Random Discoveries in FFXI Wiki accuracy

[JackDaniels]

The "scandal" was the product of falsefied emails and attacks by BlueGartr members. Take your lies and nonsense somewhere else.

Sounds like BS that Zyuu would feed his community, too bad for you we're not all completely dense

[Khajit]

It's the same information as on FFXIclopedia (since it was taken over from there), plus some new information. BG wiki is still as empty as it has always been.

You're just a hater, nothing more. There's completely totally relevant information there. "No relevant information" would mean there's nothing that has anything to do with the game on it. Searching for one or two things that might be missing, does not make there be "no relevant information."

Unless the only thing you want is formulas for this or that, we are not lacking in relevant information. Get off your dang high horse and make an argument based in fact, not fanboyism.

Every site gets updated more post patch. That's the biggest 'duh' i've ever heard. It did take a while to get the new items and such listed for us, but that's because we did it all by hand, lacking the DPL and other information-linking tools that we have on our newer wikis.

As of last patch my experience has been the exact opposite. Huge sections were missing whenever I checked an all the relevant info I'd actually need (aka the info on new stuff) has not been on either site with completely blank pages. Bg wiki had actual information on all the new items I checked up on, dynamis changes, info on wtf voidwatch actually entailed, and synergy findings so atm the majority of relevant information I reasonably need is from BG wiki.
Everything else is something I should know already and can be found on a chart by spira for quick reference.

@Derpygalkra. You sound like you've been drinking Kool aid of some sort while wearing a tinfoil hat.

[Byrth]

I'm cool with BGwiki's niche being endgame information, hidden effects, and cited mathy stuff. I apologize in advance if we don't have a complete list of bird monsters, etc. for a while. I'm focusing on adding the first three things, as it seems to be what the BG community is most interested in. Other people are welcomed to join and add information, but please link a source or write the test you did on the discussion page when you post non-trivial information. If you click "Recent Changes" and look at some pages, you'll get an idea for how to do it.


Wikia / Gamer Escape make the assumption that all information is being added by the testers, which is not generally a valid assumption. It's good for traffic to get information regardless of how you get it, and the testers rarely go add things to the wiki themselves and care even less about policing where their information ends up. Furthermore, after enough people repeat the information it's kind of hard to determine "where it came from" unless it's directly copied text with a characteristic writing style like some of the stuff I pointed out on FFXIclopedia lately, or if it's a test for obscure information like the Hidden effects of Rancor Collar or the exact mechanism of Saber Dance.

Either way, point is that they explicitly say to cite things and end up with incredibly few citations, which is both the fault of the editors (for not citing) and the management (for creating a culture where uncited information is accepted). I've personally posted my own work uncited before, because I couldn't figure out how to cite >,>; I couldn't find any examples. I'm still learning wiki code one step at a time, lol -_-;

I don't know much about the stealing history between the two sites, but I know that there's a thread in the BGwiki subforum of people who were banned from BGwiki for stealing things from ffxiclopedia, and the bans appear to have been policed by the BGwiki mods because the whole thing is posts like, "Oh man, ____ copied a bunch of shit. Banned, and now I have to spend all night deleting it." I'm pretty sure they allowed people to repost things that they'd written for FFXIclopedia over on BG, like guides and stuff.

[Alhanelem]

As of last patch my experience has been the exact opposite. Huge sections were missing whenever I checked an all the relevant info I'd actually need

There are no "huge sections missing." The only way this could have been possible was if you checked the day of the update, in which case of course a wiki with data being entered manually by its users will be behind resources which are able to automatically input the data when fed a datamined text file.

It was a bit slower, yes. but the information came eventually, and it was not ripped from BG (I can personally guarantee that as far as GamerEscape is concerned. Most of the initial editing was done by staff, and none of us ever visited BGwiki; I can't guarantee it for the wikia site because I don't pay much attention to it any more unless someone comes to one of us about something. ) or anywhere else. We did our own datamining to get item information, and virtually all of the textual content was done from the own experiences of us and/or our users. in cases where information was taken elsewhere, citations have been given. We have handled all of this properly.

Wikia / Gamer Escape make the assumption that all information is being added by the testers,

We make no such assumption. Much of the early editing after the move was done by a handful of people including myself. I spent several hours that I could have spent playing the game just inputting item information.

