Removal of all base lists

[Dacy]

AtC, your help was invaluable!! Because of your work, Matsiyan reports it was "Stupid easy" for him to do the rest. THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

 

 

[Dacy]

1 hour ago, AboveTheChemist said:

If you still need my help with any aspect of this work, please let me know as I am still happy to assist. I feel a bit like I let you down, what with my mod stuff taking longer than I planned, but my offer to help remains open!

Far from letting us down, you've been absolutely essential and very much appreciated. 🙂 And I will likely need that offer of further assistance on other matters!

 

[UltraAlt]

15 hours ago, Dacy said:

Okay,

 

Was it really necessary to disrespect me for posting my views during the initial conversation?

I told you that I was removing myself from the conversation a good while back.

 

 

Why drag my name into this?

 

Edited March 8 by UltraAlt

[Dacy]

If you look at the post, I’m sure you saw that I did not say any particular name. In fact, your name was not even on my mind. I said that we had encountered resistance to our proposals, because there was more than one person. And the person who responded mentioned you by name, not me. This conversation happened on discord, so I was not trying to drag anyone into anything. I was merely checking with Michiyo to get clearance to delete the tables as I had been told I needed to do. Michiyo is the one who brought the conversation from discord to here. I’m sorry your name was brought up, but that wasn’t me.

 

And the person who brought your name into it, literally said “no disrespect to Ultra Alt”, so your name was brought up, but it clearly was not meant to offend.
 

-Dacy

Edited March 8 by Dacy

[Matsiyan]

14 hours ago, AboveTheChemist said:

Just to follow up, especially after having caught up on the conversation that took place on the wiki discord, but it looks like everything is updated. I checked out a couple of the new tables and I think they look great. Granted, I might not have as keen an eye for what might need work as someone who regularly uses the base code lists, but what I saw seemed to work well.

 

If you still need my help with any aspect of this work, please let me know as I am still happy to assist. I feel a bit like I let you down, what with my mod stuff taking longer than I planned, but my offer to help remains open!

Huge thanks, ATC. The example you provided let me set up spreadsheet formulae to create the right data to paste. The process now is 
- select the shard
- cut and paste to a google doc (easiest way to drop the unwanted quotation marks)
- edit the wiki page and replace the existing table with the doc contents
Also thanks for the improvement over the original wiki tables to include sorting on demand.

[thunderforce]

I've just had time to review the base lists as they are now.

 

Mostly things seem to be working well. However, I notice the following oddities, all on Everlasting.

 

One base had a still-working invite code, but now is "DM owner for invite". As far as I know this is because the owner has asked for that change. While we could say that the old code is in wiki history and if the owner wants it removed from the wiki they should change it, this seems harmless.

 

One base was removed. The invite code works, but you come in stuck in the scenery. I see no problem with removing it.

 

SUCCESS-29174 was removed. It still works. The base refers to the creator's struggle with addiction.

 

One base has been added which is obviously vore-themed.

 

A base I removed (after, I regret, three years) because it was "ERP-focused" has been re-added. However, it now seems to be a fairly ordinary nightclub base.

[thunderforce]

More generally the edits seem to suggest that the Google document is the sole source and that changes on the wiki may simply be overwritten. What follows is a set of suggestions and/or questions about what the wiki's policy should be.

 

I think it would be best if people could continue to add their bases to the wiki, and more generally that the wiki's editors can decide amongst themselves what appears on the wiki.

 

I would expect that someone doing a bulk upload would first review the history of the page (this would not be an onerous task, it is rare that these pages are edited and might be rarer now) and deal with any changes, presumably adding them to the Google document.

 

(If someone wants their base to appear only in the wiki, we should make provision for that, but I think we can cross that bridge in the unlikely event we come to it).

 

Re ERP bases, it's not clear what our policy should be. We could do anything from "list them all, we are unofficial" to "we should not knowingly mention any base where players are likely to hear or see violations of the Code of Conduct". As I understand it CR Dacy and EB propose to keep a separate document of ERP bases, and for the wiki to list them but instead of a base code appearing on the Wiki, a link to said document would appear.

