🔒 Locked

GameDev.net Wiki

Started by Oluseyi Feb 13, 2004 at 1:23 PM 61 replies 15.1k views

Original Post

Feb 13, 2004 at 1:23 PM

I originally suggested replacing General Programming with a Wiki in October of 2002. Based on a slew of recent comments in various forums (You''re gonna need a bigger FAQ, many of the suggestions in this forum) I''d like to propose to the community that we expand the Wiki to cover essentially all of GameDev.net. The moderators have discussed the idea and reception is favorable, but some specifics of the implementation details remain to be worked out. I want to present the idea to the community at large and gather feedback on how to go about it. For the uninitiated, a Wiki is "the simplest online database that could possibly work."

quote:
Wiki is a piece of server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser. Wiki supports hyperlinks and has a simple text syntax for creating new pages and crosslinks between internal pages on the fly. Wiki is unusual among group communication mechanisms in that it allows the organization of contributions to be edited in addition to the content itself. Like many simple concepts, "open editing" has some profound and subtle effects on Wiki usage. Allowing everyday users to create and edit any page in a Web site is exciting in that it encourages democratic use of the Web and promotes content composition by nontechnical users.

Please see Wiki: What Is Wiki and Wiki Wiki Web Faq for more details, and for answers to questions on security and abuse. Examples of Wikis include Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia and the Portland Pattern Repository. Everything2 is also very similar in concept. GameDev.net is a huge repository of knowledge in the form of its members and their posts over the years, but that knowledge is dispersed throughout the site and in people who aren''t necessarily available all the time. Creating a Wiki would allow us to synthesize much of that knowledge into a single hyperlinked and cross-referenced, searchable database accessible to visitors at all times. Pages could be translated, providing this material in several languages. Content paths (like the Java Tutorial) could be created that gave overviews, detailed explanations or exhaustive analyses of various subjects. That''s the justification. Wiki software is readily available, implemented in a variety of languages, so technical implementation is a minor detail. To an extent I favor integrating with Wikipedia, but at the same time I support maintaining and adding value to the GDNet brand identity. Questions of copyrights and patents arise, though; generally, individuals retain the rights to their contributions, but give GameDev unrestricted license to publish said contributions. There were a few misgivings about competitors co-opting the technology/material and then trying to muscle GDNet out of the game. I''m still not clear on the dangers. What are your thoughts? What would you like to see? Thanks.

clum

Feb 13, 2004 at 1:30 PM

From my experience, Wiki''s tend to get a bit unorganized. However, if its planned well, with, perhaps, a few good opening pages designed by the staff/moderators, it could succeed.

The official zorx website

evolutional

Feb 13, 2004 at 1:47 PM

In theory, yes, it''s a good idea. The practice could be somewhat different.

Often in graphics or game programming people have wildly different implementations and theories of how to do things which could result in a conflict of interest / knowledge within the wiki. Provided it is well managed and maintained, the wiki idea would work well in the Gamedev environment, especially in scenarios where there is a recognised and definitive answer. There''s also the possibility of people abusing the wiki, acting like idiots if they get trashed in the forums - I assume that is where good, consistent moderation comes into play.

Why not set one up for one of the medium popularity forums and give it a try?

Oluseyi

Feb 13, 2004 at 1:52 PM

quote:
Original post by downgraded
In theory, yes, it''s a good idea. The practice could be somewhat different.

Often in graphics or game programming people have wildly different implementations and theories of how to do things which could result in a conflict of interest / knowledge within the wiki.

The Wiki doesn''t have to ordain any one solution as the "right" way. It can provide several suggestions side-by-side.

quote:
There''s also the possibility of people abusing the wiki, acting like idiots if they get trashed in the forums - I assume that is where good, consistent moderation comes into play.

Also intelligent software. Comments by people would be temporal - labelled as "suggestions" or "pending acceptance" - until approved by a site admin. That way anybody can contribute/edit, but only approved content makes it in.

quote:
Why not set one up for one of the medium popularity forums and give it a try?

