GuildWiki talk:Fansite status

/Archive

Mike O'Brien's message to the community
Just a heads up:. Summary: he wonders whether the GuildWiki can be hosted in a more official fashion on Arena Net's servers. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:43, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm excited about this. - Jack  18:23, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
 * As a second heads up, that account was created today and that post was the very first (and so far only) post made by that user account. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:42, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I doubt someone is yanking our chain here, but I have sent a PM to Inde requesting confirmation. 216.218.240.205 19:45, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Looks like Gaile Gray has chimed in too.


 * Yeah, this looks legit. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 19:54, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, that's pretty dang awesome. Too bad I can't see the post. (as below) --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 07:35, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The errors have stopped for now, the thread is viewable. --Karlos 18:27, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It's certainly an interesting proposition. I don't have a GWGurus account and I don't intend on getting one simply for this post, so I'll just post my opinions here (although it might make sense to start a proper discussion somewhere else, in which case you have the right to copy my post there).


 * In an ideal situation what would we like to see happen?


 * Being one of the founding members of the GuildWiki I hold it very close to my heart, despite not being as regular a contributor as many of you. I know wikis are not about ego but I take a certain amount of pride in the wiki. The most important principle of the wiki has been to document the Guild Wars universe as faithfully and as clearly as possible (a noble aim), and I have to say that everyone who has helped to reach this goal should also take some personal pride in the wiki. Now, it might sound like I'm droning on (as I am known to do) but I do have a point here.


 * I have mixed feelings about allowing the GuildWiki to be hosted by ArenaNet. It is undoubtedly flattering that ArenaNet know about us. As the GuildWiki increases in popularity (well deserved, I might add, as I know of no other site with such in-depth information on all things Guild Wars) it is no doubt in ArenaNet's best interests to have some sort of control over this medium. My main concern is that this site might be very different if controlled by ArenaNet and not the community. While the removal of advertising would, for me, be welcome, Mike O'Brien has already pointed out that the OblivioWiki link would have to go. This might just be one link, but how much leverage will ArenaNet have over the content of the GuildWiki if they are the hosts?


 * Will we have to censor what is on our user pages? At the moment user pages are regarded as a free area, but if ArenaNet are hosting the wiki would such places be under their juristiction?


 * Would the sysops, currently appointed by the community, still hold their positions or would they come second to ArenaNet sysops?


 * And finally: Would the documenting of Guild Wars be such an achievement if ArenaNet had helped us to do it? Perhaps this is a moot point, some might argue that the aim of GuildWiki is to document the game, and who can document a game better than the developers?


 * I'm not entirely opposed to ArenaNet hosting the GuildWiki, but in many ways I think that our seperation from them has also given us a certain amount of freedom. I hope that you'll consider my points. Thanks.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:50, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I've proxied your message there. I am fairly certain Mike O'Brien isn't reading this talk page. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:02, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Lol, why the hell not?! :P (Thanks, Stabber)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:03, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Out of interest, how does everyone feel about this? I just wonder if anyone else checks the recent changes more often than they check the forum... :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:30, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Please see Community expectations. It tries to crystallize some of the concerns that Karlos, LordBiro and others have raised. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:32, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Bloody hell Stabber, how much coffee have you had this evening? (I'm implying you're very quick off the mark)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:34, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

I was just wondering, besides actually hosting the wiki - what else would the wiki benefit from Anet? Any official input? I can think of a few articles that could certainly use a bit of that. Lazy Evan whaomgz 69.124.143.230 20:46, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

It's a good offer, but ultimately unlikely to work out. There is too much blood, sweat and tears invested in this wiki for it to be convertible to an official wiki. Take the builds section. It would have to be cut completely from an official wiki because it's all opinionmongering. An official wiki definitely cannot bless certain builds as "tested" and others as "unfavored". That's actually the big problem -- dissociating what the wiki says from the official word. Regardless of disclaimers, people will take anything written on the wiki as Anet's official word and hold them to it. This is way too much of a risk for Anet. Really, I'm asking myself what Arena Net has to gain from hosting the wiki, and can't think of a good reason.

