Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The sharp reader may notice that an independent wiki would just add it in and bypass all the Wargaming garbage.

 

A sharper reader will realize that without a feed from source those numbers will get stale over time, and will not count on volunteers to do the nitty gritty work to fix values as they change.

 

It is very boring to go through and update little numbers related to each tank ("oh, this value should be 2.6 now").  Far better to have it fed from a release system, so it gets updated in sync with the client.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you truly think that the wiki isn't being helpful, you are very mistaken.  Simply looking at the official forum shows that it's easily the most used reference.  I see it getting mentioned more than WoTlabs, so I highly doubt your wiki will even be able to reach the volume of players the official one does, even if it is added in as a part of this site.  It's much easier for someone looking for help with WoT to click on the link on the launcher or portal than the sift through Google results and maybe stumble upon yours.

 

To elaborate on this a little bit, Echelon, you're right that the absolute tomatoes are irredeemable and the best of the baddies will come to WoTLabs and (hopefully) get better. What I think you're missing is a fairly large group of midrange baddies, for lack of a better term, who might bother looking at the official wiki or forums but nothing else. Right now there are 351 users on the WoTLabs forums. The official NA forum alone has 1143. EU adds another 1634, and SEA would probably bring the official forums' audience to roughly 10 times that of WoTLabs. That's not what you'd call a precise estimate, and it doesn't take users coming in and out over the course of the day, but since all those numbers were at the same time it should be enough to tell you the official forums have a lot more reach.

 

I don't think it's a stretch to say that 90% of players on the official forums at least know about the wiki, and I'll cut that down to something like 50% who actually use it. Even if all WoTLabs forum users used your wiki, that would still mean the official wiki reached five times as many players as yours does. That's pretty significant, especially since it will reach players who would never think of coming to WoTLabs or a WoTLabs wiki. Even if you think my numbers are crap, it still seems pretty clear that far more players use the official forums and would use the official wiki. If you ask the average pubbie where to get WoT info, I have a feeling they'll either tell you they don't know or the official forum/wiki.

 

TL;DR: There are pubbies who aren't irredeemable potatoes but who also wouldn't look at WoTLabs. That's who the wiki needs to reach.

 

Not really, I'm not asking about the tonks, we all know that what you're saying is correct. My point is that OVER HALF your points would NEVER make it onto the wiki.

 

Worse still, the troubling thing is that the soft stats of the M26 are what make it a good tank, yet we can't

 

It doesn't matter if it's true if we aren't allowed to post the supporting evidence.

 

Gun handling is the second pro mentioned in the M26's Player Opinion section, actually. We can and do add information about hidden stats, we just can't add the stats themselves at this point.

 

Which is why I have nothing against your proposal to start an independent wiki. In fact, I want you guys to make something better so I can go and say "hey WG, the wiki sucks, why don't we add more numbers like the other guys did?"

 

I don't entirely disagree.

 

A sharper reader will realize that without a feed from source those numbers will get stale over time, and will not count on volunteers to do the nitty gritty work to fix values as they change.

 

It is very boring to go through and update little numbers related to each tank ("oh, this value should be 2.6 now").  Far better to have it fed from a release system, so it gets updated in sync with the client.

 

Which is something we have, assuming WG doesn't break it. The ultimate goal for us as far as hidden stats go would be to get WG to add it to that, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

So how is this exactly describe the map?

 
As Haswell said, it doesn't. I don't know why those descriptions were even there, but they aren't now.

 

As for my skill and writing style, I know both are passable at best. That's why I don't write guides and mostly do grammar/spelling fixes and administrative stuff. That said, I'm not one of the irredeemable potatoes. I can at least win more than half my games, and I'm smart enough to know that if someone like Echelon or Rexxie adds information about how a tank plays, they're almost always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echelon and Folter, unless you want to go start a WoTLabs wiki project yourself, it isn't happening. You can either contribute to the official wiki and help create a resource to reach far more users than WoTLabs will, or leave the whole thing alone, but it is happening regardless. Your objections are overruled, now help out or get out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late in coming, and with Misfire and Haswell fielding most of the discussion, I don't have much to add right now. However, I wanted to pop in and show there's yet more wiki editors that are willing and hoping to work in concert to make the WG wiki something worth using. I say WG wiki because eventually we will have to flesh out the already-extant but minimally used WoWP and WoWS areas too. But that is neither here nor there, and WoWS has yet to prove itself in the public arena anyhow.