(for creating a culture where uncited information is accepted)

I will challenge information if there is evidence to suggest that something is being copied wholesale and taking the credit for it (often it is direct copy pasting of wiki text by someone with few edits, who isn't likely to know enough about wiki editing to make such thorough edits the first time out). In a few cases, people have come directly to me with accusations of plagarism, and I have taken action on it. Depending on the situation I may add appropriate citation, issue warnings or block users. If I don't see it myself and no one tells me about it though, I can't do anything about it. I'm just an everyday human being with a real life- I can't police the wiki all day and all night (I sure as hell don't get paid to do it).

[Byrth]

We make no such assumption. Much of the early editing after the move was done by a handful of people including myself. I spent several hours that I could have spent playing the game just inputting item information.

What kind of testing do you think I'm talking about? If I can look at it and see the stats, I generally don't need to test it unless I suspect SE has made an error. Think about the things I've asked you to deal with lately (Enmity testing for Atma, Enmity testing for Tranquil Heart, etc.) Those are things that require testing.

I'm off to bake an angel food caek!

[Alhanelem]

I know what you're talking about- and I wouldnt assume or even expect that random nobodies have all the keys to all the formulas or be the ones testing mechanics and such.

Think about the things I've asked you to deal with lately

Asked me? Huh? You've never asked me anything like this, nor am I an expert on enmity and thus I wouldn't one who is most qualified to discuss that subject.

[Byrth]

Oh, well apparently he saw my comment and reverted his edits without intervention then. I asked you to deal with something in the Staff thread but apparently you missed it. It doesn't matter, as it got done.

[Khajit]

There are no "huge sections missing." The only way this could have been possible was if you checked the day of the update, in which case of course a wiki with data being entered manually by its users will be behind resources which are able to automatically input the data when fed a datamined text file.

The pop item for dynamis lord STILL doesn't have a page as of this second. The dynamis xarc page still has prepatch maps indicating the old mob locations on it. Arch dynamis lord's drops other than sagasinger have no pages. If i see a shrouded bhouj and want to know what it's for i cant look it up on wiki. Nor can i find out what it drops from if i'm specifically looking to find out how to pop DL because the NM's I looked at don't have it as a drop. Not being able to find out how to pop the boss of a zone or how to get the pop items on the page of said NM is a very HUGE error and Things like these keep showing up. It's not haterism you deluded galka. It's the fact that the information just isnt there while on another site i'd see it. You wouldn't have seen me claiming this was the case 6+ months ago when everything was the opposite. Stop looking for your damned BG illuminati.
In conclusion.
Ich brauche mehr Bier jetzt!

[Alhanelem]

I asked you to deal with something in the Staff thread but apparently you missed it

I recall being asked to punish someone for plagarism. I followed through with that.

Anyway- As far as improving wiki accuracy. We want to start using DPL (a tool that helps link information between different pages (e.g. you can enter information on one page and DPL makes it much simpler to include that information on every other relevant page) to avoid the problem of information being added correctly on one page and incorrectly on another. But it's a massive undertaking and if we do it, it will take quite a long time to implement due to the inconsistence with which the existing templates have been used. Operating a wiki isn't as simple as people expect.

The dynamis xarc page still has prepatch maps indicating the old mob locations on it.

Someone must have replaced an old one then, because I personally saw to the new maps being posted, as well as much of what is on the main Dynamis page.

I know there are a few missing items, in particular specifically relating to dynamis. But if I don't know what an item is used for I can't put that information in. In this particular case, I do not myself know the pop items for the dynamis lord or new version of it. This is where a wiki's users come in. If information is missing, instead of complaining about it not being there, if you know it, you add it! Complaining about something that you personally know not being present when you could add that information yourself in ten seconds isn't very productive.

I fix what I can when I know about it. But I do not have the entire wiki database stored in my head, so I don't know each and every little bit of information that is or isn't there. Maybe BG wiki's supporters have no life and spend all their time editing instead of playing the game, but I'm a player as much as I am a site contributor. But for every piece of information you claim is missing, there is plenty more that is not missing. If you know something is wrong, you have the power to fix it, thus I don't feel it's fair for someone to complain about something they know is missing when they have the power to change that themselves rather than just tell someone else.

You wouldn't have seen me claiming this was the case 6+ months ago when everything was the opposite. Stop looking for your damned BG illuminati.

Edit: you know what, I'm going to be the better one here and not resort to personal attacks. Just don't attack us and pretend you're not hating.

[Byrth]

This is the post I was talking about, and easy with the personal accusations there brah:
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/th...l=1#post129568

Nanashi14 reverted all his edits, so that's fine with me. The second thing is just kind of an amusing proof that information from BG propagates through both wikis, even if the information is totally unverified.