GuildWiki talk:Mainstream Builds Only

I don't agree with that concept one bit. That counter-acts the whole concept of the wiki in my opinion. This is a place for people to share and pool knowledge, not just a place to throw stagnant information that everyone already knows. — Jyro X (contribs) 11:48, 18 October 2006 (CDT)


 * You could also argue that wikis in general are geared towards quantifiable and confirmable data, and that builds are too subjective - in which case, this article would be accurate.
 * However, as much as I would love to purge the wiki of builds (as I personally agree with this article's point), I have to admit that this article seems to go contrary to the current practices of the wiki. While it may be an avenue for discussion, I think this article itself could be deleted and conversations on this moved to the talk page for the community portal, or some build-article related talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:53, 18 October 2006 (CDT)


 * The builds section is quite useful and is becoming more and more popular among players. Two months ago, no one ever cited the wiki when referring others to a build on alliance chat or guild chat or in towns. Now you see it often. This means it is useful and people are cool with it. However, we must lessen the overhead of managing the section. As it stands now, there is too much overhead and noise involved in submitting and vetting a build. It's like a kindergarten. The definition of Mainstream in and of itself is a subjective one.
 * I would love to see us develop policies though. Something written that describes what we are looking for and what are absolutely not looking for. Build authors can't guess our rules. --Karlos 12:00, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Good point, the term mainstream would need to be more clearly defined. Perhaps my interpretation is more restrictive than what's intended here.
 * There have been multiple attempts to define policies - and several have shown some degree of promise; but multiple competing policies all submitted at once have resulted in debates over which one is better - preventing concensus and causing the policy building process to stagnate. I still feel that wiki environments are a poor choice for maintaining a build library, and that we should partner with an alternate forum or database site.  But, I'm not interrested in putting the effort to build such a site myself, and no one else seems to be either; so ...
 * If we're going to try implementing policies to force-fit practices to make builds viable long-term, I'm thinking that reaching a concensus is not likely (although Xeeron seems to be getting closer to pulling it off than anyone previously) - not sure what our best options are if that fails though. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:23, 18 October 2006 (CDT)