14 Easy Steps to a Better Compendium

[Borror0]

[...] but then they would likely have locked down most articles.

Why would they protect pages?

I'll explain FlaggedRev quickly, so that others don't have to read the link.

Once FlaggedRev is installed on the wiki, you can make pages (some or all) require validation to be updated. For example, if you had a normal account (in other words, you do not have reviewer privileges/rights) and you would edit a page, your edit will not show until it is approved by one with proper rights.

There are two versions of the page: the stable and the draft.

The stable version is the last approved version of the page. If Turbine want to go control freak and be the only ones able to validate the pages, then they can. Since there is a disclaimer at the top of every page, users will know the state of the page they are currently viewing.

Example of disclaimers are:

• This is the latest quality revision, approved on 17 November 2008. The draft can be modified; 0 changes await review.
• There are no reviewed revisions of this page, so it may not have been checked for quality.
• The latest quality revision (list all) was approved on 19 January 2009. 1 change needs review.

If they would add FlaggedRev to their wikis, they could change by who views the draft/stable version by default and more advanced users can change the page they view by default as well in their preferences. In this case, Turbine would most likely set logged on users to view the stable version and we would have to set view draft by default if we want to view the draft.

Oh, finally, anyone who edits the page edits the last version of the draft. Not the stable page.

[Yertill]

I am continually complemented on my builds in DDO. Perhaps some of this is attributed to my previous knowledge of PnP D&D.

I only use the DDO Compendium for my research. I find the layout of classes and races with feats and enhancements extremely easy to navigate.

I Know before I build my toon what all their feats will be and enhancements right through to level 16. What levels to split-class, spells chosen at each level etc.

Speaking for myself alone, I hope the DDO Compendium stays. Improvements are allways welcome

[Ustice]

I am continually complemented on my builds in DDO. Perhaps some of this is attributed to my previous knowledge of PnP D&D.

I only use the DDO Compendium for my research. I find the layout of classes and races with feats and enhancements extremely easy to navigate.

I Know before I build my toon what all their feats will be and enhancements right through to level 16. What levels to split-class, spells chosen at each level etc.

Speaking for myself alone, I hope the DDO Compendium stays. Improvements are allways welcome

Feats? Easy to navigate? Have you looked at G?

• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Greatclub)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Heavy Mace)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Hammer)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Mace)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Maul)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Morningstar)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Quarterstaff)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Unarmed)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning Weapons (Warhammer)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons
• Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Dagger)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Heavy Pick)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Light Pick)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Rapier)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Piercing Weapons (Short Sword)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Great Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Heavy Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Light Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Longbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Heavy Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Light Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Ranged Weapons (Shortbow)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Bastard Sword)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Battleaxe)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Dwarven Waraxe)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Falchion)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Greataxe)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Greatsword)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Handaxe)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Kama)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Khopesh)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Kukri)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Longsword)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Scimitar)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Slashing Weapons (Sickle)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons
• Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Dart)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Shuriken)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Throwing Axe)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Throwing Dagger)
• Greater Weapon Focus: Thrown Weapons (Throwing Hammer)
• Greater Weapon Specialization
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Club)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Greatclub)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Heavy Mace)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Hammer)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Light Mace)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Maul)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Morningstar)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Quarterstaff)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Unarmed)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Bludgeoning Weapons (Warhammer)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Dagger)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Heavy Pick)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Light Pick)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Rapier)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Piercing Weapons (Short Sword)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Great Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Heavy Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Light Crossbow)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Longbow)
• Greater Weapon Specialization: Ranged Weapons (Repeating Heavy Crossbow)

That's just page one. Also, on the compendium itself, the columns are not wide enough to display all of that on one line, so each item is on two to three lines.

It's a mess. Like I said, I attempted to fix it, but was balked by restrictions, and I had to revert. I like the Compendium, in general, but it needs some serious work, and one of the best ways to do that with limited resources is to open it up to us wiki gnomes so that we can do it.

(Whew, I'm almost surprised that the forums let me post all that junk.)

[Thanimal]

I am strongly in support of these improvements. I use the compendium constantly because I'm always looking for something new and interesting to build. But I find it sorely lacking in accuracy, completeness, and ease of navigation. DDOWiki is useful, too, but too often falls well out of date. It also seems to have tons of references to PnP, many of which are not marked as such. That really throws me off. (My apologies if that is no longer the case.)