Edited March 13 by thunderforce

[Draeth Darkstar]

5 hours ago, thunderforce said:

Re ERP bases, it's not clear what our policy should be. We could do anything from "list them all, we are unofficial" to "we should not knowingly mention any base where players are likely to hear or see violations of the Code of Conduct". As I understand it CR Dacy and EB propose to keep a separate document of ERP bases, and for the wiki to list them but instead of a base code appearing on the Wiki, a link to said document would appear.

IMO, we shouldn't get into the business of trying to arbitrate anything to do with the in-game Code of Conduct. That rabbit hole could very easily lead to an insurmountable slippery slope. The wiki is a player resource and informing players what SG bases exist on the servers is the beginning and the end of the wiki's responsibility as I see it. Let the players do with the information on that list what they want; if that means involving a GM in a Code of Conduct conversation - so be it. Not our circus, not our monkeys.

Edited March 13 by Draeth Darkstar

[thunderforce]

On 3/12/2024 at 11:58 PM, thunderforce said:

As I understand it CR Dacy and EB propose to keep a separate document of ERP bases, and for the wiki to list them but instead of a base code appearing on the Wiki, a link to said document would appear.

No-one objected to that, so we'll go with it.

 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/User:Thunderforce/Reunion_Bases is an example of how I think my remaining concern should be addressed. The external links have moved to the bottom of the document, and there's no claim that the data will just be overwritten (because I think the CR should be, and I hope will be, checking for on-wiki changes before a fresh upload). I've added a comment asking people adding bases on-wiki to add them at the top of the list to make that easier.

[Dacy]

8 hours ago, thunderforce said:

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/User:Thunderforce/Reunion_Bases is an example of how I think my remaining concern should be addressed. The external links have moved to the bottom of the document, and there's no claim that the data will just be overwritten (because I think the CR should be, and I hope will be, checking for on-wiki changes before a fresh upload). I've added a comment asking people adding bases on-wiki to add them at the top of the list to make that easier.

 

And WE are asking people to NOT add bases on the wiki, but direct additions to us.  So that should not be added.  We will try and catch any such additions through the changes to the wiki notifications, but we clearly state that they should contact us if they do not wish to add it to the directory directly, and that anything added to the wiki without going through us will not last, as it will be overwritten. However, Michiyo has ruled: any bases that promote/advertise MRP/ERP cannot be listed. Not even offsite. Now, I will say that bases that are simply " 18+" are 18+ for RP reasons; usually they are bars. An 18+ sign does not mean MRP/ERP, only those bases tagged as MRP (which is what we designate for ERP or MRP) should be removed.  And that of course, we'll verify that it has been correctly tagged, because that's an area for malicious input, once it's discovered we're not listing MRP bases. We will take care of removal from the source, probably with an update tonight.

 

[Dacy]

And updated. Glad we did, because I had not realized that our "De-listed" bases had been appearing; those were not supposed to be there. RIP (bases that no longer exist) bases are also off of the list, and of course the few MRP friendly bases are gone. New bases were also added to the directory from the additions since the last download.

 

 

[UltraAlt]

On 3/8/2024 at 1:00 PM, Dacy said:

If you look at the post, I’m sure you saw that I did not say any particular name.

 

I guess you did not "say" but you admit posting someone else's comment that included it in your post.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 1:00 PM, Dacy said:

And the person who brought your name into it, literally said “no disrespect to Ultra Alt”, so your name was brought up, but it clearly was not meant to offend.

 

As I understand it, they did not post that in the forums. You posted that comment in the forums.

 

I feel insulted. I pointed that out.

Again. I'm done with this.

 

Please don't bring my name up again.

 

You bring up some interesting things about bases, but I can search for information if I need it.
I feel best to un-follow you at this point and to do my best to avoid the Base Community in general.

 

[AboveTheChemist]

In regard to recent discussion here and on the discord, I don't know that I've explicitly stated it to date but Dacy you have my support for the approach that you and Matsiyan and Easter Bunny have taken in terms of updating the wiki with the info from the base lists in Google docs. It's a bit of a departure from the norm for updating the wiki, and I can see why it might give some folks heartburn. But I also appreciate the issues that you've had to deal with in terms of keeping the base info updated, consolidated, and free from malicious influence, so I think the balance you've struck is reasonable even if it isn't the "normal" way of maintaining a wiki page.

