These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Evelopedia replacement online, contributors wanted

First post
Author
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2016-05-16 16:47:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
For those that use wayback for the old one, Steve Ronuken already eposted the old one from the datadumps and can be found here.


I've already checked that wiki which is nothing more than a half way copy / paste of some pages that were in Evelopedia. In fact half of the pages for PvE content is missing such as the info on Epic mission arcs

Quote:
You have followed a link to a page that does not exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, click your browser's back button.

Warning: The database has been locked for maintenance, so you will not be able to save your edits right now. You may wish to copy and paste your text into a text file and save it for later.

The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: This wiki is locked down, as it's really out of date


Nothing has been changed in-game for the Epic Arcs. In fact that quote is also found on lot's of other PvE exploration pages which also haven't been changed in-game.

Lucas Kell wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
The only reason UniWiki is getting recognized and promoted now is because CCP is too cheap to continue hosting Evelopedia and too lazy to update the Official pages of Evelopedia. That's the real truth of the matter.
Just FYI, the reason CCP discontinued Evelopedia is because nobody bothered to update it. Wikis are community driven, CCP put it there for us, not for them to continuously update. So if everyone who seems to be so mad about it no longer existing had taken the time to add and update articles, they wouldn't have discontinued it. The fact is that the UniWiki is better updated and maintained which makes it a better source of information, and that's why it's more popular. As Tiger said, there's really no point in starting up yet another wiki if the existing ones don't get updated.


Sorry to burst your bubble but most of the PvE pages in Evelopedia was indeed current and updated by the Eve community. I know because I was one of the many community members who did it. Some of the other pages pertaining to Industry, Scanning, Marketing, PI, even FW wasn't too bad, just needed a little bit of update work done to them. The pages that were really out of date and incorrect were mostly CCP Official 'Locked' pages. The Data Base info for ships, modules, BPO's, etc was really out of date which was no fault of the playerbase. All of that falls on CCP's head, especially since they would change various things in-game and then later change them again, and again, etc. Quite honestly half the time they wouldn't even include the changes in Dev Blogs or patch notes.

As far as UniWiki being better updated and maintained, I disagree. Most is copy / paste of Evelopedia pages. I still stand by my statement about why CCP discontinued the Evelopedia and why they promoted UniWiki.


DMC
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#22 - 2016-05-16 19:39:33 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble but most of the PvE pages in Evelopedia was indeed current and updated by the Eve community. I know because I was one of the many community members who did it. Some of the other pages pertaining to Industry, Scanning, Marketing, PI, even FW wasn't too bad, just needed a little bit of update work done to them. The pages that were really out of date and incorrect were mostly CCP Official 'Locked' pages. The Data Base info for ships, modules, BPO's, etc was really out of date which was no fault of the playerbase. All of that falls on CCP's head, especially since they would change various things in-game and then later change them again, and again, etc. Quite honestly half the time they wouldn't even include the changes in Dev Blogs or patch notes.
I'm sure there were some parts updated by people like yourself but the simpel fact remains that most of the pages there weren't very up to date or detailed. You'd be hard pushed to find a page that isn't better on one of the other wikis. Searching for something and ending up on Evelopedia generally made me roll my eyese then search again on UniWiki. Why would CCP continue to push something that much of the community was not interested in keeping up to date and that was outclassed by numerous other sources of info?

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
As far as UniWiki being better updated and maintained, I disagree. Most is copy / paste of Evelopedia pages. I still stand by my statement about why CCP discontinued the Evelopedia and why they promoted UniWiki.
Stand by it all you want, objectively UniWiki is a better source of information. Whether that's because there was a lot of copy paste they've built on is irrelevant.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#23 - 2016-05-16 19:56:39 UTC
By it's very design, Wiki-stuff is not easily accessible. It's meant to roughly show like an Encyclopedia layout. I use Wiki's all the time so they really aren't an issue for me to navigate but I do realize how user 'unfriendly' they are and how difficult they are to work with.

So, calling other wiki's hard to use and then using a wiki interface to make a new wiki set doesn't engender me with a lot of confidence on being all that much easier to use. The very format is constrained by how it works.

