Please do not add items into Entropedia based on just something you read somewhere. Things that have not looted, or have not been seen being worn / used by avatars (use scanner), or that cannot be ordered or that you cannot screenshot in some other way all fall under this. These can easily turn out to be just urban legends, somebody mis-remembering or misinterpreting things or just things that ended up not being implemented (you don’t see a “meat extractor” under misc tools in Entropedia).
Case in point - Modified Pixie. We don’t even know for certain it will be called that, and we know by now the stats will be different. Never mind that if it really will be available from graduating mentoring, the source will be mentoring, not event, as stated.
While I edit and add things to Entropedia far less often than I would really like to or consider sufficient, I don’t think that in instances like this simply deleting the entries would be the right course of action. Getting a delete / add war would not serve any useful purpose.
Rem it was me who added the mod pixie. You can always edit it in future like I will when it arrives. Reason for doing this? I wanted to see if with its current stats it was an eco set like gnome or warrior. Plus it’s not really hearsay, KIM has said the new armor coming is called modified pixie just stats will have changed now from what I hear. But I’ll take your advice for future if this really has disturbed your armor adviser readings, thanks :).
Entropedia has gone downhill a lot recently due to people adding bad info.
I’m still waiting for Chazlow to delete the dozens of non-existent BPs he added (as discussed here).
If you’re not certain if something is correct, don’t add/edit it. If you’re making an approximation in categories where this is appropriate (e.g. mob damage types or max damage), add a note to say so.
Kim also said that the brief removal of the TPs from FOMA/CP to Calypso was intentional. Even if he wasn’t lying, MindArk changed their minds on that issue pretty quickly. This Mod Pixie hasn’t even been released yet, so no reason to know it ever will exist until someone actually has it.
Yeah, bad data in Entropedia is, um, bad. If someone sees missing data they might add it, less likely people will check existing data is correct and fix it.
I’m sure Mark meant well adding the Mod Pixie, but at the same time until it’s in-game we won’t know for sure if it’ll ever appear. Not everything MA says will happen actually happens.
In order for it to get better there needs to be a group of old school data collectors nurturing the next generation and helping them enter everything correctly.
Instead we have rude elitists who remove any motivation that generation might have had to contribute to the community.
It is intimidating enough trying to lean and add stuff to the wiki without worrying about being sent to the gas chamber if anyone finds out.
I know that has really taken away any of my motivation.
I don’t see any rudeness in this thread, I see only polite requests not to add incorrect info and some explanation of the right way to do things. Precisely what you’re asking for in fact.
It’s a shame you’re not prepared to contribute data, I’m sure you could help a lot with the Rocktropia info which is rather lacking at the moment.
I don’t necessarily mean this thread, I mean the overall feeling I get about entropedia on this forum.
I don’t remember seeing helpful threads ever discussing it, only scolding threads. (some more polite than others)
I know I started entering stuff for Rocktropia when I was looting discovery blueprints last year and it was a huge mess which I tried to help clean up. But I got scolded (dont remember by who) because I deleted or entered stats for a dragon plate (L) bp over one without an (L) (I am still not convinced there ever was an ul one)
So when you have things like that, and this, and the thread you linked (and I think others but maybe just my mind playing tricks on me) all having a some what negative vibe, and 0 recent nurturing threads that I have seen, you can understand what I am trying to say.
There are occasionally threads and posts asking for help about how to enter info correctly on Entropedia and they usually get answered. It’s hard to help unless someone asks a question.
I don’t remember (and may never have known about) the issue with the Dragon plates, but I guess the root of that problem was in NDS’ apparent inability to name blueprints in the standard way, which makes it impossible to tell from the name alone what is L and what isn’t. That obviously makes things difficult so I can see why there might be a problem but I guess it probably wasn’t your fault so if someone was angry with you they were probably directing it to the wrong place.
There’s no rude, and no elitism. And the thread starter appears to have joined EU, or at least PCF/EF, about 18 months ago so he’s hardly an EU old-timer.
