User talk:Mendel/wikianswers vision

Mr Wales goes courting investors and playing with other big web entrepreneurs. Pardon my being a hypocrit, but you could have more respect. No insult intended, but once again, I am surprised at you. A F K When Needed 10:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * respect is earned, not deserved Entropy [[Image:Entropy Sig 2.jpg]] (C) 11:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "hobnobbing"? hmm, "socialising" sounds good. -- ◄mendel► 12:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm... I do presume you know about the ending and that I don't have to comment on that, right? A F K When Needed 11:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't; in fact, that is already a rewrite because I've been having difficulties with it (to express why I am writing this at all). It used to be: Congratulations, Wikia, you just got free consulting. Use it wisely. I'll be off being bitter reflecting on you getting paid to run wikis like this while I don't even get recognition from you. -- ◄mendel► 12:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * aha
 * Now excuse me while I go off being bitter about giving Wikia free consulting without recognition or pay, while y'all think me a whiney troll. - frankly childish, perhaps the best you can do tolerate I know it might be the best of a list of bad options, but you still come across as being immature which obviously weakens the point of the whole page as people pick up on it and take you less seriously as a result.
 * Have a nice day! - Nice thought 'n' all but it's so clearly dripping in sarcasm (if you're confused, read the previous sentence) that you're wasting your time and just increasing the amount of oh look, a kidz moanin' on da intrawebz you'll inspire in your readers.
 * imo better to work on it more and sound like... you normally do... in which case you'll be taken seriously and given the same fearsome amount of respect due in no small part to your unfailing logic
 * as it is the ending kind of ruins it, you're letting your attitude drag down the whole thing, and while you have good ideas in the page, they're lost to your bitterness
 * If you can't think of a good closing, let it be incomplete (just cut the last paragraph off) 't's the lesser of two evils A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Feh, I tried to be self-ironic so as to end on a "lol" instead of an "awww", but apparently it's not working. Sigh. "fearsome amount of respect due in no small part to your unfailing logic" -- butter me up much? ;-) -- ◄mendel► 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I might move it to my edit summary. -- ◄mendel► 21:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * btw, five points for hobnobbing if it was intended A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to Balistic, I didn't know fullurl: works well with interwiki links. -- ◄mendel► 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't either, I just found out after trying here. &mdash; Balistic
 * Yeah, you did, though, and I didn't. :) You can wikimail me if you don't care to comment in public. -- ◄mendel► 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

grammar/spelling
(and, incidentally, to expect those editors to also main this one). Uh, what word is supposed to be there instead of "main"? --JonTheMon 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch: "maintain". -- ◄mendel► 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What benefit would we get from wikianswers ?
Ok, as you know I'm one of the many regular users and contributes of this guildwiki. As contributor, I feel I give something "back" to the community, also in the hope that other -potential- contributers steps in to create even a better guildwiki. That being said, I don't see the point in wikianswers. Why does it exist, and better yet - in line of your explanation-, why should we contribute to it ? You said : "This widget campaign brought me back to Wikianswers because I saw that users from our wiki found themselves misdirected here, and I feel the need to direct them back to us." That would be the any valid point I could find, wikianswers doesn't bring you to guildwiki as it should be. I understand the idea, better help for passing by visitors, "mash up" or "information mixing" of multiple wiki's sounds cool and very web 2.0 but it is a big, big mistake and I don't see it work for Guildwars wiki. This is a wiki specific for a game, not the world, not an encyclopedia for life, universe and everything. People with guildwars related questions should go directly to this wiki. I don't see no purpose of wikianswers here at all. Wikia != Wikipedia. It doesn't work that way, will not work that way. If a visitor can't find this wiki, why on earth would it use wikianswers ? I presume GW related questions there are placed because visitors thought it is part of the GW wiki

That being said, I agree in the thought behind "value of this wiki lies simply in its set of article titles". However, that will not solve most of the "not-so-frequently-visiting" users. For example, type "enchanted lodestones" and you are directed to the right page, type "encrusted lodestones" and you get strange search results, mostly pointing to User: pages. I know exactly why and the mechanics behind this, I'm only trying to say that this might be very confusing for first-time-visitors. This only one of the many examples that search box will not help but only confuse users.

Soooo...wikianswers will not be the answer to those confused users, but I think we have to do a bit more for improvement of redirecting first-time-visitors to the right information, who to find it, where to question what. Maybe promoting more of the guildwiki "ask a question page". Setting up FAQ of commonly asked questions. Making better/more redirects to item-names. Simple, lets create a better wikianswers for our wiki and forget about the "other" one ;) -- -- ( talk ) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Short answer: We don't. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote that for the WikiAnswers people. I wanted to make it clear to them that with the current setup, they're not working to help us, but rather doing the contrary. The benefits are not visible to anyone who has already found GuildWiki and knows how to mine it for information, I completely agree. -- ◄mendel► 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)