Taking the best of each, this could be a GREAT resource that would make the game easier to learn for newbies while also making it more fun to explore new builds for us build-geeks.

Long term, this effort should save Turbine a LOT of time. I know from experience how hard it can be to prioritize efforts with limited short-term benefit even when they have huge long-term benefit. But we all know it's the right way to allocate time!!

It's a bit rare that this forum generates truly constructive input, but this is such a case. Please take it to heart!

[Borror0]

DDOWiki is useful, too, but too often falls well out of date. It also seems to have tons of references to PnP, many of which are not marked as such.

I try to correct those as I go, but we are understaffed, doing this in our free time and human.

PM pages that needs to be checked to me or yk49, or just correct it yourself.

[Thanimal]

I try to correct those as I go, but we are understaffed, doing this in our free time and human.

PM pages that needs to be checked to me or yk49, or just correct it yourself.

Rereading my comments, they seem mildly insulting to DDOWiki. That was definitely NOT my intention. It's an impressive accomplishment and often quite useful. I try to fix things up when I can, but I'm not yet an authority on much!

But having one single resource that is as accurate, complete, and timely as possible would obviously be best!

[yk49]

Um yea i like the compendium in general, its interesting.
This is viewpoint from the other side tho, but somethin like G section of feats is the best part of the compendium at the same time.
I mean it. Yes, its a mess in terms of site navigation, it would suck for new players lookin for information, but it gives us better understanding, or guess of how the game is coded.
If its taken directly from data structure of the game, lets leave it at that is my opinion.

Imo, probably, what they should have done was exclude user editw from those game info and only allow them to post their guilds and characters, and fansite and such info. No idea how it can be done on wiki tho...
Oh yea, they have <official> and <noedit> tag, but it technically dosent prevent any player from editing.
They don't use neither flaggedrev and such, looks like they simply have no time and resource to maintain it.
Uum, then use protected subpage and inclusion? fugarr, its better than as is but no perfect solution...

Anyways, all efforts done by users on Compedium could go to DDOwiki and benefit us better...
Well hate to say this but current situation is kinda sad one, DDOwiki isnt getting the love which it deserves.
We have less articles than Tabula-Rasa wiki of which game is goin to be shut down...
Its partly because the Compendium is stealing editors form us, partly because lack of advertisement etc etc...
DDOwiki needs to get out of the downward spiral somehow.

Btw, dose anyone know why they disabled tag function of vBulletin on this forums?
Im pretty sure they took down the forums just for enabling it but then disabled it once again for some reason.
We could build something, if not perfect but something helpful with that.
Tagging and categorizing forum threads isnt a concept too far from building a wiki.

[Borror0]

Imo, probably, what they should have done was exclude user editw from those game info and only allow them to post their guilds and characters, and fansite and such info. No idea how it can be done on wiki tho...

Can't you allow rights per namespace? Disallow users to edit anything but Guild: and character: namespace?

Anyways, all efforts done by users on Compedium could go to DDOwiki and benefit us better...
Well hate to say this but current situation is kinda sad one, DDOwiki isnt getting the love which it deserves.
We have less articles than Tabula-Rasa wiki which game is goin to be shut down...
Its partly because the Compendium is stealing potential editors form us, partly because lack of advertisement etc etc...
DDOwiki needs to get out of the downward spiral anyhow.

QFT

Btw, dose anyone know why they disabled tag function of vbulletin on this forums?

People was writing trash in the tags, I think.

[geoffhanna]

Overall, I am surprised to find that I strongly disagree with much of the OP. I was excited when I realized what this thread was. But it turned to dismay rather quickly. Yet even so there are several points of agreement:

#5 and #9 - yes!
#13 and #14 - yes (but with no exclamation )
#6 and #7 - yes, but not if either conflicted with the ability to pull text out of the game

A couple that are 'meh' from my point of view, but do not seem actively bad...

#2, #8

These I think are just misinformed. There already is a template and a common structure. You just don't like it.

#4, #11

But these seem like they will rapidly defeat the compendium and reduce it to something I will no longer visit (let alone contribute):

#1, #3, #10 , #12

To me, the value of the compendium is that it is authoritative and (largely) accurate, and pulled directly from the game. Meaning it updates as the game updates. I like the template Turbine put in. I like that it looks (and acts) like a professionally designed, easy to read manual. I like that they don't let us screw it up with someone else's idea of what it ought to be instead.