There are about a half dozen better systems out there but you would have to pay for any of them, so they don't get used publicly very often.

I would suggest that you concentrate on fixing any areas you find 'broken' in the other wiki's and link to the stuff that's working correctly. At least then you have a far smaller piece of pie to maintain. Maintenance is the bane of all Wiki's and where they all fail because they need constant care and feeding.

So, I encourage you to make whatever attempt you are going to make, but do so knowing it's going to be a serious time commitment and you will have to be up to the task of doing it. Good luck.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2016-05-17 04:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm sure there were some parts updated by people like yourself but the simpel fact remains that most of the pages there weren't very up to date or detailed. You'd be hard pushed to find a page that isn't better on one of the other wikis. Searching for something and ending up on Evelopedia generally made me roll my eyese then search again on UniWiki. Why would CCP continue to push something that much of the community was not interested in keeping up to date and that was outclassed by numerous other sources of info?
I've already given examples of how the other wiki's are lacking in info compared to Evelopedia so I'm not gonna do that again. However your statement does bring up a couple of questions. If you were searching in Evelopedia for info on stuff you didn't know about then how did you know it was incorrect ? Also if you found incorrect info in Evelopedia then why didn't you correct it ?

Obviously you and people like yourself are part of the problem. Instead of being a helpful member of the community and correcting the issue, you just ignore it and leave it for somebody else to fix. Not only did CCP do the same thing with Evelopedia, they also withheld Data Base info on all the changes they did in the game thus making it damn near impossible to completely update Evelopedia.

Lucas Kell wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
As far as UniWiki being better updated and maintained, I disagree. Most is copy / paste of Evelopedia pages. I still stand by my statement about why CCP discontinued the Evelopedia and why they promoted UniWiki.
Stand by it all you want, objectively UniWiki is a better source of information. Whether that's because there was a lot of copy paste they've built on is irrelevant.

I think you're just spewing the same old rhetoric with no solid point to back up your statements in an effort to prove yourself right. Guess we'll just agree to disagree.



DMC
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#25 - 2016-05-17 06:50:00 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I've already given examples of how the other wiki's are lacking in info compared to Evelopedia so I'm not gonna do that again. However your statement does bring up a couple of questions. If you were searching in Evelopedia for info on stuff you didn't know about then how did you know it was incorrect ? Also if you found incorrect info in Evelopedia then why didn't you correct it ?
Usually I did know about it, I was looking for reference and could see it was old data. I didn't correct it because I didn't care about Evelopedia and generally only found it when I did't pay attention to the link I clicked in google and ended up there by mistake.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Obviously you and people like yourself are part of the problem. Instead of being a helpful member of the community and correcting the issue, you just ignore it and leave it for somebody else to fix. Not only did CCP do the same thing with Evelopedia, they also withheld Data Base info on all the changes they did in the game thus making it damn near impossible to completely update Evelopedia.
I don't see it as a problem though, since I always found other sources to be better, so Evelopedia being gone is a benefit as it will no longer show up on search results.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I think you're just spewing the same old rhetoric with no solid point to back up your statements in an effort to prove yourself right. Guess we'll just agree to disagree.
lol, no rhetoric, you're going "grr they copied some stuff", and I'm saying "I don't care, it's still more accurate and up to date". The only thing Evelopedia had over Uniwiki was the lore stuff which doesn't interest me. Quite honestly you just seem to have a stuck up your ass about the other wikis. Why is it you think an new, empty (and absolutely horrible looking) wiki is a better idea than simply improving one of the existing wikis that was already better than Evelopedia in the first place?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2016-05-17 07:29:27 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Lucas Kell wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I think you're just spewing the same old rhetoric with no solid point to back up your statements in an effort to prove yourself right. Guess we'll just agree to disagree.
lol, no rhetoric, you're going "grr they copied some stuff", and I'm saying "I don't care, it's still more accurate and up to date". The only thing Evelopedia had over Uniwiki was the lore stuff which doesn't interest me. Quite honestly you just seem to have a stuck up your ass about the other wikis. Why is it you think an new, empty (and absolutely horrible looking) wiki is a better idea than simply improving one of the existing wikis that was already better than Evelopedia in the first place?

