Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Beyond Awesome on September 28, 2017, 05:33:44 pm
-
Hello Community,
I wanted to get everyone's input on something. I will be simple and to the point. Do you feel that strategy articles should be left off the wiki altogether, and instead linked backed to the articles on the blog? Or, should the wiki have strategy articles? I know some people feel that the wiki should not have that sort of content, but others feel different. I just want to keep everyone's input. Thanks. One argument to not have strategy content on the wiki is that strategy is not objective, and wikis tend to be objective.
-
I support the idea of linking to the articles. Having non-objective content on a wiki leads to editing shitstorms.
-
Wiki's aren't really "objective" in the sense that view they present is a verifiable fact. Wiki's go for NPOV:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
I would say it's fine to link or try and follow NPOV by phrasing strategy in terms such as "is widely considered" which are closer to the "objectively true" region of statements. But if Strategy isn't a necessary aspect of the wiki in the first place linking is fine.
-
Keep in mind it is the Dominion Strategy wiki.
-
Also, a Wiki is just a technology base for collaborative editing. It's the "-pedia" bit of "Wikipedia" that means it has to be objective and adopt a neutral point of view.
While it's clearly a good thing to have some objective data about the cards, it's also fine to have a consensus in favour of including opinion in the Wiki.
-
I would say it's fine to link or try and follow NPOV by phrasing strategy in terms such as "is widely considered" which are closer to the "objectively true" region of statements.
I believe wikieditors call that "weasel speak", i.e., statements that are hard to disprove (cf. falsifiability)
-
I would say it's fine to link or try and follow NPOV by phrasing strategy in terms such as "is widely considered" which are closer to the "objectively true" region of statements.
I believe wikieditors call that "weasel speak", i.e., statements that are hard to disprove (cf. falsifiability)
I don't think that's true in the context of measuring the value of things. "Considered one of the greatest (album, novel, movie) of all time" seems to be a common phrase
-
Definitely include strategy on the wiki.
Imagine a wiki.chessstrategy.com that only describes the history of chess and the movement of its pieces. Even Wikipedia, which the last time I checked did not focus exclusively on chess strategy, contains plenty of entries about chess openings and their merits.
-
I think the problem comes from having outdated strategies on the wiki, which can be seen as bad advice for new players. I think the solution is not to remove strategy advice, but to make sure it stays up to date.
So if you see out of date or incorrect advice on the wiki, feel free to edit it or to write a new article.
-
...if you see... ...incorrect advice on the wiki... edit it
Correctness is subjective. If everyone does this, it
leads to editing shitstorms.
-
Outdated strategies are a problem, but I think the main problem is certainly that if there's something on the wiki that someone can disagree with, they can change it, and then someone who agreed with what was originally on the wiki can change it back, etc. and that's not a lot of good times for anyone involved. If the wiki has statements like "according to Dan Brooks's article from 2017, Mandarin/Capital picks up around 50-60 VP and empties the Province pile around turn 12-13 with a few Mandarins left in supply in a non-mirror", you can't disagree with that because that's what the article says, even if you think that there's some better way to play the combo that actually empties the Provinces in just 9 turns or something.
-
I support the idea of linking to the articles. Having non-objective content on a wiki leads to editing shitstorms.
I would like to see evidence of this--i.e. an example of it ever happening even once--before we let that guide the standards of the wiki.
There's plenty of decent strategy advice on the wiki that does not appear anywhere else. For instance, articles on each expansion come with a section (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hinterlands#Impact_of_Hinterlands) discussing the impact of the expansion. That is useful information and I have never seen people even attempt such articles on the blog. You can also click (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Jester#Strategy_Article) around (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Handsize_attack) to random (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Pirate_Ship#Strategy_Article) articles (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Diadem#Strategy_Article), and find lots more. I do not agree with throwing out all of that.
-
I would like to see evidence of this--i.e. an example of it ever happening even once--before we let that guide the standards of the wiki.
I don't know of an example from the Dominion wiki, but here's an example from the Puella Magi Madoka Magica wiki. If it happens there, it can happen here.
http://wiki.puella-magi.net/Talk:Homura_Akemi#What.27s_going_on_with_the_edit_wars.3F.21
As a result, editing that page had to be disabled from users without special privileges.
-
I like it that the article's are integrated in the wiki, if i want to learn more about a card i just have to search once on the wiki. Linking to the articles would have almost the same result, i personally just don't like it that all of a sudden i'm on another site, but that's just me. Then again, maybe linking to the articles would make me force reading more on the strategy blog, and maybe that's a plus.
For the arguments that the articles can't be objective, and can come outdated because of new expansions, i would simply add a disclaimer that this can happen.
-
We have very few people editing the wiki. I doubt there are eminent issues with edit wars, but I think this is primarily because people who disagree with things on the wiki don't care about the wiki.
For example, if "someone" decided their Loan strategy advice should definitely be on the wiki, and insisted on editing it in, would it potentially cause an edit war? Or take any strategy disagreement you can find in ample supply on this forum and consider if both sides had active investment in the wiki, what happens?
We are fine. Nothing needs to change, but in theory I don't personally agree with it.
If there are valuable (subjective) things on the wiki that aren't anywhere else, I'd consider that an argument for posting those things on the blog, not for keeping them where they are.
-
please leave strategy on the wiki.
wikis are so much less intimidating than forums.
to someone that knows zero strategy, the wiki level of strategy still will get them thinking in new directions, even if it is a bit out of date.
-
I would like to see evidence of this--i.e. an example of it ever happening even once--before we let that guide the standards of the wiki.
I don't know of an example from the Dominion wiki, but here's an example from the Puella Magi Madoka Magica wiki. If it happens there, it can happen here.
http://wiki.puella-magi.net/Talk:Homura_Akemi#What.27s_going_on_with_the_edit_wars.3F.21
As a result, editing that page had to be disabled from users without special privileges.
Yea, but Homura objectively did everything wrong, and those that disagree are factually false.
both /s and offtopic
-
please leave strategy on the wiki.
wikis are so much less intimidating than forums.
to someone that knows zero strategy, the wiki level of strategy still will get them thinking in new directions, even if it is a bit out of date.
This.
At least once I have played Hermit/Market Square in an online game, and read the wiki article while playing. Having all the information compiled into one place is much easier than reading an article on the Forum and all its replies.
-
At least once I have played Hermit/Market Square in an online game, and read the wiki article while playing. Having all the information compiled into one place is much easier than reading an article on the Forum and all its replies.
I hope this was against Lord Rattington, not a human opponent! Though Lord Rattington does not need any further handicaps.
-
At least once I have played Hermit/Market Square in an online game, and read the wiki article while playing. Having all the information compiled into one place is much easier than reading an article on the Forum and all its replies.
I hope this was against Lord Rattington, not a human opponent! Though Lord Rattington does not need any further handicaps.
This was against a human. While it was probably not the most optimal decision, I thought attempting the combo would be a good learning experience.
-
At least once I have played Hermit/Market Square in an online game, and read the wiki article while playing. Having all the information compiled into one place is much easier than reading an article on the Forum and all its replies.
I hope this was against Lord Rattington, not a human opponent! Though Lord Rattington does not need any further handicaps.
This was against a human. While it was probably not the most optimal decision, I thought attempting the combo would be a good learning experience.
I think JW was worried your actions would not be considered fair play. I also think there is a non-zero chance this topic is going to derail into an argument between the people that think it is ok and the people that think it isn't.
I will take your bets now.
-
Obviously reading a strategy article on the wiki during an online game is cheating! That's why the strategy articles should be on the blog, so I can read them there during games instead, with a clear conscience.