 

A couple of minor points along those lines I wanted to bring up are:

 

1. As an example, say someone either misses or doesn't quite understand that, rather than adding info directly to the wiki, that they should submit it for inclusion in the Google doc. Is there a plan in place to reach out to folks that add their info only to the wiki, so that they can get their base entered properly into the Google doc? That might be more of a cross the bridge when you get to it scenario, but it's not hard to imagine that at some point down the road there will be someone who just doesn't quite understand that the info needs to go through the Google doc, and it would seem like reaching out to them would help minimize the number of legit wiki edits that get overwritten with new updates.

 

2. Given that info edited/removed from a wiki page is always visible a few clicks away via the revision history, if a base owner at some point decides to remove their base code from the listing for whatever reason, it might be worth reminding them that the code can still be seen on the wiki for someone willing to look through the revision history.

[Easter Bunny]

25 minutes ago, AboveTheChemist said:

1. As an example, say someone either misses or doesn't quite understand that, rather than adding info directly to the wiki, that they should submit it for inclusion in the Google doc. Is there a plan in place to reach out to folks that add their info only to the wiki, so that they can get their base entered properly into the Google doc? That might be more of a cross the bridge when you get to it scenario, but it's not hard to imagine that at some point down the road there will be someone who just doesn't quite understand that the info needs to go through the Google doc, and it would seem like reaching out to them would help minimize the number of legit wiki edits that get overwritten with new updates.

We understand that there are those that are unwilling or untrusting of working through Google, so we didn't make that the only way to add to the directory. But we also didn't want to advertise an "Enter Your Base Info Here" section on the wiki that encourages bypassing the directory either. The guidance we've placed on the wiki for these instances is to contact Dacy or I to have this information updated.
And then, despite that, we are also continuing to monitor Michiyo's Discord for anyone out there that treats the base pages like anyone would probably assume a wiki page can be treated and does update it directly. Should that happen we would enter their information into the directory and it would feed back into the wiki on the next bulk update.

 

25 minutes ago, AboveTheChemist said:

2. Given that info edited/removed from a wiki page is always visible a few clicks away via the revision history, if a base owner at some point decides to remove their base code from the listing for whatever reason, it might be worth reminding them that the code can still be seen on the wiki for someone willing to look through the revision history.

Great note! We will definitely keep that in mind to inform anyone requesting a de-listing of their base from the directory that they should probably change their passcode from whatever had previously been listed for this reason. I appreciate you mentioning this!

Edited March 16 by Easter Bunny

[AboveTheChemist]

1 minute ago, Easter Bunny said:

Should that happen we would enter their information into the directory and it would feed back into the wiki on the next bulk update.

 

Gotcha, I didn't realize that was part of the process as well so that seems to address the concern I had in point number 1. Sorry for the confusion!

[Easter Bunny]

No need to be sorry. I recognize that it was constructive feedback and appreciate your willingness to help 🙂

[Dacy]

8 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

As I understand it, they did not post that in the forums. You posted that comment in the forums.

Ultra Alt,

I feel I must apologize for my confusion, and for not double checking what was posted.   (And I deleted a bunch of stuff I'd misunderstood)

 

However much of an idiot I have been here, I do feel it's unfair to paint the entire base building community with such a broad  brush. It's a very good community, and I understand if you do not want to interact with ME, but I hope you do not avoid the community just because of my mistakes. There IS another CR, so if you need something, you don't have to talk to me at all, if you think I'm awful.

 

Again, you have my sincere apology, fwiw.

 

EDIT: and I messed it up again. I have been missing sleep, and just BLEAH. I AM an idiot. I did post that, but I should have omitted your name from the quote.    *Shakes head* I am very sorry for not doing that. I  thought I'd been directed to talk about it here.

 

Edited March 16 by Dacy
I'm an idiot.

[thunderforce]

On 3/14/2024 at 11:28 PM, Dacy said:

And WE are asking people to NOT add bases on the wiki, but direct additions to us. 