Also, the only way I see it working from a maintenance perspective is if Arena Net hires Gravewit to maintain the wiki full time, or at least retains him as a paid consultant. Who better knows the ins and outs of the backend system? 141.151.181.135 10:23, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not so sure about the claim that an official wiki cannot have opinions. All that needs is several well-placed disclaimers.  The "favored"/"unfavored" is done by the community, and we can easily have tags that says as much, leaving Anet out of it.  Regardless of ppl's lack of regard of disclaimers, there is nothing those ppl who do not read disclaimers can legally hold Anet to anything.  I don't seem them risking anything.
 * I don't even see why it's necessary to hire Gravewit (though I'm not opposed to it) for maintainence. The backend system is just MediaWiki running on MySQL, which are among the most well-known wiki/database platforms, with just some tweaks.  It's not like Gravewit wrote all the code for GuildWiki from scratch. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:29, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I partially agree with anon. It's not a questio of legality, PanSola, but what people will believe. If people believe that the Wiki speaks for Anet, then no amount of dissuasion will change that. Look how every single word uttered by Gaile Gray is interpreted in the most tortured way possible in the forums and in game. Giving the community an official place to bitch and/or speak "for" Arena Net would mean that Arena Net loses all control of their message. In any case, I do believe that if Arena Net hosts the Wiki, they should be much more proactive in policing it. (Or promote a lot more regulars here to sysops or whatever.) &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 11:00, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Wow, I leave for a four-day camping trip - and the whole world gets spun around when I return! Almsot makes me wish I had stayed home ... then again, naaa, the camping trip was too much fun! Anywhoots; this looks great! I'm reading through that thread now, and will post over there along with everyone else once I figure out the bulk of my thoughts and concerns on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * In response to almost everyone before me in this thread, I give you Gares’s Response Segment…


 * Although I was not here from the beginning to witness all the madness with any new project, it has turned out quite well. So well in fact, that when I started playing the game and using GuildWiki, I felt I had to “pay it forward” and contribute so I could help others as other contributors helped me. I have seen the GuildWiki have server problems, latency issues, downtime, having to move to a larger server, using adverts to fund said server, etc, etc. From the technical side, Arena Net helping to maintain the ever-growing GuildWiki is the best offer the GuildWiki could get. Not only using their server(s) and staff, but as Guild Wars increases in campaigns and content, the technical side will fall off Gravewit and Nunix’s, (if he is still around. I don’t really know.), shoulders.


 * As to the freedoms that some are concerned might be taken away if this merger goes through, I don’t think we have anything to worry about. Regarding the Oblivion link, of course Arena Net would want it down, it’s a rival game, but I’m sure as Gravewit and Mike O’Brien hash things out, perhaps something will be done to ensure (as PanSola put it) GameWikis will continue to grow and not be hampered by one wiki not having a link to another.


 * When it comes to “policing” User pages and, for that matter, talk pages, there should be a line drawn. Threats, lewd comments, and foul language have no place anywhere in a wiki. If a user looks to those options as some sort of amusement at the expense of others, than their maturity level is not up to standard to be involved in a community project such as this. I cuss like a sailor, but I do not feel the need to have it printed in a public domain. For those that say, “Users can put anything on their pages”, think if you had a child and they went to GuildWiki for help and next thing you know he/she is asking you what FU-- meant. I’m by no means a parent, but contributors have to look past the ones (other contributors) they see everyday and realize, if they haven’t, that a lot more people than they think use GuildWiki and the user base will only get bigger.


 * Will GuildWiki be seen as an outlet for official ANet material? I don’t see any difference in the content of the official fan sites and an official wiki. People do not take everything said on the fan sites as official ANet material. The only way I see people thinking the wiki information is straight from ANet’s mouth, is if ANet employees start contributing. Yes, tags can be in place, a header tag on the main page stating that the information on Guild Wiki is contributed by the players of Wiki and not by the employees of Arena Net. Any information directly from Arena Net will be stated as such. I know I disregard the main page and go directly to the recent changes page when I come on, so perhaps a disclaimer heading should be added there as well.