Turbine has already provided two ways to correct <NoEdit> text: by adding corrective text in the edit area, and by reporting the page and asking for a correction. This is sufficient. I use the compendium ALL THE TIME. I like it a lot. I really, emphatically, strongly do not want to see some of these suggestions implemented. I am not saying it is perfect. But I really prefer the Turbine-controlled way they are doing it to-date.

But again, not perfect, in fact I'm going to add one suggestion of my own since I am already this far into the topic:

#15 implement the lazy load design pattern for the tab controls. The load time for complex pages (like class pages) is insane.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good topic and should be discussed. My apologies that I don't agree. But I don't.

[Borror0]

#6 and #7 - yes, but not if either conflicted with the ability to pull text out of the game

Why is that? I can see for #6, but not #7. Redundant pages just are annoying and even misleading to new users.

A couple that are 'meh' from my point of view, but do not seem actively bad...
#2, #8

#2 might seem 'meh' from your point of view, but that is because you have never used a wiki actively. I think anyone with enough experience, that knows what a parser function is, will agree it is a must have for any wiki worth its salt. Without these, there is a lack of consistence between pages (or, there is a lack of information, it's a choice between the two).

As for a community, it's crucial if they even care about having a wiki. A wiki is the community working for the betterment of a website and the availability of information on a particular topic. If Turbine is not inclined to add incentive for a community to grow within the wiki and edit stuff, then perhaps they should revisit their choice and go back to the old fashioned website that only they can edit. I would be thankful of that decision, as they would at least stop drawing contributors away from a real wiki that really needs help.

It would be in their interest too, as there would at least be one website iwth accurate information: the DDOwiki ran by the community.

As for they, they would have the old style 'accurate' website.

These I think are just misinformed. There already is a template and a common structure. You just don't like it.
#4, #11

There is no structure, not on the user side.

We have no rules to operate with. If you view the Compendium as a Turbine-run website, you are right. They do have rules, but we don't have them and most of them are not relevant for the user. Even there, there is a lot of lacking information for the user and the structure is incomplete.

Again, that might be something not so obvious to you if you don't have any experience with a wiki but it does not make it less important.

But these seem like they will rapidly defeat the compendium and reduce it to something I will no longer visit (let alone contribute):

#1, #3, #10 , #12

Sorry, but did you ever try contribute heavily to a wiki?

I apologize ahead, as this is going to sound extremely condescending, but this comment can only be said by someone with little knowledge and experience on how a wiki works. Because, if you were to compare the DDO Compendium to a wiki, you would feel the Compendium is immensely inferior in many ways and superior in no ways. At least, if you are competent in your job. Since I have no formation in the area, I assume Turbine's employee can pull it off. As Ustice said, if we have the lousy Compendium we have now, it is probably because of management's unfounded fears. I don't blame them, fear is normal. But it cannot be argued against anyone who knows wiki half-correctly.

If one your major qualm is accuracy, a community-run wiki wins hands down over the Compendium in its current form. Should I point you out the multiple pages that Tolero had to delete and that lingered for a long while? Yes, I am talking about feats like Arcane Lore, Religion Lore and Ranged Power Attack. Ranged Power Attack was the most vicious one as it could be extremely misleading to some. Or, should I point out enhancements present in the feat section? What about Evasion still having its pre-Module 4.1 description? What about the Monk page still listing Philosophy: Path of Harmonious Balance and Philosophy: Path of Inevitable Dominion as "not available at level 3"?

There are tons of inaccuracies that could have been corrected by me or others. Don't mention the report button, I reported those months ago.

Perhaps you are scared of vandalism, but I can speak by personal experience by saying I have encountered so little of it through months of experience with the wiki. The most notable was someone replacing words on the paladin page by sexual comments. I won't go into details, but I'm sure you get the idea. In other words, those were done by someone who found himself funny. I'll remind you that to edit the wiki, you have to own a copy of the game and an active subscription. If someone feels like being funny, Turbine can ban him off the wiki in a minute or less. (I tell you, it literally takes 1 minute -or less- to ban someone on a wiki.) Most of the vandalism I saw was made by bots, but this is solved by requiring an active subscription (or a good captcha for other wikis).