I appreciate we want different things. That is why we are having a discussion where we can explain _why_ we want what we want and where other interested editors can weigh in. One of us might change their mind - just as although my preferred option was to remove all ERP bases, hence the edit removing one as "clearly inappropriate" and me being a bit embarrassed about letting it slip in to begin with, when Draeth Darkstar chimed in supporting what you proposed, I said we might as well go with that.[1] Failing that we might agree to abide by a third party's decision (eg, AboveTheChemist) or see what higher authority says.

 

However, I'm not clear why you are so opposed to it. It's the work of a moment to check the revision history, something you intend to do anyway - and since (for example) seven bases were added to the Everlasting list (by far the biggest) in 2023, I really don't see that capturing information from manual edits is going to cause you any particular problems.

 

From my point of view I don't think it is appropriate for any editor to assert external control over any page. Suppose I think (and it's likely) that I am the largest contributor (post-2019) to the Player's Guide to the Cities. Perhaps I would find it more convenient to edit it on my computer and have people send me updates. However, I would not even consider putting a a note on it saying people should send me updates and that I might overwrite any changes they make.

 

I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page, rather than as comments on the source. The former is shown to users who just want to use the page. The editing instructions should be seen only by editors. (Indeed, the existing text saying "Please do not remove or recategorize other people's base postings" should probably be moved.)

 

I've edited https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/User:Thunderforce/Reunion_Bases so the comment in the source now says: "If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory. You may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly." I think that's a reasonable way to make that option visible to editors, but without any suggestion that editing the page in the normal way is forbidden.

10 hours ago, AboveTheChemist said:

But I also appreciate the issues that you've had to deal with in terms of keeping the base info updated, consolidated, and free from malicious influence

However, given the discussion above, I'm not aware of any malicious base edits on the Wiki, so I don't think continuing to permit ordinary editing opens the door to that particular issue.

 

[1] I appreciate there has been a "no ERP bases" rule declared so this is moot, but it's an example of the kind of way one might hope this discussion works.

Edited March 17 by thunderforce
typo

[Dacy]

3 hours ago, thunderforce said:

I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page, rather than as comments on the source. The former is shown to users who just want to use the page. The editing instructions should be seen only by editors. (Indeed, the existing text saying "Please do not remove or recategorize other people's base postings" should probably be moved.)

That is from the previous wiki. I don't oppose losing it, but it illustrates that this has been a problem, and I see no reason why it would not continue to be so. I will admit that I don't know if there were malicious wiki edits, or if all of the problems stemmed from having open editing on the original document, but either way, we'd like to avoid the issue entirely.

 

I will admit to frustration here. Do you recognize at all that this is our area of expertise? That perhaps we have knowledge and experience you do not? It has never felt as though you do. Yes, you are a big wiki editor. No, this is not typical of wiki edits, to control things externally, but the reason that statement is there, the reason so many base entries weren't accurate or didn't match the directory is because there WERE malicious edits. Sad to say, there are malicious and petty people in this game. This is something that we've learned. This is why we feel that editing control is important.

 

These are the reasons we wish to keep the system as we have set it up:

1.  The information is centralized, so we don't have to gather together base information from multiple locations again. We maintain presences on HC discord, our own discord, the in game base building channel, this wiki, the forums, and of course are available in game when we can be, and that's not even talking about what else we do. If we see a base not in the directory, we encourage the owner to enter it. By not encouraging people to enter bases on the wiki, we'd like to think that there's less of a chance that they will, so less of a chance that we'll have to enter the base ourselves. Yes, that's minimal work, but every little bit adds up. We'd definitely prefer the owner or builder to do the entering, as there are LOTS of bases.
2. It's much easier to do a bulk copy paste than to individually edit the wiki, and we know it's correct. You probably couldn't do that with other sections of the wiki, but in this case, with a table such as this is, and this sort of information, it is much more efficient.  It's our opinion that it's more efficient, but I think that there's an objective case to be made there as well. And, the information, when entered on the directory document, will have the drop-down tags to choose from, whereas the wiki does not have those. Therefore, any bases entered on the wiki without being able to reference the document itself may not conform to the other bases' information.
3. It only makes sense to operate from the point of the greatest number of entries in a centralized system, and as you pointed out, that's not the wiki.