 * My 2 cents and then some. --Gares Redstorm 21:41, 31 May 2006 (CDT)


 * why not a link to the disclaimer on the bottom are of the page, just like wikipedia does! 194.151.136.154 18:42, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

So, any update on this? LordKestrel 09:05, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The thread on GWG has been updated by Gaile today (last page of the thread, at the top). --Rainith 01:18, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks. I went ahead and registered over there, although I doubt I'll ever post much. LordKestrel 03:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * More than 3 months without update. I take it, the idea was dumped? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:36, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It was a bad idea anyway. ArenaNet has enough on their hands and GuildWiki values its independence too much.

On GuildWiki's reclassification
The following is what Gaile Gray sent me regarding the site's fansite status, prior to the unveiling of the new fansite stuff on guildwars.com this past Friday:

Appraisal Notes: Pros Cons "GuildWiki is the best Guild Wars site out there. Because of its nature, information is updated constantly. For the most part, the contributors are good writers. They've been campaigning strongly for a long time to get higher status, and the site definitely deserves something above the Listed ranks. The site is a huge resource of information on almost all aspects of the game. Due to the nature of a wiki, it is generally one of the most up-to-date sites for information. It lacks a news page. Having recently acquired a forum through a fansite, they might be considered a candidate for Elite, but missing so many of the requirements, they are an exceptional reason for the creation of a new category: Specialty Fansite. This is an exceptional resource that should be recognized and recommended without changing the valuation of the other fansites. Definitely deserving of Specialty."
 * Guild Wars Wiki
 * Specialty
 * Huge resource of information
 * Up-to-date.
 * Extremely popular.
 * No news page.

Thoughts? Gravewit 12:45, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * make a newspage? put a box on the front page linking to Guild Wars News, which will link to/have a summary of every news posting [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * here:


 * Focus exclusively on Guild Wars and/or ArenaNet [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * Update when the official site is updated; carry Guild Wars news as it is posted or, when possible, as it takes place [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * Present a substantial amount of original content, not merely a compilation (mirror) of ArenaNet-produced materials [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * Present materials in an attractive and professional manner (semi-[[Image:Yes.png|16px]] - deal with vandals)
 * Post all ArenaNet press releases, or post a direct link to them on the ArenaNet or Guild Wars site(s) (not sure)
 * Provide ArenaNet with statistics on fansite traffic on a monthly basis (not sure)
 * Host or link to a Guild Wars-related forum [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * Abide by The Expectations 4/6
 * To meet standards of quality for content and design ?
 * To abide by the legal requirements stated in the Terms of Use [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * To assure that site content reflects positively upon the company and the game [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * To disallow and remove links or promotion of adult (pornographic) sites, sites that provide or support software hacking or piracy, sites that support, advertise or offer in-game items for real currency, and sites that encourage game cheating (working on that - User talk:Gravewit)
 * To abide by the game's Terms of Service [[Image:Yes.png|16px]]
 * To display the appropriate copyright, logo, and legal information [[Image:Yes.png|16px]] &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by ST47 &bull; contribs) 10:56, 23 July 2006.


 * What exactly does she mean by news section? We already have GuildWars.com news which is linked to on the front page.  --Rainith 13:10, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree. Can you get Gayle to explain what exactly she means by "no news"? Has she seen the news section we have? How does it fail to measure up to other sites? The only thing I can think of is that we don't feature the daily news on the main page. Is that it? --Karlos 13:22, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it might perhaps have to do with the fact that we can not easily publish certain content, an interview with a member of staff at ArenaNet for example. Being a wiki we aren't structured in the same way as most sites.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:30, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Also, I really hate the use of a root symbol for a tick >_< can I make an icon instead? :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:31, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Too late (see also Image:Nope.png and Image:Maybe.png). ;) --84-175 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I would like to know if "missing so many requirements" simply means we are missing a "News" page, or if there is anything else. From our perspective, most of us do believe the number of requirements we don't meet is extremely few, if any at all.  It would very helpful to be on the same page about what they think we are missing that we didn't realize. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:41, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm actually hoping that the issue is something other than missing a "News" page. If it's just a question of news, then I'm forced to conclude that the review that was made was very superficial.  If it's something more that's missing, then I would hope we receive more guidance on what is missing.  Many contributors have worked hard here to keep both GuildWars.com_news and Game_updates current and accurate.  I honestly can't think what more we could provide in news other than maybe exclusive interviews/content - which by the nature of our license couldn't be kept as exclusive. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Have appealed to Gaile with the points noted above, as well as a plea for further guidance. Will post next communication here. Gravewit 01:31, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The speciality status is quite an accolade, I think. It's unique. Shandy