If you scared of inaccurate edits, then I'll accuse you of having poor wiki knowledge. I know you edit the Compendium quite often, so I guess you know of the Recent Changes page. What you may not know is that in an so-so active wiki, a bad edit is reverted in a matter of hours. And that's so-so active wiki! If the wiki is really active, it will have editors watching nearly 24/7. I, for instance, have the DDOwiki added to my RSS feeds. I know a lot of editors have important pages on their watch list. A bad edit won't stay there long. Pages can be protected if need be, and only given access to users with a certain amount of rights.

And that's if you don't have FlaggedRev!!! Add FlaggedRev an that worried goes away, totally!

Then, you try to claim the template they have looks good. Really? Oh, really? Let's take two common feats and look at how each wiki display it.

First, let's start with the DDO Compendium:

• Combat Expertise on the DDO Compendium
• Evasion on the DDO Compendium

Now, let's take at what could be achieved if Turbine made a proper template:

• Evasion on the DDOwiki
• Combat Expertise on the DDOwiki

Note the the display on the wiki could be improved, I just don't have access to the right to do that now. I know that the category box at the bottom looks messy, but that can be corrected. Since I cannot access the wiki myself, I can't change it. But Turbine could.

So, which one looks the best? Which one is the most informative?

[Borror0]

I pressed submit without to one point you made. Here is the continuity.

#15 implement the lazy load design pattern for the tab controls. The load time for complex pages (like class pages) is insane.

It seems as if Turbine cannot find the just middle between too modular and too general.

The class pages have more information than they should, while pages like this one or that one are too modular.

The first category of pages could be as informative by redirecting us to another page where we could view the content separately. That would reduce loading times and make the pages more concise, to the point. As for the second category of page, regrouping pages that are similar together would allow better information and make navigation easier. Yoko5000 is working on something like that for the enhancement template, although it is still experimental. Multiples pages like on the DDOwiki also try to direct the user might find informative, like Evasion and Combat Expertise pages I linked above do.

In other words, there are better workarounds.

That problem is simply an error committed by Turbine when they designed their Compendium.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good topic and should be discussed. My apologies that I don't agree. But I don't.

What would you suggest other than what I have brought in this thread?

[Fenrisulven6]

Nicely done Borro. I take back everything bad I said about you

[Ustice]

I pressed submit without to one point you made. Here is the continuity.

It seems as if Turbine cannot find the just middle between too modular and too general.

The class pages have more information than they should, while pages like this one or that one are too modular.

The first category of pages could be as informative by redirecting us to another page where we could view the content separately. That would reduce loading times and make the pages more concise, to the point. As for the second category of page, regrouping pages that are similar together would allow better information and make navigation easier. Yoko5000 is working on something like that for the enhancement template, although it is still experimental. Multiples pages like on the DDOwiki also try to direct the user might find informative, like Evasion and Combat Expertise pages I linked above do.

In other words, there are better workarounds.

That problem is simply an error committed by Turbine when they designed their Compendium.

What would you suggest other than what I have brought in this thread?

Since Turbine has a talented group of web devs that are experienced with editing the wiki base code, they could implement some hijax techniques that would help the page load faster. If the user does not have javascript, then it loads static pages, if they do then the pages load dynamically. It's better for users (it's faster loading and interactive interface), and it is better for Turbine (right now, the pages likely won't index as well on search engines).

[geoffhanna]

I know that I am not going to persuade you to come around to my point of view. I knew that when I posted, frankly Borror0 you are not entirely the audience I was trying to reach.

You are not trying to persuade me either. You are trying to dismiss me. Your primary rebuttal is: I must just be ignorant of the wiki concept. If I knew more I would automatically endorse your view. This is not condescencing, it is just... dismissive? Obstructive? I disagree with you because ... I don't agree with you. Our base assumptions differ. I could do a point-by-point breakdown but all of the individual points are informed by our base assumptions. There won't be common ground; it would be futile.

The only reason I posted at all is because I want to be on record - in this thread - as being in favor of this concept:

A Turbine-run repository of authoritative game knowledge, drawn from the game itself, updating at the speed of game releases, augmented by users but only in ways that do not detract from or mar the Turbine-run repository.

I want thorough, accurate game documentation. I want it to conform with the vision of Turbine, who I am paying, and not the vision of a small number of self-appointed users, even when those users have "earned" the appointment by volunteering their time and effort.

As a side point, some of your specific suggestions fit very nicely with this, for instance, the formatting and template ideas fit well if they are limited in scope to the portions of the compendium intended for user input. But you do not limit scope to the user sections.