The fact is, bad data is much less likely to get fixed than missing data. And the new generation you seem to want us to treat with kid gloves could end up making costly mistakes as a result of that bad data. Criticism and rudeness are not synonyms.
The BP slots exist in the BP books - so they were added to complete the BP book listings.
You do not run entropedia, and I do not add info to entropedia to serve you or edit it at your whim.
The reason the community has the ability to edit entropedia is for its continual development. Things will be removed, some things added. Mistakes will be made and corrected etc…
No offense, I realize I am not getting my point across right. I am not sure how to explain it.
It is a mindset, it is subtle but it seems pretty obvious to me.
Your first paragraph says there is no elitism, and yet your second paragraph insinuates that new players are only capable of screwing stuff up and causing costly mistakes.
I agree, criticism and rudeness are not synonyms, but without some diplomacy most criticism is rude, and therefor even when not intended can come across that way. Maturity is understanding that diplomacy and “kiddy gloves” are not synonyms either.
I agree that what you are saying about editing etc.. is right, but the tone and the way that you present it is wrong and self defeating. That is what I am trying to explain.
The thread Oleg liked to is another example.
#1 I am right you are wrong. #2 But I think I am right because of this. #1 No I am right because of this and you are still wrong. #3 That doesn’t work though because it is inconsistent and disproves itself. #1 It doesn’t matter, I am right and have been here longer so I am right.
Nothing should ever be done “because I say so”
Do things with patience and understanding, and respect the fact that maybe the reason you do something may be flawed. This isn’t “kiddy gloves” this is humanity I am trying to explain.
Assuming that someone will do something you want because you told them to is in this instance both rude and elitist.
(I am better than you so you WILL do what I say)
People want to help, people like being involved, that is really one aspect of fun in games is the immersing yourself into the study of it. So with a wiki you will have new players wanting to help and be involved. An open wiki is open for that and can be reverted to former edits if I am not mistaken.
I know I am going against the grain here, and I apologize. But It would be good if you could look at what I am trying to explain without immediately trying to prove me wrong. If you look at the subtleties of what I am trying to say then you might understand how you can improve not just peoples approach to entropedia but to their opinions of this forum and the community etc…
Otherwise just close editing to all but Jimmy and Oleg, and keep it the perfect wiki of the past. (what good would that do with such a rapidly changing universe?)
Again Oleg and Jimmy, I apologize since I realize this comes across as harsh, but I don’t know a better way to try and explain it to you since you didn’t seem to understand the first time.
This game is getting better all the time, and we should be on the same page. Us as a new players and you as older players working together to make this a better place.
What he said - there is a “Discovered” column for almost every item, holding the VU it has been discovered in… this column is there for a reason, and if something hasn’t dropped yet, it simply doesn’t belong there.
On topic:
In a perfect world we would have a council of trustworthy members.
All updates are not written directly to the tables, but go on a list where the council can check how often they have been reported, maybe take into account who posted the update, and then decide whether the update should be written to the tables, needs more confirmation (remains in the pendin updates pool, but marked somehow) or will simply be dropped.
But:
Witte needs to set up a system like that.
There needs to be several people for the council who are willing to i.e. verify values and be available for discussion/have some spare time to check the updates, maybe 2-3 times a week.
Most people are not too keen on yet another long term duty (but heck, if i’m not gonna end up being the only one i’d do it, at least for a while, to get things started - in general, all entropedia gold members should qualify…)
Some more thoughts:
Maybe a voting system where 3 council member votes are needed to confirm that an update is valid or something…
Maybe the pending updates are somehow shown next to the old values in the tables, newly added values (now verified by the council) could be marked, i.e. colored in green or something.
Councils are probably a bad idea. Then you get even more elitist type of things going on, very similar to the flaws that exist over in wikipedia where if the inner group doesn’t like edits based on their own preferences they just delete them, etc. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880
