EVE General Discussion

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


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.



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 The pages that were really out of date and incorrect were mostly CCP Official 'Locked' pages. The Data Base info for ships, modules, BPO's, etc was really out of date which was no fault of the playerbase.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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.



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.

I really need to edit that article.

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.



Ask the Amarr.

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.