So in short, we feel this method is efficient, accurate, and we see nothing wrong with how it's set up. The wiki is not just a link to a document, as it was in that first thing that EB tried, which we admitted was not what should have been, but this is information in wiki format in the wiki. It's accurate, it's up to date. and the system is efficient. No, it's not how things are done typically, but most information in the wiki is not changing as much as the base directory is from week to week, currently.

 

18 hours ago, thunderforce said:

I've edited https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/User:Thunderforce/Reunion_Bases so the comment in the source now says: "If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory. You may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly." I think that's a reasonable way to make that option visible to editors, but without any suggestion that editing the page in the normal way is forbidden.

The reason we do not want to have a statement telling people that if they are making an entry, where to do so, is because we do not want to encourage them to make entries on the wiki at all. (And what happened to "I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page"?)

 

3 hours ago, thunderforce said:

That is why we are having a discussion where we can explain _why_ we want what we want and where other interested editors can weigh in.

You have been the ONLY editor weighing in. And I will point out, EB and I are editors as well. As is anyone who registers and does it. So does not seem so much a "discussion" as it seem to be more "this is what I object to, and here are the changes I made that I want to implement". The few who have voiced opinions have been generally supportive of our efforts here. Look,  your expertise is in editing the wiki, overall. It's a big wiki. There is a lot of information that needs to be edited and updated. Surely this need not take up so much of your attention?  I do not know if this is your intent, but it's felt like you don't want us to be here, you don't want us editing the wiki, and you don't seem to care as much about the accuracy of the information as you do about how precisely it is entered and presented. Alone, you have made what should have been a relatively simple thing to accomplish into an unpleasant experience that in truth, has been very discouraging and time consuming. I don't want conflict, but this whole back and forth has gone on so long, and I feel it might be helpful for you to understand this side of the exchange, how things are coming across. I'm pretty sure our frustration has been clear, but I'm explaining why.

 

So discouraging, in fact, that EB really does not want to work with the wiki at all, at this point, so I will be handling edits, with help from Mats when needed.

 

5 hours ago, thunderforce said:

I think that's a reasonable way to make that option visible to editors, but without any suggestion that editing the page in the normal way is forbidden.

We never "forbid" people from entering anything. We did ask that they contact us, but nowhere did we forbid the entry of information. We did not provide a place for them to do so, either, and that was entirely intentional. We also clearly warn that information they enter here but do not enter on the directory itself risks being overwritten. 

 

We do not want to tell them where to place something they're entering. There are no drop-down menus to help them with what terms we've used for the bases. The directory was designed to be simple to enter information into. Information entered on the document will be consistent with the information for the other bases. Information entered on the document can't be changed by someone seeking to make another's base inaccessible or invisible.

 

Realize, the first tables were created from the old directory. Changes from that point on were made mostly by wiki edits. The wiki was out of date, the wiki had inaccuracies. We're just not going to return to that method, because it's demonstrated that it does not work. Was that the fault of entries to the wiki? Unlikely, imo, but still possible. However, we know that if we limit the entries to the source we download into the wiki, it will not happen again.

 

I propose a compromise. As I said already, EB is out as far as editing the wiki goes, and I am willing to promise that I will monitor for changes/input to the wiki directory that is apart from entries to our directory. Is there a way to make that easier and get notifications from changes to a particular section of the wiki? That would certainly mean I could immediately take whatever action is needed. We will remove the warning about losing anything entered because of the downloads that will be done; however, we also will not encourage people to edit on the wiki by telling them where to place a new base entry. Instead, we will leave up the part encouraging people to contact either EB or myself if they do not wish to put an entry into the document itself, and of course, encourage people to please update their bases on the document.

 

This way, you get what you wanted in that we have no warnings or other text that gives the impression that editing the wiki is forbidden. I will check for entries and changes to the document, and address them as needed. The document will be kept up to date as needed. Right now, changes are fairly frequent, but I anticipate that will die down.