Well, once again we disagree and the convo is mute because you say this and I say that. If anyone has a stick shoved up there arse here it's you. Nobody asked for links or info about UniWiki and if you don't wanna help the op with this project then just bugger off with your stick. All you've done here is constantly berate the OP and Evelopedia while claiming UniWiki is the best without actually providing any proof.

UniWiki by design is not user friendly and it's biased towards Eve University's own agenda. They lay claim to all of the info contained within it and if a request is made to give acknowledgment to the source of their info, they re-write, omit and condense the copy / paste into a shadow of it's former self.

Nuff said ..........



DMC
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2016-05-17 10:31:36 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I think you're just spewing the same old rhetoric with no solid point to back up your statements in an effort to prove yourself right. Guess we'll just agree to disagree.
lol, no rhetoric, you're going "grr they copied some stuff", and I'm saying "I don't care, it's still more accurate and up to date". The only thing Evelopedia had over Uniwiki was the lore stuff which doesn't interest me. Quite honestly you just seem to have a stuck up your ass about the other wikis. Why is it you think an new, empty (and absolutely horrible looking) wiki is a better idea than simply improving one of the existing wikis that was already better than Evelopedia in the first place?

Well, once again we disagree and the convo is mute because you say this and I say that. If anyone has a stick shoved up there arse here it's you. Nobody asked for links or info about UniWiki and if you don't wanna help the op with this project then just bugger off with your stick. All you've done here is constantly berate the OP and Evelopedia while claiming UniWiki is the best without actually providing any proof.

UniWiki by design is not user friendly and it's biased towards Eve University's own agenda. They lay claim to all of the info contained within it and if a request is made to give acknowledgment to the source of their info, they re-write, omit and condense the copy / paste into a shadow of it's former self.

Nuff said ..........



DMC



You seem to be completely foreign to the way wiki's are operated and maintained. A wiki, by definition, doesn't go around spewing acknowledgements everywhere. If you want to quote a source you can tag a sentence with a reference that will show up at the end of the page. Other than that your username will show up in the history list of edits and that is as far as any sort of acknowledgement goes. There is no 'claiming' of information. As a wiki EVE Uni may decide to avoid using copyrighted texts, so when information is copied as a whole from a different site, the editors may choose to rewrite it to stay in line with legal rules on the wiki, and UniWiki is hardly the only one that does so.

Also what on earth are you on about with "their own agenda"? EVE Uni's only agenda is teaching new players about EVE Online. A wiki, by definition, is a great place to share information with new players.

You seriously seem to not grasp the concept that a wiki is open to edit by anyone, and that it is operated as a community. If you don't like the way information is presented you are completely free to rewrite things to make it more clear, but if the community around you decides your edit isn't up to par, it goes out the window. Easy as that.

Anyway, the core of this discussion is about the fact that we DON'T need 5 different wikis for EVE Online, of which 4 will probably never be touched by anyone except the admin and a couple of random editors. Eventually they will go out of date like every single other wiki before them.

As far as wikis go, saying "the information on this wiki is not accurate, so I'll start my own wiki instead" is about the stupidest thing ever. Can you imagine someone starting their own Wikipedia counterpart because one of their favorite articles has the wrong information? It's stupid. And the effort put into this project by the OP, as good as the intentions may be, would be much better spent supporting an existing established wiki, rather than starting from scratch for no well explained reason.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#28 - 2016-05-17 12:08:37 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:


As far as wikis go, saying "the information on this wiki is not accurate, so I'll start my own wiki instead" is about the stupidest thing ever. Can you imagine someone starting their own Wikipedia counterpart because one of their favorite articles has the wrong information? It's stupid. And the effort put into this project by the OP, as good as the intentions may be, would be much better spent supporting an existing established wiki, rather than starting from scratch for no well explained reason.