I think I''ll do that. I have some webspace lying fallow...

Thanks for the suggestions. More!

Alpha_ProgDes

Feb 13, 2004 at 1:53 PM

honestly it sounds like the site would turn into a big mess.
unless you are saying that tutorials and implementations of code mentioned in a forum would get their own code Wiki?

[edited by - Alpha_ProgDes on February 13, 2004 3:03:54 PM]

stimarco

Feb 13, 2004 at 1:59 PM

I'm not convinced. I can't see it doing any harm, but it looks like a lot of effort for not much effect.

If nobody's reading the FAQs--hell, many don't even know they exist--then I can't see why reorganising their production would help. The problem isn't that the FAQs suck. Some are outdated, sure, but even a Wiki requires that *someone* write the content; it won't fill itself in for us. If people aren't interested in writing FAQs, why would they write a Wiki entry?

The problem, I believe, is that damned few people even realise the FAQs exist. In fact, the GameDev.Net homepage makes absolutely no reference to FAQs whatsoever. The "For Beginners" link isn't exactly prominent and it's not going to 'connect' mentally with newbies who, presumably, will be expecting a more obvious "Here are the FAQs!" link. (A surprising number of current visitors to GameDev.Net do not speak English as a first language, but the term 'FAQ' is known even in countries like Italy.)

Personally, I feel the best thing to do at this stage is to give the FAQs much more prominence during the user registration phase, with Anonymous Posters banned entirely to ~~prevent~~ reduce dumb posts.

I seriously think a redesign of the content navbar is in order. Some of the links appear to point at dead bits of the site. ("GD Showcase" hasn't been updated since December 2002.) Other links seem to be in the wrong places too. Surely the Articles should be listed under the "Features" heading and the Newsletter under "Community"? I can't help feeling that style has beaten the shit out of content.

Ultimately, if people aren't seeing the FAQs, changing the FAQs themselves isn't the answer. We need to attack the root cause.

Regards,

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley

[edited by - stimarco on February 13, 2004 3:01:38 PM]

evolutional

Feb 13, 2004 at 2:05 PM

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
The Wiki doesn''t have to ordain any one solution as the "right" way. It can provide several suggestions side-by-side.

True. What I was getting at was that these side-by-side suggestions could possibly conflict, confusing the inexperienced people that will be reading them. Of course, the best part of the wiki concept is being able to separate pages out by key words, informing the users of these sort of ''debates'', but providing the links to the wikis that contain them.

I think a sandbox version would be good for people to grasp the concept, I''m implementing a basic one soon for our intranet at work - but the userbase is only going to be 15 or so people, a far cry from the many thousand on Gamedev.

The other thing I think is important is the fact that people will probably be frightened of posting, maybe not some, the recognisable faces on the site, but some people who have ideas but get fired out for voicing them. I''d be interested to see the impact on the community, if it would remove some of the elitism that is around or whether it''d increase it - people could feel downhearted should their comments be regarded as poor and deleted from the wiki

Oluseyi

Feb 13, 2004 at 2:08 PM

Good points, stimarco.

One thing that I''d like to see with the Wiki is for it to actually replace the forums, for the most part. A top-level contents would be the initial presentation, with prominent links to "About this site..." and "FAQs" (mostly operational), along with a search entry form. Search will generally turn up a useful result, and in the case that it doesn''t the visitor will be prompted to add a question (with an option to be notified of its answer via email).

Registered users would see outstanding collections of questions in addition to top-level content, so they can jump straight to those (which are effectively the discussion threads we have now) and make their contributions. These can then be synthesized and added to the Wiki. Because a lot of the core material would be already covered, there''d be less "junk". We''d probably have to keep the Lounge, though, because it doesn''t translate well to either a Wiki or IRC.

In addition, each page of the Wiki would have links to "Related Content" and "Viewers who read this page also read..." sections.

Comments?

