DoomWiki.org is now open!

[Sigvatr]

Did you know that John Romero built the level Perfect Hatred in six hours?

[Tetzlaff]

Can I become an authorised user?

[Manc]

Sigvatr said:

Did you know that John Romero built the level Perfect Hatred in six hours?

Yes we need the random trivia to be more... random...

[Xeriphas1994]

Tetzlaff said:

Can I become an authorised user?

Creating an account "authorizes" you for most things.  What are you trying to do that the site won't let you do?

[Tetzlaff]

Xeriphas1994 said:

What are you trying to do that the site won't let you do?

It requires a review of my changes by someone else (for example at the article about the BFG9000).

[hervoheebo]

Well it's good to see that the forking is taken seriously. It's better to have everyone use and edit the new wiki only, editors and new content being split between both sites is a waste of time.

[Xeriphas1994]

Tetzlaff said:

It requires a review of my changes by someone else (for example at the article about the BFG9000).

Oh right, I knew that.  Unfortunately we haven't gotten around to discussing the qualifications yet.  Which should happen on the wiki, not here.

I think any logged-in user can set their preferences to view unreviewed changes.  In the meantime though, since Manc focused on adjusting the extensions that were causing bugs, the default is for everyone to be non-authorized (even admins had to be added to the list by hand).

[Tetzlaff]

I think for a relatively small community wiki it's better when registered users are automatically authorised. Better for the activity and motivation, since there aren't as many active users as on Wikipedia.

[Xeriphas1994]

Tetzlaff said:

I think for a relatively small community wiki it's better when registered users are automatically authorised. Better for the activity and motivation, since there aren't as many active users as on Wikipedia.

That's a laudable position but the evidence simply does not support it.  I myself have probably reverted 500+ malicious edits by registered users.  I'm sure other "power users" have done similarly.

I agree that prompt reviewing would help with motivation.  Someone would have to check the backlog periodically.  But honestly, 20 edits in one day from non-"power users" is a very busy day on the Doom Wiki.  Once we have an actual procedure for assigning reviewer rights, I think we'll be able to keep up.  Visible vandalism will drop to almost zero!

[Xaser]

Are you suggesting that every edit needs a review, though? That sounds like it would get very tedious after a while. Will established users eventually gain the ability to post without requiring review? If not, I'm not sure the number of willing reviewers would be able to keep up with all the changes.

[Technician]

With some of the lame-ass trolling attempts we've seen on this obscure forum these last couple of month, I'm not surprised they are monitoring every edit.

[fraggle]

hervoheebo said:

Well it's good to see that the forking is taken seriously. It's better to have everyone use and edit the new wiki only, editors and new content being split between both sites is a waste of time.

I think Wikia succeeded in pissing off pretty much everyone. When the question came up, the decision to move was pretty much unanimous.

[Xeriphas1994]

Xaser said:

Will established users eventually gain the ability to post without requiring review?

Speaking only for myself, I think that's reasonable.  Say, every user with at least 500 edits and no temporary bans.

[Quasar]

Technician said:

With some of the lame-ass trolling attempts we've seen on this obscure forum these last couple of month, I'm not surprised they are monitoring every edit.

I'm not sure if we're making an honest effort to monitor every single edit; however, what this was really meant to be is a tool, like many others, to help moderators and users. For example, when people do use the feature, then I can see their ratings of the edit in my Recent Changes. If for example Fredrik signed off on an edit saying it was awesome, I might skip over checking it myself. Sometimes on the old wiki I'd spend a few hours on an evening of boredom just patrolling edits from the last couple of weeks and cleaning up anything I found that was an issue.

Revision reviews cut down the amount of effort involved in maintaining a level of quality, if they're used sufficiently, and that's the main benefit I think we stand to gain from them.

[tempun]

Xeriphas1994 said:

I myself have probably reverted 500+ malicious edits by registered users. 

And how many of those edits were by users registered more than 4 days before and having more than 10 edits already (the threshold that Wikipedia uses for autoconfirmation)?

Xeriphas1994 said:

Speaking only for myself, I think that's reasonable.  Say, every user with at least 500 edits and no temporary bans.

Far too high to be useful. How many users have that many?

[tempun]

Quasar said:

Revision reviews cut down the amount of effort involved in maintaining a level of quality

...as well as the amount of new users willing to edit. If you think that the wiki is mostly complete, that's probably fine.

[Xeriphas1994]

I admit I wasn't a big fan of this extension either, at first, but after seeing the current condition of a lot of articles during Gez's trial run, I'm beginning to be convinced.  Yes, that means well-behaved editors like yourself have to do extra work.  If you have a better idea for preventing situations like this (user made over 200 edits of dubious factual accuracy, most of which went unnoticed for months), please share.

tempun said:

Far too high to be useful. How many users have that many?

