GuildWiki:Community portal

Welcome to the community portal. This hosts recent clarifications, general discussion and so on.

Growing pains!
GuildWiki's in a unique place right now. There really hasn't been another wiki of its type that has been so huge, so successful, and so beloved by its community. Everyone really cares about it, and that has caused quite a bit of tension in the last few months.

Recently, Phil (Gravewit) and Michael (Nunix) added a little splash page to suggest that IE users switch to Firefox. They had their reasons for this, but that's not really the issue; the problem, as it turns out, was that they were still thinking the wiki was just this fansite, you know? It was huge and awesome and had so much content from so many users, but.. still just a site like any other. So modifying the server code to do this splash is no big deal, within their rights, and how could anyone possibly have a problem with this?

Wow!

The thing is, this isn't just a fansite, it's a wiki. It's open to everyone to add, subtract, and modify. That is its function! And suddenly adding this new thing, which only two people could change.. well, that, as it turns out, really is a big deal.

So!

There's still two guys, two server administrators, who've got access to all that code, to the hard drive. That's not going to change, and they maintain the right to do something like this in the future. However!


 * Phil and Michael realise that they have the ability to do anything they wish to the GuildWiki, but they choose to do only those things either:
 * 1) necessary for the maintenance of the GuildWiki, including its server and database, or
 * 2) put through some sort of community process before implementation.

We love this thing. It's huge. It's new. And there's no way it could have ever gotten here, to this place, without each and every reader and contributor. There are bound to be more growing pains as time goes on, but we hope everyone can stick with us - and each other! - to make it bigger and better. If you guys ever have any questions or issues you'd like to take up with us, please continue to do so. It's what keeps the GuildWiki the awesome resource it is. --Nunix 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to categorically disagree with the statement that you have the power to do anything to the wiki as you please and also to categoically disagree with your statement that only Michael and Phil are to ever be admins until they choose otherwise. Both statements are in and of themselves an abuse of power. If I joined this site knowing that one day you can turn it into a porn site or a Pizza Hut fansite, do you think I would have put in all the work and hours and effort that I did? I believe the same applies to every serious contributor who ever contributed a single letter to this wiki.
 * You need to drop the benefactor language, you need to recognize you are just another contributor who happens to be admin and you need to show good faith not by giving us your kind word that you will not wipe out the hard drive when you feel like it but by actually bringing in someone else to help admin the site for those days when Phil has ebola and Michael feels cranky as you put it.
 * I am not beating around the bush. Each time you have attempted to "solve" the issue you did two things: a) You made "concessions" instead of admitting "rights" and b) you tried to end any and all debate on the matter. I believe you, sir, have very poor leadership skills and as such this is why I have refused, and will continue to refuse to leave the wiki under your merci. You may be the best site admin in the universe, but you are extremely poor at communicating with us, addressing our needs and even recognizing our needs.
 * I would like to point your attention to your statement that you maintain the right to do another splash page in the future which is a recant of your earlier position. It is such childish abuse of power that I am opposing and fighting right now. We had your word that you would not do such things again and POOF now it's gone. Well, I do not want your word. I want you to be accountable just like everyone else in the process.
 * You are very correct that this wiki has grown into an amazing thing and it has done so because of your very good server administration as well as the contributions of hundreds if not thousands of people. Yet, this wiki was founded on an ideal, and that ideal is being challenged by you right now. When I signed on, I was never told that, nor perceived in anyone else's beliefs that Gravewit holds absolute power over the wiki to do with as he pleases. I perceived that Gravewit was chosen among the senior contributors to run that end of the wiki just like Tanaric was doing Case Crusades and Lord Biro was working on the BeastBox. Had I known that this was Gravewit's site and that I and my work would be subject to his whim, I would have taken it elsewhere. Because I know from first hand experience that an unaccountable supreme leader only leads to failure.
 * --Karlos 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, Karlos? I'm not sure you're reading this the same way I am.  Somebody has to have access to the server; that's just the way it is.  Nunix's statement above is a promise to never abuse that power.  Isn't that pretty much what you wanted? &mdash;Tanaric 02:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto Tanaric. They didn't say they have a "right" do to another splash page.  Nunix said the word "ability", and that is true in the objective sense.  Someone has to have access to server code.  Whoever does, will have the ability to put another splash page in.  Having a "right" to do it or not is a different matter. -PanSola