Oluseyi

Feb 13, 2004 at 2:11 PM

quote:
Original post by downgraded
True. What I was getting at was that these side-by-side suggestions could possibly conflict, confusing the inexperienced people that will be reading them. Of course, the best part of the wiki concept is being able to separate pages out by key words, informing the users of these sort of ''debates'', but providing the links to the wikis that contain them.

Exactly.

quote:
The other thing I think is important is the fact that people will probably be frightened of posting, maybe not some, the recognisable faces on the site, but some people who have ideas but get fired out for voicing them. I''d be interested to see the impact on the community, if it would remove some of the elitism that is around or whether it''d increase it - people could feel downhearted should their comments be regarded as poor and deleted from the wiki

This is interesting. I think that the discussion thread informing an editorial addition to the Wiki should be "frozen", so all contributions are maintained, and the editors extract from that a collection of opinions. In some instances a certain person''s post will comprise the bulk, but in most cases people will be able to see their own suggestions reflected.

ch1pz

Feb 13, 2004 at 2:15 PM

If it''s made as another section in additon to the forums and articles section, or perhaps even integrating the articles, I think it could achieve the number of people needed to maintain it. The thing about wikis is that you need enough sensible people around to counter anything stupid that people do, perhaps coupled with the forum registration system. I think it''d be successful, most problems can be rectified if you have the normal page history to restore from and the ability to properly bar troublemakers.

It all really depends on if it can attain critical mass in terms of popularity, and that would require the site concentrating on it quite specifically, not just some super FAQ.

stimarco

Feb 13, 2004 at 2:27 PM

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
One thing that I''d like to see with the Wiki is for it to actually replace the forums, for the most part.

It might be a better fit for some of the fora, but I can see it having problems with sections like Nehe''s tutorials. I''ll admit I''m not experienced with Wiki sites, but those I have seen seem more geared towards one-way article posts rather than the forum-style give-and-take needed for a virtual classroom environment. I''m willing to sit corrected if someone proves me wrong though.

quote:

A top-level contents would be the initial presentation, with prominent links to "About this site..." and "FAQs" (mostly operational), along with a search entry form. Search will generally turn up a useful result, and in the case that it doesn''t the visitor will be prompted to add a question (with an option to be notified of its answer via email).

Any chance of a screenshot or two of this new layout? It would avoid unnecessary debate. In the meantime, I''ll give you all the benefit of the doubt.

I am curious as to how the existing forums would be translated into Wiki format. Presumably the old forum database will be placed into an archive and the Wiki would be starting from scratch. Or is there software in place to help populate the new Wiki database?

(I agree with you on the Lounge though. Don''t kill it! It''s part of the character of the site and it does at least break the stereotype that developers are geeks who are utterly obsessed with games, code and maths. And nothing else.)

quote:

In addition, each page of the Wiki would have links to "Related Content" and "Viewers who read this page also read..." sections.

Comments?

That could be very useful.

One other thought occurs: IT is a nascent field which moves rapidly. I can see articles describing ''ideal'' hardware and software specs for development computers getting out of date fast.

I would suggest a facility to flag a posting as "obsolete". Either that, or give each posting a default ''Check-By'' date so that someone is told to give it a once-over every now and then. (Expiry of this date could trigger an email to the original poster in the first instance. If nothing happens, or the email bounces, then an admin or moderator could be informed instead.)

Regards,

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley

clum

Feb 13, 2004 at 3:18 PM

I seriously doubt that a Wiki could replace the forums. It may be used to accomplish much the same, but there are some things which don''t work in a forum. The lounge has already been mentioned. A huge percentage of the posts (especially in Your Announcements) are one time-only posts.

The official zorx website

Oluseyi

Feb 13, 2004 at 6:02 PM

quote:
Original post by stimarco
It might be a better fit for some of the fora, but I can see it having problems with sections like Nehe''s tutorials.

quote:
Original post by clum
I seriously doubt that a Wiki could replace the forums.

I believe I said "largely replace."