 

Without breaking confidentiality, I do want to spend a moment addressing a common critizism which has been leveled at the wiki since its rerelease - it's lack of updated edits during the 9 months it was down. Many of you have pointed to edits which still stood a year prior, and patently false information which had not yet been purged at release. I will say that we had originally intended to do something about it - some editors such as myself were brought on specifically for the purpose - but then in the last few months the situation kept changing in ways that discouraged active editing on pages rather than scrambling to fix holes and other problems with templates which kept creeping up in that time. I personally apologize, as I also was hammered by a RL change over the summer which prevented my carrying out many of the same edits which have been observed here. Rather than a sweeping fix of most high-tier tanks, I only managed to hit the US heavies (personal bias strikes again ^_^) and a smattering of other tanks. I do feel as if I, perhaps singly or perhaps not, failed to carry out a sufficient part of preparing the wiki before its launch date and much of the problems listed I do claim some responsibility for. I again look forward to working with all of you to address these failures in a satisfactorily swift manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh.......I've yet to see a reason to trust anything posted by that person. They're a full blown stat denier.

while I wouldnt trust Daigensui on gameplay related stuff, I see no reason to not trust her research on historical facts. Just because shes bad at internet tanks doesnt mean she has an IQ of 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't trust Dai on gameplay stuff. I've seen her replays after all. That said, she has access to archives nobody else currently else does and has compiled a LOT on the historical aspects of many other tanks. She does provide a function, as do all of the other editors - I certainly wouldn't trust myself with every aspect of the wiki, as I don't feel qualified to speak about a lot of tanks even, much less other things I have less experience in. Each and every one of us is an editor for a particular reason and not because we're expected to be the best at everything. Even with that, Dai just happens to be a particulary controversial double-edged sword for us and having her does just bring us flak by default. But I don't know if you've noticed, I don't think a single history section for a tank had been made since 2012 or so on the wiki. If we denied ourselves someone with that much historical background, we'd get flak for a different kind of lunacy. We made a choice and we'll have to live with it, but remember the each editor is a check and balance for each other too.

 

Dai may be a problem child, but she's generally dead serious when it comes to WG things and won't normally sabatoge them or go around putting false things in public. She deals in facts in cicumstances like the wiki, and not opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while I wouldnt trust Daigensui on gameplay related stuff, I see no reason to not trust her research on historical facts. Just because shes bad at internet tanks doesnt mean she has an IQ of 50.

 

No one distrusts her because she is bad.  She is widely distrusted because (multiple times that I can remember, and I was an irregular GD reader at best before I left) she has had multiple ragey, spergy denial fits.  THAT'S why people insult her intelligence, because she has evinced low intellectual ability when it comes to the validity of large-sample statistics.

 

On a more personal opinion note, I have always thought that she enjoys her position as "resident Japanese armor specialist" a bit too much.  It would not surprise me in the least to find exaggerations and incompletely/sketchily sourced material in her research to protect her importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for educating the unwashed masses, because they end up on all of teams at some point, but isn't the entire process going to be incomplete and somewhat misleading if WG won't include hidden stats in the game? WG needs to be more transparent with the stats about the tanks to give newer players a better idea of what they're getting themselves into. Look how long it took to get the view range base/actual into the game and that wasn't a hidden stat. Wiki articles can be misleading because if they're edited by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and they're talking about soft stats, you have to take them at their word, because the information isn't easily verified (which defeats the purpose of the wiki). Is there any push from the wiki organizers to get WG to include these stats in game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While seeing the so-called soft stats would be nice, it might just cause information overload for the casual wiki reader, and provide very little direct effect when said user goes back to play the game. 