I've already explained why I'm doing this project but my words just seem to go in one ear and out the other with some people. If you're not interesting in helping me with this project, then don't, but you have no business slagging me off until you've demonstrated that either a) you're willing to help make UniWiki more user-friendly and/or add lore pages to it, or b) you can make a superior wiki of your own. Be constructive or bugger off.

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#29 - 2016-05-17 13:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Well, once again we disagree and the convo is mute because you say this and I say that. If anyone has a stick shoved up there arse here it's you. Nobody asked for links or info about UniWiki and if you don't wanna help the op with this project then just bugger off with your stick. All you've done here is constantly berate the OP and Evelopedia while claiming UniWiki is the best without actually providing any proof.
I've not berated anyone I've just pointed out the obvious faults in trying to reinvent the wheel rather than simply adding to one of the existing wikis. Even if you don't want to add to UniWiki, add to eve.wikia.com for example. I'm not just going to "bugger off" simply because you don't feel I should be allowed to voice an opinion. You've also provided absolutely no proof that UniWiki is worse that Evelopedia. It would seem b the simple fact that it still exists and Evelopedia was closed for lack of use that UniWiki is undeniably better.

And the word you were looking for is "moot".

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
UniWiki by design is not user friendly and it's biased towards Eve University's own agenda. They lay claim to all of the info contained within it and if a request is made to give acknowledgment to the source of their info, they re-write, omit and condense the copy / paste into a shadow of it's former self.
Prove it. All we've got here is you showing an obvious bias against EVE University. The vast majority of the time if I need info or reference material EVE Uni provides it in a straightforward format. Judging by how many other people link to it, that's a pretty popular opinion. You not liking it doesn't make it objectively bad.

Edit: You want an example of the difference in quality of information, look at the Encyclopaedia Nova Edenica (wtf is with that name by the way) entry for battlecruisers copied straight from Evelopedia and compare it with the UniWiki entry. Uniwiki is undeniably better formatted and provides more information, not to mention Encyclopaedia Nova Edenica being absolutely riddled with ads and clickbait.

Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
I've already explained why I'm doing this project but my words just seem to go in one ear and out the other with some people. If you're not interesting in helping me with this project, then don't, but you have no business slagging me off until you've demonstrated that either a) you're willing to help make UniWiki more user-friendly and/or add lore pages to it, or b) you can make a superior wiki of your own. Be constructive or bugger off.
We are being constructive, by pointing out he insanity of trying to build a complete new wiki from the ground up because you want to be in control of it while simultaneously putting practically zero effort into it. There area already multiple wikis including a better named and styled one on wikia. Why not simply add to that?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#30 - 2016-05-17 13:13:30 UTC
Quote:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

I removed an off topic remark.

ISD Fractal

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Yarosara Ruil
#31 - 2016-05-17 13:29:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Yarosara Ruil
EVE University Wiki is a good place to post and refine the information they already have on game mechanics and ship fitting principles. But UniWiki was built as a learning tool, so articles regarding lore are a bit out of place there.

But Wikias are borderline terrible, and EVE deserves a better.

Edit:

Also, it really shows how much of a gem this wiki is when one of your first articles listed is about the "New Order".

Your wiki is bad and you should feel bad.
Zathra Narazi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2016-05-17 13:35:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Zathra Narazi
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
Encyclopaedia Nova Edenica doesn't look like much at the moment, but what is there is a testbed for streamlined portal-based navigation and compact, easy to browse formatting.

We could really use stuff like:


  • Some lore experts to go over the CCP and player-generated history and shape it into some workable articles
  • Technical database of modules, rigs, hulls etc
  • Anything else the other wikis usually neglect but evelopedia didn't


Someone else took the liberty of creating a live backup of evelopedia, so the usable data can be migrated over with all the new stuff. If someone in the know can dig up technical and XML API docs for third party developers as well, that would be great.

inb4 eve uni: they suck and their wiki is impossible to navigate.

Wikia wikis never go anywhere. All of them I've been to had like 3 pages made and then people gave up. And any attempt to search them results in a bunch of stuff you don't care about from other wikis.
Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#33 - 2016-05-17 14:02:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
(wtf is with that name by the way)



Latin for New Eden Encyclopaedia.

