OOTP Wiki: Where is everyone who supported its creation?

[Brad K]

Those of you who supported creation of the OOTP Wiki to replace the manual, where are you? Not contributing to the Wiki! I am the only one doing it. One person isn't enough, even if all my contributions were approved.

Developers saw your stated support and counted on your contributions when they transferred responsibility for documentation to you. They believed you would do it. WRONG!!!

I didn't support creation of the Wiki to replace the manual because a manual is the responsibility of the developers. But despite my non support for the creation of the Wiki, I'm contributing to it. Why? Because the only worse choice than a user created Wiki is no documentation at all.

Supporters but non-contributors, you created this situation. No current manual. No usable Wiki. And Twins is stuck with me as the only contributor, a person who he doesn't like and who he wishes wasn't contributing to the Wiki.

So those who talked the talk and stopped, get over there and start contributing. Your contributions might even be approved! Right now, the Wiki is a failure, and you own that failure.

https://wiki.ootpdevelopments.com/in...itle=Main_Page

https://wiki.ootpdevelopments.com/in...butions/Brad_K

[textilemonster]

I tried making an edit, then it never got approved, and that kind of sucked the sails out of my wanting to edit stuff.

Edit: Actually just want to check the page to be sure. I submitted the edit December 19. It actually DID get addressed--TODAY, January 7. And they just reverted it to before my edit.

[Redge]

Wait, there was a wiki?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by textilemonster

I tried making an edit, then it never got approved, and that kind of sucked the sails out of my wanting to edit stuff.

Edit: Actually just want to check the page to be sure. I submitted the edit December 19. It actually DID get addressed--TODAY, January 7. And they just reverted it to before my edit.

Unfortunately, that's just how wikis work. You can go in, work on something, and someone else can just go in and revert it back. I think we just have to kind of accept that.

I do think we should maybe point out what we think might be some good wiki etiquette. For example, if you make a change or revert something, say why in the comments section (or whatever it's called). For example, there might be a good reason why someone reverts something or doesn't approve something or changes something, but it's just not clear to the person whose edit was changed and I think it's only fair to point out why to them. Who knows, maybe the person who made the change doesn't even know how to make that comment. I only barely, and I really do mean only barely, know how to edit wikis and was hesitant to edit anything until I realized I could make use of that. One can also make use of the associated discussion pages if you think a change should be considered, but you're not sure as then others can discuss it before it's implemented.

Frankly, if anyone has a good link to a tutorial on wiki editing and etiquette I'd be interested in watching/reading it. I once tried to make my way through wikipedia's official tutorial and it was just too much for me.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by kq76

Unfortunately, that's just how wikis work. You can go in, work on something, and someone else can just go in and revert it back. I think we just have to kind of accept that.

That's not how this one is set up. All contributions have to be approved by one person. So it's not really a Wiki.

My experience with lack of approvals matches that of textilemonster. See HERE for an example.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Brad K

That's not how this one is set up. All contributions have to be approved by one person. So it's not really a Wiki.

My experience with lack of approvals matches that of textilemonster. See HERE for an example.

I did say "someone", not "anyone", and it's not just one person who has approval powers. Is there a list of those who do somewhere? Just looking at the approval log I can see there are multiple users who have approved edits.

That said, there could be an issue with not enough approvals. For example, I have approval privs, but it's not like I have interest in looking everyday for what I can approve or even know how to do that if I wanted to. Is there a feature where I can say, "okay, I'd like to subscribe to page X on the wiki and be notified of any edit requests"? Maybe there is, I have no idea.

Maybe the wiki could do with more people with approval privs, but at the same time I don't think it's a good idea to give them to anyone. While having a wiki with a lot of info is great, I do worry about what erroneous or trollish stuff might slip in.

I do, however, think we should be fairly open to edits. I wouldn't want to see someone who might become a great contributor to the wiki be turned off because their first few edits weren't accepted or they were reversed. If their edit definitely shouldn't be accepted then so be it (and let's tell them why), but if it should just be re-worked or placed elsewhere, then let's discuss it.

[Brad K]

You're on the right path. Since you have approval authority, please take a look at my contributions. Link in my previous post. Also some unaddressed requests for discussion. It takes a community for this to work. Thank you.

[Matt Arnold]

Not too many people have approval powers. And understandably approving wiki edits over the holidays isn't always the top priority.

Given the official nature, we wanted to be a bit more cautious about which edits make it through to be visible to all, at least until we are more comfortable with the system. It would certainly be good if more people wanted to chip in, but we won't force anyone to, obviously. Hopefully over time we can get more contributors, and improve the process for everyone.

Given the nature, I would suggest that editing the discussion sections is probably not much of a worthwhile endeavour. As mentioned, there's not a lot of editors, and most people will not venture there. Discussion edits do not appear in the list of changes which need approvals, so are not likely to be noticed unless if someone goes to the discussion for some other reason.

I would suggest generally if you feel there are changes that are worthwhile, to make those edits, and then when those who have the ability to approve changes see them, they may make some extra edits to update further. Even if you're not entirely sure, you can start the point, at least.

In this case, I agree that the stats sections needed some extra clarification (some of that info was out of date). I've made some edits to there, to at least update some more of the points to the various engine changes from this version.

[textilemonster]

Well, my spell-checking and grammar fixing seems to have gotten approved pretty quickly. Maybe it was just a holidays thing.

[fredbeene]

I have not been been keeping up, was waiting for official manual created by people being paid?
Seems nice. It would be easier for me to navigate if i could have contents always showing.