 

For example, knowing the reload time between variations of the same gun (the ordnance 105 used by the Leo 1, Cent 7/1, and the STB-1) has a more tangible effect for an average player than, say, the specifics of terrain resistance for soft and hard ground for the T-62a compared to the FV-4202, which a more advanced player will be able to take advantage better anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a long time ago (over a year at least), but I believe what Teru said was one of the reasons that they didn't add those stats.  A lot of players would be confused by what exactly 1.2 ground resistance on average terrain is and whether that's good or bad.  I'm hoping that RU will listen to us and finally let us add them.  I suppose if they think it's too confusing, it could always be put in some popup menu titled "advanced information" or something to that similar to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't trust Dai on gameplay stuff. I've seen her replays after all. That said, she has access to archives nobody else currently else does and has compiled a LOT on the historical aspects of many other tanks. She does provide a function, as do all of the other editors - I certainly wouldn't trust myself with every aspect of the wiki, as I don't feel qualified to speak about a lot of tanks even, much less other things I have less experience in. Each and every one of us is an editor for a particular reason and not because we're expected to be the best at everything. Even with that, Dai just happens to be a particulary controversial double-edged sword for us and having her does just bring us flak by default. But I don't know if you've noticed, I don't think a single history section for a tank had been made since 2012 or so on the wiki. If we denied ourselves someone with that much historical background, we'd get flak for a different kind of lunacy. We made a choice and we'll have to live with it, but remember the each editor is a check and balance for each other too.

 

Dai may be a problem child, but she's generally dead serious when it comes to WG things and won't normally sabatoge them or go around putting false things in public. She deals in facts in cicumstances like the wiki, and not opinions.

 

You will also note that she has not provided any verified sources, has a history of evading people asking for such sources, up to and including the point that "military secrecy" was cited as a reason for not presenting evidence.

 

I could say I'm a military historian, have access to secret records, and that the prototype STB-42 has a secret 69mm gun firing High Velocity Plasma Rounds, transforms into a gundam, and can bake muffins.

 

If you have no evidence, you might as well be pulling figures out of your arse. If you have a barrelful of wine and add in a drop of shit, all the shit does is discredit the wine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military secrecy is a valid reason though, especially since the JGSDF still uses the type 74 (STB-1 was one of the prototypes). Having talked and heard from a few of the community historians, I can confirm that accessing old tank documents can be tougher than one would hope.

Also, do you have the docuemntation to provide for the STB-42? A paragraph and a multiview drawing won't be enough for it to get added, unless it suffers from e100waffle syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military secrecy is a valid reason though, especially since the JGSDF still uses the type 74 (STB-1 was one of the prototypes). Having talked and heard from a few of the community historians, I can confirm that accessing old tank documents can be tougher than one would hope.

Also, do you have the docuemntation to provide for the STB-42? A paragraph and a multiview drawing won't be enough for it to get added, unless it suffers from e100waffle syndrome.

 

Yes I do, but I can't reveal it to you because of military secrecy.

 

The thing is, on the internet, "military secrecy" might as well be a "I can make up whatever shit I want". It's the internet forum equivalent of the kindergarden-level "My dad's the president". i.e. It's an ass-pull

 

All you do by using a "military secrecy" excuse is give a questionable level of historical accuracy to the game, why not just come out and say "We're making this up because it's more balanced that way"? WG aren't being honest here.

 

The last thing I want is our members credibility being wrecked by players who don't know what they're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, Daigensui could be revealed to be an academic of Zalloga or Hunnicut's caliber, and Echelon STILL won't trust her. 

 

We know you don't like Sumeragi/Daigensui, and we know you don't like the wiki update.  So why are you so invested in, you know, trying to convince us it's a bad idea?  When we're been going through the wiki since it got back anyway, meaning it's not going to stop us in the least?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, Daigensui could be revealed to be an academic of Zalloga or Hunnicut's caliber, and Echelon STILL won't trust her. 