It doesn''t work for the Lounge. It doesn''t work for Your Announcements. It doesn''t work for Help Wanted. NeHe... I''m not so sure. I don''t visit that site very often, but from what I''ve seen of its forums it''s not that much different from General Programming or OpenGL. Most of the explanation that goes on there is repetitive; open-ended discussion could still be carried out that way, though.

I''m not in a position to make decisions on this, in any case. I''m merely speculating about what I''d like to see.

quote:
Any chance of a screenshot or two of this new layout? It would avoid unnecessary debate. In the meantime, I''ll give you all the benefit of the doubt.

I''ll try to whip up a mock-up in a bit. Just got a new wireless router, so configuring... Plus my roommate got laid off.

quote:
I am curious as to how the existing forums would be translated into Wiki format. Presumably the old forum database will be placed into an archive and the Wiki would be starting from scratch. Or is there software in place to help populate the new Wiki database?

There''s currently nothing in place. It would have to be a dedicated project in which a set of individuals combed through GDNet''s forum archives, extracting and enhancing explanations, definitions and so forth. If there were consensus around this idea today, I don''t see the Wiki going live for another several months.

quote:
(I agree with you on the Lounge though. Don''t kill it! It''s part of the character of the site and it does at least break the stereotype that developers are geeks who are utterly obsessed with games, code and maths. And nothing else.)

I agree. And with people being able to find the material they need more quickly thanks to a Wiki, they may actually stop by the Lounge more often - raising the level of debate in the process.

quote:
One other thought occurs: IT is a nascent field which moves rapidly. I can see articles describing ''ideal'' hardware and software specs for development computers getting out of date fast.

I would suggest a facility to flag a posting as "obsolete". Either that, or give each posting a default ''Check-By'' date so that someone is told to give it a once-over every now and then. (Expiry of this date could trigger an email to the original poster in the first instance. If nothing happens, or the email bounces, then an admin or moderator could be informed instead.)

Good ideas. I think that certain subjects do not make for good articles: "What''s the latest/greatest <piece of hardware X/Y/Z>?" These are conversational rather than definitive subjects, so there''s no point trying to establish canonical answers for/to them.

Thanks for the ideas guys.

intransigent-seal

Feb 13, 2004 at 7:32 PM

As in the style of wikis (ie, cross-linking everything), here is another wiki suggestion thread.

The Lounge: GameDev Wiki

(it was easier for me to find this than write up my thoughts again

)

John B

[edited by - JohnBSmall on February 13, 2004 8:33:24 PM]

justo

Feb 13, 2004 at 8:01 PM

i think this is an incredibly great idea. as you said, there is a huge amount of information that has been amassed over the years in the forums, but it is so dispersed that it becomes very hard to track it all down.

for doubters, check out the wikipedia. its great. combining the incremental, iterative nature of forums with an encyclopedia like format is very powerful, to the point that i think that a GDNet wiki could rival most graphics books in a year or two.

think about it...many very knowledgeable contributers to the forums never write an article because of the amount of work it takes to write and edit the entire thing...especially with this nitpicky crowd. instead, these same knowledgeable people that come on here and post every once in a while look through and add a few paragraphs here and there about their favorite algorithms...with time, and especially with our competitive nature (dueling graphics methods create more content, not confusion) this builds up to a great resource.

i really dont mean any disrespect, but i find that anyone that has questions about a wiki''s effectiveness has never tried one out before.

intransigent-seal

Feb 13, 2004 at 9:00 PM

quote:
Original post by justo
i really dont mean any disrespect, but i find that anyone that has questions about a wiki''s effectiveness has never tried one out before.

Wikis are very powerful, but you cannot say that they do not have their problems, even when used in the domain that they work best in.

Pages can easily become unfocused and rambling. In fact, the entire wiki easily becomes unfocused and rambling, producing a complex web of pages with no hierarchy to support it, and leaving a text search as the only feasible option for finding information (and although this is adequate for many things, it is not ideal for all).
Information can get split up or duplicated over multiple pages, because someone may create a new page, without realising that there is an existing one that covers the topic.

