These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Open petition against EVElopedia closure

Author
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2016-03-24 13:23:30 UTC
letting third parties control the flow of information is subject to abuse.
an article about certain complexes may contain notes to discourage from running them (either explicitly or implicitly by adding a few more neut towers :D), or more subtly you could get advertisement to stuff like corporations.
Or pages about corporations might include messages which allude to the meaning of: "If you don't join a player corp you're bad at eve" and propaganda directed at other corporations.
(I'm as subtle as a brick but i know some of you goebbels' out there know how to do this and people don't even know.)

So i am all for a neutral, objective CCP site that gives a base of information about stuff in the game.
It may be a sandbox but that doesn't mean it has to turn into a mudpit.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#142 - 2016-03-24 13:47:49 UTC
yeah they need to reopen it, I no longer have access to my disclaimer of ccp saying that its not encouraged to run multiple accounts at once....

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

The Golden Serpent
A Drunken Squirrels' Conspiracy for Revenge
#143 - 2016-03-27 08:12:22 UTC
Wikipedia does just fine and backstage isn't worried about it, they shouldn't either. Here's the new evelopedia migration

http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

-:¦:-•:'":•.-:¦:-•* K H A N I D •-:¦:-•:''''*:•-:¦:-

Voron Gray
Calmius waters
#144 - 2016-03-27 22:48:53 UTC
Signed.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2016-04-06 00:49:30 UTC
The Golden Serpent wrote:
Wikipedia does just fine and backstage isn't worried about it, they shouldn't either. Here's the new evelopedia migration

http://wiki.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Well, I checked that site out and quite frankly it's very disappointing. They've deleted a lot of important pages that were in Evelopedia. Don't know what their criteria was for deciding what to save and what to delete but in my opinion that site is now way less informative than the original Evelopedia.

Anyway, in case you missed it I had posted a link to view Evelopedia in this thread and I also created a thread in Missions & Complexes sub-forum called :

EVELOPEDIA via The Wayback Machine

The Wayback Machine enables Evelopedia viewing but no updating. The search option doesn't work so navigation to a specific page is done manually by using the various links inside the wiki.



DMC
black cree
Utopian Research I.E.L.
#146 - 2016-04-06 18:22:10 UTC
Signed.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#147 - 2016-04-06 20:42:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
Scipio Artelius wrote:
For a long time there was a sticky'd thread here in GD calling for people to join the team. It had virtually no active players as volunteers to help maintain and update the Wiki.

Now it's been removed people are complaining. They could have become an ISD on the relevant team and helped all along.

Or they could have let players with an active account log in and update the data without all the ISD fuss. It's fine when it comes to forum moderation. But for updating a game wiki Roll?

Remove standings and insurance.

Marie Curiiee
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#148 - 2016-04-06 23:46:48 UTC
bring back eveopedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#149 - 2016-05-14 10:26:55 UTC
The wiki was full of outdated and sometimes just flat out misinformation that did nothing but screw over players trying to learn


The lore part is a sad bit of collateral though
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2016-05-14 10:34:00 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
The wiki was full of outdated and sometimes just flat out misinformation that did nothing but screw over players trying to learn

People keep saying this but never point out exactly what they're talking about.

Now I've checked out other 3rd party Wiki's and in my opinion they're all just as bad. That's why my character Bio has links to multiple Wiki's.



DMC
Pix Severus
Empty You
#151 - 2016-05-14 11:21:00 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
The wiki was full of outdated and sometimes just flat out misinformation that did nothing but screw over players trying to learn


The solution to this was actually quite simple, and didn't require taking down the entire thing.

Simply put the line "This article may be outdated and/or incorrect" in large, noticable text at the top of the page.

MTU Hunter: Latest Entry - June 12 2017 - Vocal Local 5

MTU Hunting 101: Comprehensive Guide

Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#152 - 2016-05-19 15:04:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Joia Crenca
Pix Severus wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
The wiki was full of outdated and sometimes just flat out misinformation that did nothing but screw over players trying to learn


The solution to this was actually quite simple, and didn't require taking down the entire thing.

Simply put the line "This article may be outdated and/or incorrect" in large, noticable text at the top of the page.



Exactly.