Doubt i can contribute much outside what was in previous manuals. But maybe there is a way to tag parts of the manual to ask for clarification?
ie
I went to player personalities.
Long standing questions i have had:
How can randomly change all players personalities or x % of players personality traits prior to game starting or maybe prior to season starting.
Each time you start a historic game, do players get the same personality traits assigned? Is there a random factor?
Can I permanently assign traits to players that will always be the same for any import i do? If so where?

Also i believe the ratings are more granular than low normal hi as stated. prevoius versions in editor were 1-200
Personality 1-200
and
Morale -500 to 500

I really don't understand why i can't hover over an item and get its definition directly in game.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by textilemonster

Well, my spell-checking and grammar fixing seems to have gotten approved pretty quickly. Maybe it was just a holidays thing.

Considering you were fixing most of my typos lol I was happy to accept the fixes. You do not know how much time and work and copy pasta I did over the 4 to 5 months... Sometimes I was seeing double lol. I can also say that, the editor does not seem to catch everything.

Also most of the stuff was just a copy and paste from the OOTP 24 manual but if I did notice something was outdated I would update. I know for sure I did not catch everything, but I think I got a lot of it. But I do thank you for fixing my typos lol

[twins_34]

Also like Matt did say, on the main pages, going into detail of how we, as players think, the game works, should not be on the main pages but on the discussion pages.

Like if someone wants to try and break down how you think the game tries to decipher how batting works, do not put it on the main page but in the discussion page.

Like Matt said, OOTP does not give like in depth details and there is just so much info they will give us. But on the official pages, need to kinda keep it more to the basic level for the end user but if you want to go into deep detail, the discussion page is wide open for that.

[textilemonster]

Well, I don't know much about THE GAME ITSELF (i.e., the things a lot of people would need a manual for), so most editing I would do would involve spelling, grammar, readability...
My college majors were history and creative writing, so I can look things up, and I can write pretty.

[YL ORIOLES]

For crying out loud just make the dam manual you pay for a product at least they can do the manual like every other company.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by YL ORIOLES

For crying out loud just make the dam manual you pay for a product at least they can do the manual like every other company.

No kidding. The Wiki “announcement” and enthusiastic response was straight out of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”. Are we responsible for bringing our own paintbrushes, or will they be provided?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by YL ORIOLES

For crying out loud just make the dam manual you pay for a product at least they can do the manual like every other company.

We're not in the 1990s anymore. Not every video game company makes manuals nowadays. My guess is the vast majority don't. I still play other video games and I can't remember the last time, other than OOTP's, that I even saw a game manual, physical or digital. Youtube and wikis are how people predominantly get their help now. Besides, would we really rather the devs work on a manual or a new feature we might really like.

Guys, this fight was already fought and lost. It was either this or the same old pretty much just copying and pasting the previous manual that we've seen for years. While it might not be ideal to many of us, it's clearly a better option than what the status quo was or nothing at all. Besides, it's not like the devs aren't at all contributing to it, they are. Others know it better than I do, but from what I can tell the content in the wiki has also gotten more updated than the manuals have in years. It's never going to be perfect (the manuals weren't either), but this at least has the potential to be more helpful than what we used to have was. Let's please move on and be supportive of it.

[Brad K]

Thanks to Matt and kq for their lengthy posts which contain many good points. Something not addressed is how to obtain and retain volunteers.

Volunteers do free work for their own reasons. There's a good clue about some of them in Post #2 by textilemonster. People want to feel appreciated and they want a process that doesn't impede their activity. textilemonster got neither when he contributed. His contribution sat unapproved for a long time. In all, the situation killed his enthusiasm.

Matt commented on people not reading the Talk pages. They probably don't read yet to be approved edits either. But make them live right away and people will see them and improve them. A Wiki is a community project. This one is set up as a struggle between the contributor and a gatekeeper.

kq commented on the need for collaboration. I agree. That's not going to happen without edits going live immediately.

This message board functions on people posting what they want and moderators fixing it later if necessary. That's how a Wiki should work. With enough participation, the first line of moderation is the contributor's peers who will edit when they see problems.

Last time I was the chairman of a volunteer group I told them "My job isn't to tell you what to do. My job is to help you do what you want to do." People understand the mission. The key is to keep them enthusiastic and then get out of the way.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by textilemonster

Well, I don't know much about THE GAME ITSELF (i.e., the things a lot of people would need a manual for), so most editing I would do would involve spelling, grammar, readability...
My college majors were history and creative writing, so I can look things up, and I can write pretty.

You don't have to know a lot about the game to be an effective editor. Knowing a few specific things and noticing they are not covered in the manual or that the manual has it wrong is enough to be effective. This must be a community effort and the idea that the ocean consists of lots of single drops of water applies.

[Brad K]

The Wiki does not automatically identify the poster of information in the Talk pages. I asked about how to do it but there was no response to apparently no one knew. For a time I'd manually add my name.

I have since discovered that typing ~~~~ at the end of a Talk post will insert the posters name and date/time stamp. Needs to be four times. Key is upper left with shift on my desktop Windows keyboard. Don't know about locations on other devices.

[Brad K]

Hey folks, its a new Wiki. My edits are being approved quickly and mostly without change. My enthusiasm is being encouraged, not dampened. You can experience the same thing.

If you previously tried to edit the Wiki, or maybe have never tried before, this is the time. You don't have to be an expert to know things that are valuable to the Wiki. Facts presented in a decently written manner get approved. And if you're not such a good writer, post anyway. Someone will clean up the presentation if needed.