However, all of these problems apply equally to forums, which have other problems of their own. Wikis are far better than forums for mid to long term storage and retrieval of information. Perhaps the more interesting and useful question is: Is there something better than a wiki (that would be appropriate in the same, or at least similar, situations)?

John B

seanw

Feb 13, 2004 at 9:09 PM

I think the main problem is that beginners register to the site and immediately post a question that gets asked all the time. You need to promote the FAQ much more and be stricter about the questions you can ask here.

For example, I used to frequent comp.lang.c++. If you read a few of the threads, pretty much the first reply to certain threads are that the question is in the FAQ, followed by a link to it, then _nobody_ else replies. You just see thread after thread of one post replies pointing to the FAQ. Before I ever posted anything, I would check the FAQ because it was so apparent you would simply be told to go and look for it was answer there. Their FAQ is actually quite comprehensive and contains many pedantic topics, so the questions that get discussed on the newsgroup tend to be interesting ones that aren''t in it.

I think a wiki is overkill in my opinion. If you just pointed beginners to the FAQ, stopped FAQ posts being answered and the FAQ actually contained the most FAQs, then most of the pointless threads will stop. Once the person matures, they know how to search the web for themselves to find answers to things so there isn''t much need for a FAQ of really advanced topics in my opinon.

intransigent-seal

Feb 13, 2004 at 9:22 PM

quote:
Original post by seanw
I think a wiki is overkill in my opinion. If you just pointed beginners to the FAQ, stopped FAQ posts being answered and the FAQ actually contained the most FAQs, then most of the pointless threads will stop. Once the person matures, they know how to search the web for themselves to find answers to things so there isn''t much need for a FAQ of really advanced topics in my opinon.

Why would a wiki be overkill?
If GDnet became a wiki (excepting the parts that would remain forums, of course) then it would be the FAQ, and it would automatically be updated to answer not only the most frequently asked questions, but any question that comes up. People would read it, because on a wiki, the emphasis (at least as I see it) is on searching/reading first, and then editing later if you''ve got something to add. The only way to create a new page is to link to it from an existing page, and unless you''re being stupid or malicious (both of which are dangers, I admit), then you probably won''t create a link from somewhere totally unrelated. Therefore, by the time you try and create a new page, you''ve already searched and found the related information, and you will have found any existing answers.

John B

smart_idiot

Feb 13, 2004 at 9:24 PM

I think I''m afraid of change.

justo

Feb 13, 2004 at 10:30 PM

quote:
Original post by JohnBSmall
Wikis are very powerful, but you cannot say that they do not have their problems, even when used in the domain that they work best in.

Pages can easily become unfocused and rambling. In fact, the entire wiki easily becomes unfocused and rambling, producing a complex web of pages with no hierarchy to support it, and leaving a text search as the only feasible option for finding information (and although this is adequate for many things, it is not ideal for all).
Information can get split up or duplicated over multiple pages, because someone may create a new page, without realising that there is an existing one that covers the topic.

However, all of these problems apply equally to forums, which have other problems of their own. Wikis are far better than forums for mid to long term storage and retrieval of information. Perhaps the more interesting and useful question is: Is there something better than a wiki (that would be appropriate in the same, or at least similar, situations)?

John B

a response to this would probably best be a link to the wikipedia. they are the largest wiki target out there for griefers (because of constant links on slashdot, etc) and they have put in place a very effective system to deal with them. true, the format isnt perfect, but as you point out, nothing is.

i guess as i envision it, the gdnet wiki wouldnt be so much a replacement for the forums, but a supplement to them and a far superior replacement to the faq. i''m being idealistic, but it could become the game devolpment community''s (non-software) answer to OSS...something you dont have to pay for but is superior (or at least broader and sometime more in depth) than many graphics books out there. but like i said, i''m being idealistic.

the upshots, though, are that you eliminate many repeat questions, that you actually get more people involved in the community, and that the forums become what they should be: answering questions on implementations, discussing your new release, and flame wars about a hypothetical perfect programming language.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.