Lore and detail are important for world-building. World-building creates a more interesting environment for players in that world. To remain consistent, it generally needs to be done by someone with a vested, long-term interest in that world and game.
Arkoth 24
Doomheim
#153 - 2016-06-15 10:12:55 UTC
Sustrai Aditua wrote:
I knew, given time, this thread would grow to rival EVE-lo-peedia...
Instead of building a threadnaught, why not build another informational site?
No. WAIT! You want someone ELSE to do it! I GET IT!

For a reason. I'm too lame in web-codin' by myself and quite not sure 'bout building new wiki on some pre-made engine for a reason described here:
Alexandros Balfros wrote:
To be fair you're probably better off just using the SDE and coding something from the ground up, the issue with evelopedia is the pages were static, they had to be manually updated whereas using the SDE all you do is update the database and bam your "wiki" is already up to date with ship stats, item names and more :P

But, if i'll have enough time for it, may be i'll take a try. Anyway, it looks like community accepted CCP's choice, and new wiki may become just my very own toy for myself only.
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#154 - 2016-06-15 11:03:51 UTC
CCP are already working on a replacement for the lore part of EVElopedia. The biggest issue is that EVElopedia was taken down before the replacement could be made.

Mechanics details will remain a third party thing though.
Kolodi Ramal
Sanxing Yi
#155 - 2016-06-16 02:53:42 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
CCP are already working on a replacement for the lore part of EVElopedia.

I'll believe it when I see it. inb4 one year from now we still don't have it.
Velarra
#156 - 2016-06-16 04:16:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Velarra
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2016-06-16 06:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
Samira Kernher wrote:
CCP are already working on a replacement for the lore part of EVElopedia. The biggest issue is that EVElopedia was taken down before the replacement could be made.

Mechanics details will remain a third party thing though.

I really don't believe it. Evelopedia was just some webspace with virtually no costs for CCP. Why should they take something down that costs no money and angers the community when they are working on an replacement? Does make sense only when they realized that they made an mistake and in that case to put evelopedia back online would be a simple task for some web admin. Best example of how bad this idea was are the Force Auxiliaries. Try to find them on Uni Wiki. Force Auxiliaries you just can't find and if you search for the ship name you get a stump with just the lore and no stats at all. And Uni Wiki is THE recommended site by CCP as an evelopedia replacement. EVE without a manual is a really bad idea! CCP should create and refresh the side and just open it up to comments. They need the documentation for internal use anyway.
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#158 - 2016-06-16 08:12:28 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Samira Kernher wrote:
CCP are already working on a replacement for the lore part of EVElopedia. The biggest issue is that EVElopedia was taken down before the replacement could be made.

Mechanics details will remain a third party thing though.

I really don't believe it. Evelopedia was just some webspace with virtually no costs for CCP. Why should they take something down that costs no money and angers the community when they are working on an replacement? Doesn't make sense only when they realized that they made an mistake and in that case to put evelopedia back online would be a simple task for some web admin. Best example of how bad this idea was are the Force Auxiliaries. Try to find them on Uni Wiki. Force Auxiliaries you just can't find and if you search for the ship name you get a stump with just the lore and no stats at all. And Uni Wiki is THE recommended site by CCP as an evelopedia replacement. EVE without a manual is a really bad idea! CCP should create and refresh the side and just open it up to comments. They need the documentation for internal use anyway.


Maybe the point is to destroy a knowledge base of mission and complex data that erodes some of the mystery of the game. It could be because people keep railing on them for how outdated and lame so much of the pve is. It could be for technical issues. It could be for financial reasons. It could be simple misanthropy. It makes no sense that much worse websites are left intact and online like the godawful spacejam site from the 90's while evelopedia which contains an appreciable amount of community and employee constructed data is removed with weak reasoning.

Personally I think it its all those things I mentioned. It's suspicious at best and incompetent at worst.
Arkoth 24
Doomheim
#159 - 2016-06-23 09:08:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkoth 24
Samira Kernher wrote:
The biggest issue is that EVElopedia was taken down before the replacement could be made.

Looks like a kind of habbit:

- take down Wiki before make any replacement and ask users to make their own;

- take down browser with no replacement at all and let third-perty devs clear up the mess;

- switch off Dust and say that someday it will be replaced with some other project.