I refute your "zero effort" remark too, building a wiki is slow going, but that doesn't mean no-one is trying. Your logic is flawed.

Quote:
I'm not just going to "bugger off" simply because you don't feel I should be allowed to voice an opinion


I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but if your opinion consists solely of flimsily justified criticism, errors in fact, and faulty logic, it's not worth much. Right now it just looks like you're complaining about ENE just for the sake of it.

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2016-05-17 14:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tisiphone Dira
Yarosara Ruil wrote:
Also, it really shows how much of a gem this wiki is when one of your first articles listed is about the "New Order"

Your wiki is bad and you should feel bad.


I'm warming to this wiki myself. 10/10 for a bias free and informative article. Well done.

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy

Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#35 - 2016-05-17 14:19:16 UTC
Tisiphone Dira wrote:
Yarosara Ruil wrote:
Also, it really shows how much of a gem this wiki is when one of your first articles listed is about the "New Order"

Your wiki is bad and you should feel bad.


I'm warming to this wiki myself. 10/10 for a bias free and informative article. Well done.



I really need to edit that article. X

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#36 - 2016-05-17 14:25:18 UTC
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
Latin for New Eden Encyclopaedia.
So Edenica is latin for eden, or is that like how when people translate things to russian they feel like sticking "ski" on the end of the word is a good enough effort? Seems like with "New Eden" being a name it would remain as it is no matter what language it's in. Also what relation does latin have to EVE?

Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
I refute your "zero effort" remark too, building a wiki is slow going, but that doesn't mean no-one is trying. Your logic is flawed.
I didn't say noone is trying, I said you, the owner, are putting in zero effort. You've set up a wiki on a free host absolutely caked in ads, dumped a theme on it, set up a basic structure then expect other people to sit around filling it in.

Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
I never said you couldn't have an opinion, but if your opinion consists solely of flimsily justified criticism, errors in fact, and faulty logic, it's not worth much. Right now it just looks like you're complaining about ENE just for the sake of it.
The criticism is justified, the facts are error free and the logic is sound. You're rebuilding something from the group up that already exists in multiple places where you could simply improve it, seemingly because you want your name on it. You not agreeing with people's criticism doesn't invalidate it. In addition that comment was to DMC who did in fact tell me to bugger off.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#37 - 2016-05-17 14:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alessienne Ellecon
Lucas Kell wrote:
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
Latin for New Eden Encyclopaedia.
So Edenica is latin for eden, or is that like how when people translate things to russian they feel like sticking "ski" on the end of the word is a good enough effort?


I know a decent bit of Latin and I have a friend who teaches Latin and calculus at a Jesuit high school. So you can take my word for it when I assure you that the grammar and syntax are correct.

Quote:
Also what relation does latin have to EVE?


Ask the Amarr.

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#38 - 2016-05-17 14:42:55 UTC
I'll take your word for it - still a pretty awful name that looks like someones desperately tried to "latinify" it.

Good job at skipping over all the actual points though and fixating on passing comments.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Yarosara Ruil
#39 - 2016-05-17 14:53:39 UTC
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
I know a decent bit of Latin and I have a friend who teaches Latin and calculus at a Jesuit high school. So you can take my word for it when I assure you that the grammar and syntax are correct.


Eden translated to latin is Eden.

It's one thing to have zero imagination for names, another is to pass ignorance as facts to cover your own ignorance.

If anything, Eden would become Paradisus in latin.
Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#40 - 2016-05-17 15:05:39 UTC
Yarosara Ruil wrote:
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
I know a decent bit of Latin and I have a friend who teaches Latin and calculus at a Jesuit high school. So you can take my word for it when I assure you that the grammar and syntax are correct.


Eden translated to latin is Eden.

It's one thing to have zero imagination for names, another is to pass ignorance as facts to cover your own ignorance.

If anything, Eden would become Paradisus in latin.


So Encyclopaedia Britannica is named wrongly, is it?

Idiot.

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Previous page123Next page