Obviously the actual number can be adjusted.  But consider the many, many users who create an account only to write one or two articles, harangue everyone who questions their significance, and decorate a user page.  This can drag on for 50+ edits sometimes.  I think 150 would be an absolute minimum.

Wikipedia's custom is not really relevant since they have much stricter behavioral policies and big press gangs to enforce them, as well as 8 years of developing automated maintenance tools.  They can be more lenient with newbies as it is much easier to spot an issue.  (Even so, a lot of Wikipedia editors think the status quo is far too lax, and a system similar to this has been proposed several times.)  On the Doom Wiki, I've run across garbage edits that have lasted 2 or 3 years.

If you think that the wiki is mostly complete

I think the issue is simply that it's getting too big.  The number of people who edit regularly week after week has always been tiny (wait for the excitement to ease off after the fork), and actually doing maintenance is even rarer — it feels like work of course.  So it's not feasible to just divide up the topic areas and assign watchlists.  We need some technical means to keep the ever-growing content under control.

[tempun]

Xeriphas1994 said:

I admit I wasn't a big fan of this extension either, at first, but after seeing the current condition of a lot of articles during Gez's trial run, I'm beginning to be convinced.  Yes, that means well-behaved editors like yourself have to do extra work. 

Work? I thought they can only wait. On a side note, if it would be necessary to wait for weeks for approval, probably a lot of people would go back to old wiki

Xeriphas1994 said:

But consider the many, many users who create an account only to write one or two articles, harangue everyone who questions their significance, and decorate a user page.  This can drag on for 50+ edits sometimes.

Or 150 or 1000 or 10000. First improvement would make edit to User: and all talk namespaces not count. Or maybe, for instance, 30 reviewed edits or something

Xeriphas1994 said:

Wikipedia's custom is not really relevant since they have much stricter behavioral policies and big press gangs to enforce them, as well as 8 years of developing automated maintenance tools.  They can be more lenient with newbies as it is much easier to spot an issue. 

Can you elaborate on this? Most of their tools should be generally available

Xeriphas1994 said:

I think the issue is simply that it's getting too big.  The number of people who edit regularly week after week has always been tiny (wait for the excitement to ease off after the fork), and actually doing maintenance is even rarer — it feels like work of course.  So it's not feasible to just divide up the topic areas and assign watchlists.  We need some technical means to keep the ever-growing content under control.

Are you sure that there's enough reviewers, then?

[Quasar]

I am a little bit confused as to what the contention is over here.

Are your edits appearing automatically, and this is just offense taken over the fact that the edit says it's not reviewed? If so I am hesitant to take that very seriously as it seems like the splitting of hairs to me. Who really cares that much about a word at the top of a page that it becomes an issue bad enough to leave the wiki over?

But if you have edits that are not showing up, we need to do something about this situation. I never intended this to become a form of edit blocking. It may be possible to tweak the configuration of the system to make it significantly less objectionable.

And no the system is not being used sufficiently. All of the admins have access to it but so far I seem to be the only one that has actually used it, at all. We either MUST extend the privilege to more people, OR start using it consistently, OR relax the restrictions it may be imposing. Doing none is not an option.

[Dragonsbrethren]

I just checked out the wiki without being logged in and my edits show fine. The page just says it's a draft; the content is there.

[tempun]

Quasar said:

But if you have edits that are not showing up, we need to do something about this situation. I never intended this to become a form of edit blocking.

As I understand, if the page has a stable revision, then all unregistered users will see the latest stable revision (with a link labeled "draft" atop the page which allows to see the latest "draft" revision). Registered users have an option to show "draft" versions by default, although I'm not sure what is the default setting for this option itself. As I understand, the list of affected pages is at Special:OldReviewedPages and it's currently only 8 pages, but that's only because few pages have stable revisions, AFAIK.

[Nuxius]

Quasar said:

Things to Note:

• If you need to access your existing account, let me know immediately. Your email address has to be entered into the database manually before you'll be able to set a password.
  

I have a gmail account using my forum name. :)
(oh, and my name on the wiki is the same one I'm using here as well ;) )

Anyway, glad to see this up and running! Now I can actually start contributing again. (I didn't want to bother with Wikia anymore)

[DooMAD]

Although we should leave wikia alone, there's no reason why we shouldn't be updating the links on Wikipedia (although not the talk pages, obviously).

[E.J.]

Is it just me, or are more people still editing the old wikia site?

[GreyGhost]

Don't know, how many aliases are you editing under? ;-)

[Gez]

Yeah, but since there no longer are admins to do quality checking, the edits that it's getting are retarded crap. :p

doom.wikia.com/index.php?title=Weapon&curid=223&diff=75231&oldid=72898