 * No, I am not sure I am reading that in those words:
 * "There's still two guys, two server administrators, who've got access to all that code, to the hard drive. That's not going to change, and they maintain the right to do something like this in the future ."
 * Unless I am misunderstanding the word "this," I believe he was referring to the splash screen mentioned in the previous paragraph.
 * In addition, I do want more than you want Tanaric. I do want there to be a process by which we hold them acccountable, especially the benefactor, Nunix, and do want there to be a process to add or remove site admins. I want there to be a process to add and remove wiki admins too. Why is it that each response from Nunix comes with the "ok, stop discussing this" request somewhere.
 * If this is about admitting that the person who has access to the server has the power to blow up the wiki in seconds. Sure, but that should be irrelevant. If we take regular backups and save more than one copy under different admins, we are safe even from that.
 * I am looking at the whole body of work and... There is mistrust now. I asked nicely, "why did you guys do that?" (something that Nunix seems to have forgotten), and was told off. Then in the apology to being told off I was told it was there till Tuesday no matter what people think. Then when I tried to discuss it on the blog I was told it was just a little thing and no need to make a fuss about it. And when I brought the discussion here I was labeled a traitor and assaulted before all other users.
 * Yes.. I no longer trust Mr.Nunix or his word. And yes, I no longer want him to be solely in charge of this site. But this is not about the specific Mr.Nunix. This is about defining the process and the system so that NO ONE is above or outside the system. If you go to Wikipedia and read about their managing bodies, they are well defined, they are elected and they are accountable. In general, it is good for the wiki to define these things. And I don't see how anyone can say "put a lid on it" or "no defining admin powers is bad." But moreover, since Mr.Nunix has exploded in my face on several occassions, regretted things he has said no more than 10 minutes later and overall showed a lack of interest in taking critcism seriously or dealing with it professionally, I do want others besides him in charge. I do seek more than you seek.
 * Now, if I am misreading the "this" part. Then great, this is a good first step. But I still want site admin powers and duties defined and I still wish to see other admins on board than Nunix and Gravewit and a better explanation than "no we don't need more admins" which has been offered by Nunix. --Karlos 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm satisfied with the above acknowledgement by Nunix; although I agree that with the growth of the community has come the need for proceedures. I do not see a need for additional site admins; but I would like to see more documentation on adding/removing content admins, policies on reconciling editing/format disputes, and more documentation on the scope (ie: we need a 'vision statement').  The comparisons to wikipedia are irrelevant.  This site, while large, does not compare in size to wikipedia and does not require elected managing bodies at this time. --Barek 02:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Karlos: I am sorry you were under the impression that the folk in charge of the server were somehow elected. It may be finally time to do a proper "Meet the Admin" article so readers know who's who in the roster. Phil has, from day one in his User:Gravewit page, been up-front about this, but it's not exactly in an obvious place if you don't already know who he is! So, to clarify: yes, from day one, the database could've been wiped and sold to a squatter. That possibility exists. Just as, as I said in the announcement, we could do a splash page again. That is just pure, straight honesty. Probability, however, is an entirely different thing; I covered that too. Neither of these things are going to change.
 * Also, as far as I know, your first comment was at http://guildwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#IE_Popup_on_main_page -- you did, in fact, not ask why, as far as I can tell. If there was an initial comment somewhere before that, can you show me? --Nunix 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing down our traditions and guidelines
I invite all to come contribute to Category:GuildWiki policy, with a good entry point being Guiding principles. This sorely needs to be done, but doing it all myself would eliminate the point. :) &mdash;Tanaric 17:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Were you aware of the existing Policies and guidelines page? --Rezyk 18:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, I wasn't. Sorry about that; didn't mean to step on your toes there!