 

 

Utter appeal to ignorance.

 

I could be revealed to be Abraham Lincoln as a cyborg too, but you're not going to trust such a claim.

 

Other claims by her include being a member of the Japanese Imperial family and planning to buy eRepublik, claims to be Korean while also claiming not to understand Korean, the list goes on.

 

An admin comments on her ban report from a Korean WoT forum.

 

 

The main reason I'm against our contribution to the wiki is that the presence of our writing alongside claims made by others who spout garbage contaminates our own credibility at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta ask.

Is this thread about improving the wiki, or arguing about a polarizing personality in the WoT community?

If it's the latter, please move it to a more appropriate section so I won't expect it to contain anything useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta ask.

Is this thread about improving the wiki, or arguing about a polarizing personality in the WoT community?

If it's the latter, please move it to a more appropriate section so I won't expect it to contain anything useful.

 

Our players are good players, and we all know that. The main issue is that having a pack of deniers on board damages the credibility of ALL other writers.

 

The part about improving the wiki is that a source with 100% garbage is just as useless to the average pub as a source with 50% good info and 50% garbage because the average reader won't have any discerning capability.

 

I'm asking about accountability here, I'd be more than happy to help out if WoTlabs is planning to form a writing team to help assemble the WG wiki systematically to weed out misinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will treat this as the last word that I will tolerate on the Dai issue, because this is the only fact relevant to the wiki: after doing some searching around in the wiki itself, I have yet to find a single edit actually performed by Daigensui or any of her known aliases - although only Daigensui would have the greenname priviledges. What this means to me and I think to everyone else is that her title as a wiki editor is at this point in name only, and unless her situation changes - and if does rest assured I will note that publically - she is not relevant as an objection to the validity or quality of the wiki because she has had no effect on it. The result is that until further notice E3 I consider your objections against Dai to be ones of principle only and would ask that if you continue to vent lyrical on your objections to the wiki, that you instead confine yourself protesting the nature of active editors; the list at this moment in time, for reference, consists solely of Haswell, Misfire, Apple, and myself. You don't need to check for a consipiracy or anything, those are the only names in the edits list for the last month.

 

Mind you I would love to have any WoTLabs personnel that are willing to themselves be held accountable for what they write, E3 included even if you don't believe in it still, come and help with the improvment of the wiki in any way.

 

 

 

 

Returning to real business. I have a question which I would like to recieve some opinions and input on from the WoTLabs forum. As we all know, the wiki has never had any sort of expectations or guidelines regarding the style or format of any given section regarding a tank on its page which has before been codified. As I've browsed through the various pages, I've come to be particuarly piqued by the absolute inconsistency of the pros/cons section: many have bulletpoints that are tautologies, true for most tanks, or not really standout characteristics at all. In addition, some pages have unending numbers of bulletpoints, while others have only a few short items listed. Outside of being reasonably sure that pros/cons should really only be used to convey the standout characteristics of a tank, I'm stymied as to how to (or indeed, whether to) further set a formatting standard for that section.

 

My question, then, is thus: what information should be conveyed in a pros/cons section and how should it be arranged/formatted, and do you feel that there should be a suggested limit to the number of items or words for a given set of pros/cons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly force, I'm winging it until we actually get a concerted effort, format and task-list. If something is pants on head retardedly wrong, I've been rewording it in such a way to correct it, no editwars yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll see if I can help out.  Just perusing some tanks I enjoy and have a decent number of battles and reading things like this make my head explode:

 

"The M3 Stuart excels as an arty hunter. Equip it with the Spall Liner and it is a very effective battering ram. No arty it will face can withstand a shot from the M3 followed by a high speed ram followed by a second shot if necessary."

 

Nothing like advocating that new players equip a spall liner on a freakin' M3 and go hunting arty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...