 

On the whole, this gives the wiki a much needed update in this particular area. It will be kept up to date, unlike the last table. It will be monitored to keep it accurate, unlike the last table. And it's being sourced from experts in the field, in the wiki tradition. Editing is allowed, but not encouraged. And perhaps both of us can move on to other pressing work and stop devoting quite so much time to discussion?

 

I fervently hope this sounds acceptable, because I'm ready to be done with this.

[thunderforce]

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

That is from the previous wiki

It's not, no - the Paragon Wiki didn't have it (or, as far as I can see, pages of this kind at all, so I'm a little confused about this). It was added to the Homecoming Wiki in January 2023.

 

(However, tl;dr - maybe skip to the end, I hope we can reach an agreement.)

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

I don't oppose losing it, but it illustrates that this has been a problem, and I see no reason why it would not continue to be so. I will admit that I don't know if there were malicious wiki edits

It hasn't been a problem at all; as discussed above, there don't seem to have been any malicious wiki base list edits ever, even in the 2 years before that warning was added.

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

I will admit to frustration here. Do you recognize at all that this is our area of expertise? That perhaps we have knowledge and experience you do not?

Obviously I appreciate you have a lot of information about bases, yes, but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you. Uninventive and SaphirantCross know far more about running City of Heroes on Linux than I do, but that doesn't mean they can do that with https://homecoming.wiki/w/index.php?title=City_of_Heroes_on_Linux.

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

It's much easier to do a bulk copy paste than to individually edit the wiki, and we know it's correct.

That wouldn't change in the scenario I envisage. As far as I can see all that would change is that occasionally you'd have to copy a manual edit into your directory - very occasionally, perhaps once every 2 months.

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

(And what happened to "I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page"?)

Er... a comment in the source doesn't appear to an ordinary user viewing the page. It's only visible to people editing it. That's an appropriate place to have editing instructions.

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

I do not know if this is your intent, but it's felt like you don't want us to be here, you don't want us editing the wiki

I don't want you (or anyone) asserting external control over any page on the wiki. If you don't do that, I'm perfectly happy for you to edit it. To have this additional information effects a great improvement - I certainly don't object to _that_.

20 hours ago, Dacy said:

I propose a compromise. As I said already, EB is out as far as editing the wiki goes, and I am willing to promise that I will monitor for changes/input to the wiki directory that is apart from entries to our directory. Is there a way to make that easier and get notifications from changes to a particular section of the wiki? That would certainly mean I could immediately take whatever action is needed. We will remove the warning about losing anything entered because of the downloads that will be done; however, we also will not encourage people to edit on the wiki by telling them where to place a new base entry.

You can add pages to your "watchlist" (and I expect any page you edit is added by default) by clicking the star at the top right, next to View history. In Preferences you can set "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". However, part of what I'm saying is I hope even that's not necessary. If you're checking the history immediately before a bulk upload, it's extremely easy then and there to see what (if anything) has been changed (with the "Compare Selected Revisions" button).

 

To be honest, my aim in writing "If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory" was not to _encourage_ making manual edits, but to make sure if they were made, they all ended up in the same place to make it easier to copy the information. Hence I have no great attachment to that wording. How about "Rather than adding a base to this list, you may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly" ?

Edited March 18 by thunderforce

[Dacy]

On 3/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, thunderforce said:

It's not, no - the Paragon Wiki didn't have it (or, as far as I can see, pages of this kind at all, so I'm a little confused about this). It was added to the Homecoming Wiki in January 2023.

I did mean, the previous version to ours. As in, we did not put it there, it was there already. And you're right, the official Wiki does not include base lists. And I will say, if you'd prefer to remove base lists altogether, we can certainly do that. We were updating to correct. The wiki does not tend to be the go-to place for base information anyway, and our efforts to maintain integrity are only complicated by maintaining the files here as well.

 

On 3/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, thunderforce said:

On 3/17/2024 at 6:04 PM, Dacy said:

(And what happened to "I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page"?)

Er... a comment in the source doesn't appear to an ordinary user viewing the page. It's only visible to people editing it. That's an appropriate place to have editing instructions.