 * That said, I prefer the style of mine better; I'd like to see the GuildWiki forming its own set of policies and standards, rather than detailing how we differ from Wikipedia. Your policies page is still very useful, especially were it moved to, say, Differences between the GuildWiki and Wikipedia.  Would that be an acceptable merger of this process for you? &mdash;Tanaric 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would really prefer not to do things that way, especially not for the process of initial construction/ratification. I think it will be easier and much safer for policy to take baby steps starting with a minimalist approach (and I have been pondering over the best way for 2 months while waiting for enough people to realize the need for this).  My strong suggestion is to keep things minimal and easily digestible at least until we can reach a consensus on what is a fair documentation of current policy/tradition/guidelines.  Then again, I might not be being fair to your style because I'm not quite sure exactly how it is supposed to work (for example, are we writing what reflects current policy, or what we think is good policy?).  --Rezyk 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops, never mind that last question.. I was getting confused by the "Only revert once" you added (I assumed it was like Wikipedia's Only revert once). --Rezyk 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How much more minimalist can I get? I only wrote seven articles.  That's *nothing* for me! ;)  More seriously, I agree with you on the baby steps bit.  That's why I wish to do it this way.  With your method, we slowly diverge from Wikipedia, adding in our own flair slowly as we go.  This would be great if we designed our inital policies around Wikipedias so long ago; the problem is... well, we didn't.  It started as Gravewit, Nunix, Lord Biro, as well as me and everyone else around last May started doing things in a standard way.  Hence our vastly different revert policy, as well as the much more pronounced role of admins around here.  We never attempted to incorporate Wikipedia policies into daily life here (we were initially most like the A Tale in the Desert wiki, which is the first wiki I've ever used, and since most everything I suggested became accepted here, well...).


 * You mentioned "ratification." Such a process is unnecessary, I think, since we already have well-known standards and traditions.  I'm just trying to write down what already exists.  There are plenty of things I think should change (especially item and skill capitalization), but what we've got has actually worked really well for the last 7 months.  My only desire is to express these traditions in a concrete way to new contributors to the site; we didn't have >200000 hits per day when this started, so such documentation wasn't necessary. :)


 * Please give a more expansive argument if you still disagree, as I may have misunderstood your first one. :) &mdash;Tanaric 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, there is also a discussion about admin policy starting at GuildWiki talk:Mission statement. --Rezyk 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Search
As you might've noticed, I've changed the Search function in the siderbar to use Google Search. There's a very good reason for this: Mediawiki's built-in search was just killing our server. Just changing the sidebar dropped server load by a substantial margin. You can still access normal search by going to Special: Search. Don't abuse it. Gravewit 14:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that, spent 10 minutes searching my computer to see if it was a setting in my browser that was doing that (since I have the google toolbar & deskbar). The only problem I see is that that Google seems to find articles that no longer exist. For example Kyla doesn't exist but if you search for it it comes up as a page. Weirdness. --William Blackstaff 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Task List
See the Task List for a list of current GuildWiki tasks to help with (or add to the list to ask for help).

New Contributors
With the recent influx of contributors, there has been an issue with 3 or more sequential edits (see Signet of Capture history) changing only a few characters. At the very least, it would be nice for a "This is a minor edit" to be checked, and even better, "Show preview" (which even I forget a bit). Is there any obvious way to notify the newcomers to do this? - Lunarbunny 02:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably not =D. --William Blackstaff 02:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As of 10/30 There has been a few changes to the Article "How to form a Guild" as of recent updates have restricted this action within Pre-Searing Ascalon City-Guest Edit: Guild Capes are no longer made in Pre-Ascalon

Issues for Debate
How categories are handled, at Category_talk:Categories, as well as proposals for new skill categorisations at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills.

The "New" skill template: Looks the same, but changes the way it's coded at Template_Talk:Skill_New.

Last but not least, right here is the debate over whether this new page makes any sense. I'm going for a mostly informal style: This is, after all, a "Community" page for a relatively small community. Personal pronouns are the norm, first person is the view to take.

I was hoping somone would post an article on the various slang used in guild wars such as "LFG", "KD/AS", "Battery" etc


 * See Category:Slang & Terminology. ;) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 23:16, 12 Sep 2005 (EST)

Quick page &amp; category links
On Wikipedia's main page there are some small links, linking to new pages and categories (see Wikipedia:Template:Newpagelinksmain), I find this useful; could we have a similar thing here? I converted it to GuildWiki flavour URLs here User:Skuld/new-links-testtpl --Skuld &Dagger; 19:00, 17 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I would like to see an overhaul of the Main Page completely. The page as it is at the moment does not really look very appealing, and overall seems a bit cluttered. If you look at wikipedia the main page is very clear and concise. 06:20, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I've made the change, but since this topic relates to the Main Page directly it should be discussed on Talk:Main Page :) 06:39, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * great =D ok. thanks for the tip --Skuld &Dagger; 06:53, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)

Questions
If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page, head over to User Questions and add it.