• A wiki invites all users to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki Web site, using only a plain-vanilla Web browser without any extra add-ons.
• Wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page link creation almost intuitively easy and showing whether an intended target page exists or not.
• A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape.

* Wikipedia article: Wiki

This is all well and good for the user portion of the compendium, but overall I want the compendium to be a "carefully crafted site for casual visitors". I want pages to be where I left them and holding the data that was there the last time I looked. I don't want ongoing creation and collaboration on core game documentation. I want it done, once, professionally, and updated only when the core changes.

What would you suggest other than what I have brought in this thread?

The same thing I want from the rest of DDO: more Turbine attention. Faster responses to the Report button. More pages like the Class pages which are just outstanding. Less pages like the Evasion page (which I assume will require coding - it is probably not a coincidence that there are three entries and also three different classes that have Evasion).

Or to simplify: More Content.

I applaud your work on DDOWiki and hope that you all choose to continue it.

[Ustice]

#6 and #7 - yes, but not if either conflicted with the ability to pull text out of the game

If there was an API for pulling data from the game, then we could populate this info easily enough. For instance to pull the list of feats we could use a GET request to this address:

http://api.ddo.com/feats/list.json

If we wanted detailed info from a specific feat, we use this:

http://api.ddo.com/feats/124592.json

If we could pull the data from the game servers (or some cached version of it) in that manner then it would be easy to integrate into the Compendium while maintaining the ability of users to edit content.

A couple that are 'meh' from my point of view, but do not seem actively bad...
#2, #8

Improvements like these are important because they make it easier on the community editors and content providers. By encouraging people to edit, you get a better product. While this might not seem important to the end user, it would greatly enhance the quality of the content, thus helping the end user.

These I think are just misinformed. There already is a template and a common structure. You just don't like it.
#4, #11

I disagree on #4. Meta-templates just bring consistency to pages (or really to templates). It's so your templates are consistent.

As for the skin, well that is just personal taste. Other than the black boxes, I kind of like the skin.

But these seem like they will rapidly defeat the compendium and reduce it to something I will no longer visit (let alone contribute):

#1, #3, #10 , #12

To me, the value of the compendium is that it is authoritative and (largely) accurate, and pulled directly from the game. Meaning it updates as the game updates. I like the template Turbine put in. I like that it looks (and acts) like a professionally designed, easy to read manual. I like that they don't let us screw it up with someone else's idea of what it ought to be instead.

Turbine has already provided two ways to correct <NoEdit> text: by adding corrective text in the edit area, and by reporting the page and asking for a correction. This is sufficient. I use the compendium ALL THE TIME. I like it a lot. I really, emphatically, strongly do not want to see some of these suggestions implemented. I am not saying it is perfect. But I really prefer the Turbine-controlled way they are doing it to-date.

These suggested changes do not get made fast enough. There is plenty of reported wrong data, and even more that is missing data completely. The problem with just adding data at the bottom of the page is that it is too easily missed by newer users. By giving us the ability to correct things, it is most likely that the data will be updated on a very fast schedule.

The thing is that since this is a closed community, it would make it practically impossible for people to cause any trouble on the Compendium that lasted more than an hour AT MOST. Someone will fix it back, and if an edit is flagged, then it would be easy enough to censure that player accordingly.


But again, not perfect, in fact I'm going to add one suggestion of my own since I am already this far into the topic:

#15 implement the lazy load design pattern for the tab controls. The load time for complex pages (like class pages) is insane.

Thanks for bringing this up, it is a good topic and should be discussed. My apologies that I don't agree. But I don't.

You don't have to agree, and I appreciate your contribution. I agree with this point completely, and as I pointed out in another post, there are much better ways to handle this. Nice addition.

[Ustice]

I want thorough, accurate game documentation. I want it to conform with the vision of Turbine, who I am paying, and not the vision of a small number of self-appointed users, even when those users have "earned" the appointment by volunteering their time and effort.

The great thing is that Turbine would still have complete power over the Compendium, and can guide it's direction by creating templates and the like. If someone is doing something they don't like, they can join in the discussion and let it be known, and ultimately implement FlaggedRev if necessary.

I basically want the same thing (authoritative source of info), and I think that even Borror0 does, which is why we want the Compendium to be better.

This is all well and good for the user portion of the compendium, but overall I want the compendium to be a "carefully crafted site for casual visitors". I want pages to be where I left them and holding the data that was there the last time I looked. I don't want ongoing creation and collaboration on core game documentation. I want it done, once, professionally, and updated only when the core changes.