Right, and it appears I was not clear enough. This was in response to your suggestion to viewers of the page as to how and where they should edit. Apparently, when you make a comment and leave it on the source page, that's okay, but if we did it, it's not. We would prefer to just leave off instructions about editing on the wiki at all; anyone who is there and inclined to edit can figure out how, just as on any other page.

 

On 3/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, thunderforce said:

On 3/17/2024 at 6:04 PM, Dacy said:

I will admit to frustration here. Do you recognize at all that this is our area of expertise? That perhaps we have knowledge and experience you do not?

Obviously I appreciate you have a lot of information about bases, yes, but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you.

That is not at all the point I was making. I was pointing to the evidence of malicious edits. We found the differences. I can't say, as I stated, exactly where and when all the edits occurred, but we know THAT they occurred, either on the old directory or in the wiki because we've seen the differences in the directories as they existed. We know there was inaccurate information on the wiki. We know there was inaccurate information on the old directory. We know there are petty people that want to sabotage others, and some that are jealous of others. THIS is the information you do not recognize, you refuse to entertain, despite repeated assurances from us. We've seen it. It's why we are keeping such control over entries: we are safeguarding the information. The actual information is largely coming from the builders themselves; we just keep it from being changed to something it should not be.

 

Here's an example of an edit that BlackSpectre fixed: 19:36, 25 December 2022‎ BlackSpectre talk contribs‎ m 4,096 bytes +527‎ Fixed a bunch of other broken links, passcodes, and text. Someone had copied the Costmic Transport passcode onto every copy link.   That is just one example on the first history I checked. And we've asserted this numerous times as the biggest part of the reason we redid this and want to maintain protections over editing, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, asserting time and time again, against any evidence, that there were no malicious edits on the wiki. Oh, and note the date.

 

I think that the reason you do not generally have a problem with people abusing editing privileges on the wiki is that most of the rest of your information is not like this.  If you had issues with every area the way we've had issues with this one, I believe editing in the wiki would be much different, and perhaps there WOULD be safeguards similar to what we have in place.  Most builders are wonderful and trustworthy, but as in any game, there are always a few bad actors, and if you were into bases at all, you might quickly realize that bases are as much a source of pride, ego, and stature as admired costumes, badge status, and powerful character builds, so for some, just seeing another base listed that's perhaps getting recognition and is owned by someone hated, is enough to motivate those people to put in something malicious, or, as in the Cosmic Transport correction, try and promote their own base over others that might be similar. But I do not need to know or understand why to know we need to safeguard against it.

 

On 3/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, thunderforce said:

but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you.

We have not said so, and in fact, if anyone wants to help make sure the content is accurate and up to date, we're happy to include them. But conversely, it should be obvious that every facet of our contribution to the wiki should not have to go through you. That is very much the appearance here.

 

So, that was all pretty much just to clear up apparent misunderstandings of what I had meant.

 

Regarding the base list, here is my understanding:

1. I will monitor changes and handle them as they require.
2. We will download the directory to the wiki when it needs to be updated with new information.
3.  No references to editing the wiki should be on the source page, but visitors will be informed of the existence of the directory and that they can enter information there, for ease and consistency, and if not there, then they may contact us. Wiki editors know how to edit the wiki if desired.

As to

On 3/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, thunderforce said:

How about "Rather than adding a base to this list, you may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly" ?

it can be added, but we'd prefer this version, which would replace:

 

To update the directory source please contact CRs @Dacy or @Easter Bunny or submit a ‘Base Directory Update Request’. We would appreciate it if base owners who have not yet updated the information for their bases would do so.

Note this table will be overwritten periodically by the CRs with a fresh copy from the directory.

 

With this:

Bases are most easily updated in the base directory [link], to keep the identifying tags consistent and easily searchable. To update in this way, follow the link or contact CR @Dacy or CR @Easter Bunny to submit a base to the directory, or to update a base that has missing information.

 

This will avoid mentioning editing the wiki on the source page, which you said was inappropriate. Those that do edit the wiki will know what to do if that is what they prefer, just like for all the other pages in the wiki, but it provides information they need if they want to keep their base entry consistent with how other bases are displayed and searched for. It does not threaten that their input will be erased, and it does not duplicate what has been said already.

