for numbers, but I agree it may not be enough. It's true that too many people have a bad opinion of the Wiki because there is some false information on it. This VIGaS idea sounds like a good one to me. However something just like Verified (with some specific formatting) may be more intuitive for casual visitors. I'm also not sure where we should put this. For instance having one tag for each spell in a list would make the list hard to read. Maybe we could actually just use the  template, and modify its formatting (e.g. slightly different colour) to highlight verified information? Opinions welcome. Tihocan 10:55, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * I'd just say wait. We have a page verification/voting system going up in a bit, but no time to implement it now... was supposed to go up with 2.0, but we may have to implement it with 1.2 instead, I don't know. 12:14, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok, that sounds like a good solution. Any ETA on this? (don't want to press you, but ideally, we would want it up for the retail game launch on Feb. 28th) -- Tihocan 14:28, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * To put it bluntly - no way in HELL we will have any changes to the site software ready for game launch. Everything YOU see go live has usually been in development and testing for about a month - for instance, the slew of changes you see starting now are things we started working on right when we first launched the site. See the LFG: Site work announcement; we just can get anything done at any great turn of speed with only two of us around! 15:02, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * I think you meant can't and not can ;) Anyway, that means we may need a temp solution to highlight the verified content. Tihocan 17:05, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * The idea is that ALL content should be verified. If its not verified, remove it - if it's not verified, better yet, add it in the first place. Perhaps a public plea to STOP ADDING CONTENT YOU DIDN'T GET OFF OF YOUR OWN SCREEN, IN-GAME - not from books, not second-hand, not off the forums - would be in order. 18:01, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * SO I shouldnt have been BOLD and crossposted the spell data as it isnt verified? -- koolkat 18:04, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * Well, i have been thinking about it, but althought I love your attempt to help by cross-posting information, I think from here on we should stick to only information found in-game. I am quite tired of the bashing we are getting - if it weren't for certain trolls, we'd be fine and could keep it up, but not at this point. Our biggest thing is accuracy now... /sigh 18:07, February 24, 2006 (EST)

-> OK, I'm finally able to get real game data now, as the preorder has started, but I am guessing that people will be advancing through the game much faster than me, so I will be more like checking the original data that was entered. I'll probably be active in the ddo numbers project. Does anyone know of any loggers for DDO? -- koolkat 18:19, February 24, 2006 (EST)


 * I'm not aware of any logger. I know I tried myself to analyze some packets, just to find the d20 rolls, but could not find them (looked for ascii and hexa numbers, they did not seem to be here). Ok, I have a suggestion for verification. We could use templates like the and  templates, but we would replace  by ✅,  or , depending on the source (verified in game, from Turbine officials, or read on forums or heard from other players). Then we can either automatically add a tag when this template is used, or play with fonts / colors, to make sure everything is clear for the visitors. However there is currently an issue: templates do not seem to work within templates (meaning for instance we could not use these templates in a spell description). Is there any way to fix this? Tihocan 11:32, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * Templates have always worked just fine within other templates as far as I know - oh, i see what you mean - WITHIN the template TAG, you want another template TAG. No can do, the parser just check for closing curly braces. Howeve, really, the spell template should only apply to the top bit - the description and such should be added after the template, and the template modified to comply. I hadn't even noticed you had done it that way, lol. 14:14, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * I didn't do it, I suck with templates ;) Deddriiiiiiiiiiiiiiid!! :] Tihocan 16:23, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * LOL you two... 16:26, February 25, 2006 (EST)


 * Template:Spelldescription existed before I started coming here. I just applied it to a bunch of spells. From some of the discussions though, I believe all the spell bits were added as parameters to avoid having 30 different presentation formats for spells, depending on who wrote them up. I have no clue what you're saying will fix it, Peerless, unless you mean remove all the fields with numbers from the template so the DDO, PnP, Verfied, etc templates can be used. Dedridd 09:04, February 27, 2006 (EST)


 * I dunno... they should work. This needs some more consideration - alas, time is always the barrier. 17:38, February 27, 2006 (EST)


 * I copied over and then modified spelldescription from dndwiki. It helps I think in the speed of entering the spells as well as the formatting consistency.  Also if we wish to add in something later such as spell point cost then it would be easy enough to do.  I didnt think about nesting a template, because I see using template for the big things and not the small things.  I see how it would be useful to have a template to coordinate pnp and ddo numbers, but I just assume that all number on here are pnp numbers as ddo doesnt give you the numbers, except for weapon damage I think.  -- koolkat 10:39, February 28, 2006 (EST)
 * -> I be thinking about this... for now, use, in this case I think it's or something like that.  12:53, February 28, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok people, now that Peer has found a solution to the templates in templates (see Talk:DDO_numbers), we can move forward. What about my suggestion of four templates: {Verified} (verified by a Wiki non-anonymous user), {Official} (from DDO website), {PnP} (from the PnP version) and {Rumor} (all the rest)? If you think it's not a good idea, please say so. Peer, do you think it's going to be redundant with your verification system that is coming soon? (in which case we may just wait for it). Tihocan 14:05, March 1, 2006 (EST)
 * Well, verification system is done. If you can reach me on MSN some time tihocan, I can demonstrate it - but it won't exactly cover this. Also, for this particular problem, I don't see this as the solution to the problem. We need a policy on what can be added and what can't - what exactly we are going to consider as correct enough for our purposes and our readers, and then allow that and nothing else. I believe that incorrect information is worse than no information at all - if there is information floating around on something, then it would be appropriate to add a section rumor template that looks something like this - then we can put rumored facts IN the wiki, but make it VERY clear they are rumors and not to be considered correct enough for addition. Then, when one of our members checks that rumor IN GAME, they can move it out of the rumor template and into the appropriate section. 14:29, March 1, 2006 (EST)
 * I really like your Rumor template. I'll try to catch you on msn some time this week. Thank you! Tihocan 15:07, March 1, 2006 (EST)
 * Unfortunately, there is nothing stopping people from signing up just to mess around with the entries. It is simply an unfortunate fact that people love to grief services.  The biggest problem, as it would seem to me, is not enough users that participate, and check for accuracy.  One thing Wikipedia.com has is a lot of people constantly checking to make sure things are correct.  A lot of this stuff needs to be run through, and all the unverified data removed completely.  What it needs most is a group of regulars that can afford to check and modify everything that is incorrect. : Ardan 16:03, March 1, 2006 (EST)


 * Actually, that is not the case - so far, almost all edits have been contributory - the problem is that people just want to help and they just think that adding more info is helpful. We need to set a statement - this is what we want, adding THIS though is detrimental - and people will certainly try to comply. I don't know why, but gamers always seem to be very helpful in a wiki setting - except TES that is lol. 16:12, March 1, 2006 (EST)


 * Note that this is why there are some 'official' contributors for each race / class, to make sure there is someone who double-checks the information (see DDOWiki positions). However, I do not believe all these people are really active at the moment, to be honest. Guess everyone right now just wants to play the game, not verify / enter data ;) -- Tihocan 16:31, March 1, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok, for now, I want to close this conversation. When I have the verification system live (I have it working fine, but for some reason the live network install won't recognize it. I have a separate plastic install to test it on, anybody who contacts me on MSN can get a preview) we can discuss other systems, but until then it's kind of pointless to speculate before you can see what my system CAN and CAN'T do. Archiving this conversation. 16:59, March 1, 2006 (EST)