Turbine just doesn't have the resources to do this, and there is always going to be errors and omissions. If you want an example of resources, look at the favicon. How long has that ugly thing been like it is? Tollero has been trying to get that changed for a while now, and it is still the terrible default.

[Borror0]

You are not trying to persuade me either. You are trying to dismiss me. Your primary rebuttal is: I must just be ignorant of the wiki concept. If I knew more I would automatically endorse your view.

Please excuse me if this sounds arrogant, but yes, entirely.

Your main rebuttal, as I understand it, is that somehow the Compendium would be of a lesser quality or would contain (more) misinformation. I can see how you come to believe that as it is a common misunderstanding, but those arguments are unfounded. I often hear people talk about the low quality of information in wikis, but research as shown that isn't usually the case (if you want more links, I can dig a few more). The power of people coming together to achieve a goal is surprising.

Given the proper tools and rules, a wiki will be of greater quality than most websites you can find on the topic. A wiki's weakness is that they are strongest in subjects that a large portion of the users are knowledgeable in, and weaker other areas of knowledge. This is often the case on Wikipedia.

DDOWiki and the Compendium are an entirely different case though.

Since most of the users are fairly knowledgeable on the subject, we are likely to get very accurate and concise articles on all subjects related to DDO.

The other problem of Wikipedia is that there are so many edits per day (if you check the Recent Changes of the English version of Wikipedia, there has been over 500 edits in the last 2 minutes or, if you hide the minor edits, 500 edits in the last 5 minutes) by editors with sometimes questionable knowledge on the topic that incorrect information is bound to appear.

A gaming wiki won't have this problem. In fact, I am ready to bet that WoWwiki contains information of a greater quality than anything released by Blizzard, both in details and accuracy. Edits happen at a slower pace: twelve hours has lapsed since the last 500 edits, or eighteen hours if you remove minor edits. Also, everyone knows the topic better so if something misleading slips, it's very likely to get corrected quickly. This slower pace of new information and edits make it easier for dedicated editors to track changes and be involved.

I want it done, once, professionally, and updated only when the core changes.

Users can produce content that is of professional quality, as long as they all use rules and agree on a structure (hence the need for templates).

If you want information in greater quantity, quality and accuracy, you want it user-made. If you want to be able to complain at Turbine if the information is incorrect, in order to feel better, well then you want it to be done by Turbine. The first option is more likely to get the change you want though.

The same thing I want from the rest of DDO: more Turbine attention.

That would be ideal, but sadly they don't. I would love it if I didn't have to spend time working on a wiki to have valuable information at had, but I do.

We can beg Turbine to fix it, and hope they do, or we can ask for the tools and fix it ourselves. My way is far more realistic, as they don't have the resources to fix everything.

[Ustice]

New suggestion.
Implement the basic functionality of EtherPad, for instant collaboration of articles. Submit the code back to mediawiki.

That is all.

[Borror0]

New suggestion.
Implement the basic functionality of EtherPad, for instant collaboration of articles. Submit the code back to mediawiki.

That is all.

Ever read Wikipedia talk pages? The drama we have here is nothing compared to what they have there.

In a perfect world, it would be great but...

[GoldyGopher]

As the schmuk who is currently entering and organizing a large amount of data into the wiki I would like to add my two cp worth.

To a large extent I agree with Borror0 has written, but not everything. As I am also a Sr. Systems Engineer who as one of my very minor responsibilities I have to baby sit my companies Wiki Server (used for internal communications thank god).

The use of Namespaces makes perfect sense to me, not that I could explain it, maybe it is the nearly 1 million pages I get to look at once a month from an OS standpoint rather than user or inputter.

The issue is not the use of Namespace but rather the complete lack of consistency throughout the server by both Turbine Staff and those of us who have entered information. We need a standard.
As an example “The Coin Lords” vs. “Coin Lords” or “Waterworks” vs. “Waterworks” vs. “The Waterworks” vs. “the waterworks”.
Since I could not find a standard nor could I stand the lack of one and as I have taken some responsibility for the Quests sections (since I could only find a quest listed) I have created a standard and I am enforcing it on a number of pages.

As for the look and usefulness… The look and basic layout is out of my control so as the saying goes "it is what it is." As for usefulness, without information it is **** near useless. Putting data and having everyone agree the data is correct is 75 steps in the right direction.