 

So, options: we're done here, having worked out concerns and compromises, or the other option could be no lists on the wiki; and, I leave that up to you. That's your choice, but either way, I want to be DONE.

 

Edited March 19 by Dacy

[thunderforce]

21 hours ago, Dacy said:

This was in response to your suggestion to viewers of the page as to how and where they should edit. Apparently, when you make a comment and leave it on the source page, that's okay, but if we did it, it's not.

You didn't do it. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by a comment?

 

On my proposed version of the page,

<!-- If you are adding a base by editing the wiki, recommend adding it at the top to make it easier for the CRs to copy the information into their base directory. You may find it easier to follow the instructions in External Links to add your base to the CRs' directory. They will add it here shortly. -->

appears when you edit the page. This is a comment. It isn't shown to people just viewing the page. That's the distinction here. You have never added a comment.

21 hours ago, Dacy said:

Here's an example of an edit that BlackSpectre fixed: 19:36, 25 December 2022‎ BlackSpectre talk contribs‎ m 4,096 bytes +527‎ Fixed a bunch of other broken links, passcodes, and text. Someone had copied the Costmic Transport passcode onto every copy link.   That is just one example on the first history I checked.

Yes. If you actually read this thread you will find that those passcodes were added by BlackSpectre an hour before that. It wasn't malicious at all - it was just an error on their part which they rapidly corrected.

21 hours ago, Dacy said:

And we've asserted this numerous times as the biggest part of the reason we redid this and want to maintain protections over editing, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, asserting time and time again, against any evidence, that there were no malicious edits on the wiki.

That's because there isn't actually any evidence. There's been one suggested case which turned out to be a simple error.

 

Furthermore, if someone was to make a malicious change, you'd detect it when you reviewed changes since the last directory upload, something you already said you intend to do.

21 hours ago, Dacy said:

We have not said so, and in fact, if anyone wants to help make sure the content is accurate and up to date, we're happy to include them. But conversely, it should be obvious that every facet of our contribution to the wiki should not have to go through you.

You have in fact said that changes have to go through you; you've said that to make changes you should be contacted and

Quote

Note this table will be overwritten periodically by the CRs with a fresh copy from the directory.

A reasonable person reading that would conclude that changes added normally would be overwritten.

 

It's not the case that every facet of your contribution has to go through me - obviously not since your version of the page is _still up_.

21 hours ago, Dacy said:

Bases are most easily updated in the base directory [link], to keep the identifying tags consistent and easily searchable. To update in this way, follow the link or contact CR @Dacy or CR @Easter Bunny to submit a base to the directory, or to update a base that has missing information.

How about "It may be easier to update bases in the base directory ..." ? It's not at all clear to me that it is "most easy" for a wiki editor to chase off somewhere else.

21 hours ago, Dacy said:

the other option could be no lists on the wiki

I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them.

[Dacy]

1 hour ago, thunderforce said:

23 hours ago, Dacy said:

the other option could be no lists on the wiki

I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them.

I said it was  your choice. I would be doing nothing, but I am giving assent. Nobody else is weighing in.

 

Regardless, I'm asking on Michiyo's discord for permission.

 

 

[AboveTheChemist]

1 hour ago, Dacy said:

Nobody else is weighing in.

 

I've not weighed in further because I feel like I've more or less stated my thoughts. I think you, Easter Bunny, and Matsiyan are better qualified than anyone to oversee base-related stuff on the wiki, and I think you have just as much right as anyone to edit as you see fit. Or not to edit, if you decide that you don't want to deal with the wiki base lists, and based on this thread I can understand why you might arrive at that decision.

 

Regarding the removal of the base lists from the wiki, I'm not opposed to that. I'm not convinced that is the best option, because I think if they are removed, someone will just add them back in some form at a later date, and we'll be back at square one. If you do wish to avoid the wiki going forward, perhaps the best option is just to leave the lists as-is, with a note directing folks to the Google lists as the most up-to-date source. The wiki lists are certainly more up-to-date now than before, and perhaps in the future someone will be motivated to update them with info from the Google lists. That's not an ideal solution, and perhaps there is a better one.

[Dacy]

I appreciate your input, AtC, thanks. 🙂