 * I'd guess a news page like the one ANet have in mind is a bit more than just mirroring ANet's official new. We should have our own news, reporting not only stuff from ANet, but also stuff going on in the community and on other fansites. And the news page shouldn't be second level. At least a summary with the headlines should be on the Main Page, similar to the "In the news" section on the Main Page of Wikipedia. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:32, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

"Specialty" honestly sounds better than "Elite fansite" or whatever to me. I mean, we're special. And that's kinda the point: we are -- no other site lets the average user contribute the way Guildwiki does. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Or it could mean that we ride the short bus.... :P  --Rainith 20:38, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah, okay, looking at the thing, we're definitely riding the short bus. Halfway down the list with a white thing next to the name and sharing our status with another site? I certainly don't feel special anymore. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The name and symbol that we have on our site are pretty cool. Specialist fansite sounds cool, it's only when you see that we share the title with photics.com (if you've been here a while you should know why that's annoying) and that we trail behind official AND elite in the listing that it seems like a problem.


 * Early in the days of the GuildWiki fansite status was very important because, more than anything, we needed exposure in order to grow. At this point in the lifespan of the GuildWiki I don't think fansite status is anywhere near as important.


 * If ArenaNet aren't willing to give us Elite status then that's fine by me. The GuildWiki is still the greatest single resource for Guild Wars information that exists on the net, and if we had to change the way we run the wiki in order to be granted elite status then I think that that would be a misplaced effort.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:13, 30 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed. Who cares if we're listed half-way down in the list? Most people that play Guild Wars, if not *all* know we exist and use the wiki regularly. I personally like the Specialty rank better, or we'd just dissappear among the other Elite rankers. Also it sounds better. &mdash; Galil  18:55, 31 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers Photics unfondly. :) &mdash;Tanaric 20:08, 31 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Anet made a small mistake when they placed the specialty half-way down that list, since i see specialty as the biggest reward a fansite ever can get... Hand-Picked in a place where no other site can go in a normal way... 16:12, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Dead Link
Terms of Service does not work anymore 84.189.93.234 15:02, 21 December 2006 (CST)

ArenaNet Community Day '06
From the GWGuru news page:
 * "Coming at the end of January, ArenaNet is hosting another Community Day in which select fansites have been invited to attend and tour the offices, meet the developers, ask some questions and more."

Two questions: I'm wondering. A community happening, and once again GuildWiki is being missed out. Even though we are clearly the most popular GW fansite on the internet we have never gotten the chance to send an inquiry for a Fansite Fryday, let alone attend any of ANet's community activities. And I'm not even talking about the official "elite" fansite status.
 * 1) Has GuildWiki been invited?
 * 2) If not: Why not?

Why do ANet keep ignoring us. Is it because we still don't have the news section that Gaile asked for in her letter about our fansite status? Is it because of the GW Gold ads? Is it because we are not ArenaNet? Is it because the GWiki site managers are not exactly buzzing with activity trying to maintain a good relationship with ANet? I really wonder. -- 02:26, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * My biggest guess is they wouldn't know who to invite. Guildwiki has hundreds of contributors, which in a way also means guildwiki has hundreds of "staff members". Inviting the admins wouldn't necessarily mean those who have contributed the most gets to go. &mdash; Galil  22:14, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * My best guesses:
 * You'd have to ask Gravewit.
 * You'd have to ask Gaile/ANet.
 * If they wanted to invite people, three Admins (Barek, Karlos and myself) and more than a few users live in the area. --Rainith 22:28, 3 January 2007 (CST)


 * This would upset me, if I weren't already numb to the issue from the wiki being spurned so many times in the past already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 3 January 2007 (CST)

So...
What exactly is our faniste status currently?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)