I couldn't find any discussion on Achievements in the Village Pump archives so I thought I would bring it up. I know it says that the achievements aren't retroactive (sadly) but it may have some potentially good (or bad) bonuses along with it. Here's a link to a user's page on the SWTOR wiki as an example.
- May draw contributors to log in more instead of anonymously editting.
- The number of active contributors may increase. Right now I'd wager there's a handful.
- It most likely will mess up user pages. (However, I'm not sure what it will be like if you're using the CSS skin)
- The time that it take to implement it. (Once again, not sure how long/little it would take)
If anyone else wants to list any others, go right ahead. I just thought I would mention the idea and see what other folks thought. 03:57, Monday, 9 January 2012 (EST)
- Against. Reasoning follows. 1) Wikia. 2) Incentive to make worthless edits and the like. 3) Can reward vandals. Normally I'd like the shinies but I really don't think they're appropriate for a wiki. Oh, as for display on user pages - they'd go in the sidebar along with any other modules that are present. I'd likely hide it with the custom CSS, because although some things such as that can be worth looking at, they mess up layout and it's simple enough to log out to see them (although it has never remembered my username/password so I always have to retype them >_>). As for installing it, I believe it is as easy as clicking a button to turn it on, unless we want to customize them.
- I think we/someone would have to take the time to create a bunch of Achievements, right? Or are they all pre-made? Like you made 10 edits, here's a cookie!, you wrote on a talk page, here's a cookie! In that case it would be easy to implement, however I agree it could lead to users making more worthless edits on the wiki(they have to log in though :P). As far as rewarding vandals goes it said in the FAQ that blocking a user removes all of their achievements, or did you mean something else Bobo as far as rewarding vandals goes?
- Maybe instead of Wikia achievements we could create some sort of CN wiki award for reporting vandalism, helping others, etc etc (although someone would then have to monitor or at least be aware of their existence and give them out from time to time for it to work) Hrmm... 04:27, Monday, 9 January 2012 (EST)
- Ah, I hadn't read the FAQ. Most vandals only appear once and are not seen again, so after their one-day block expires, they'll still have the achievement. I suppose that isn't really a major issue though. Yeah there's a default set of achievements with names and images (I think you can see a list on any wiki that has them enabled), and we can customize them if we want. And, apparently, add new ones for a specific category. And it also says you can disable their display and block notifications for yourself, so that's good. I suppose they aren't too evil; I wouldn't be opposed to enabling them if there is significant support here. Speaking of being aware of existence, Justin started a Barnstars project, so you might want to take a look at that. I hope your monitor is okay :P
- Haha, I appreciate your concern for my monitor xD I managed to wipe the milk off in time haha. Hrmm, that's got me thinking. If the vandal doesn't log in do they still get that achievement I wonder. Yeah, I wasn't sure whether or not they would be a good thing for the CN wiki until a conversation was hatched and ideas floated around. I think it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, especially since you can disable their display and block notifications and it wouldn't take long to actually implement. I'm unsure however in the aspect that us active contributors who have already put so much time and effort into the wiki aren't retroactively rewarded. But, if it does spark more/new active contributors I think it would be beneficial to our tiny community. I support the achievements in the hope that it increases the number of new/active contributors in the long haul. I also think that if this does garner enough support that it actually goes into effect that an announcement be made on the CN forums, maybe the two combined (achievements + announcement of achievements) would help indeed. thoughts? :3 04:58, Monday, 9 January 2012 (EST)
- I think they're really just more trouble than they're worth. I doubt achievements are going to do much for the state of the wiki, and anything extra to clutter the layout will be problematic, especially for the majority of people who don't know how to change that. ~ 05:13, Monday, 9 January 2012 (ET)
I'm dropping this comment in here, myself and MVP had a discussion about barnstars nearly two years ago though in the end we didn't do anything with it. Looks like a bit over a year later JustinVuong set a page up for it though I didn't realise that at the time and it looks like hardly anything has happened with it. Whether achievements are worth it or not I don't know. -- Imperial Empire (talk • contribs) 11:59, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Really no preference here. If you guys add it, I'll keep on editing, and will continue to do so even if it is removed. It seems kinda pointless, but I wouldn't mind it. --Mompson (talk • contribs) 13:27, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
I would be against them. in short, because they don't contribute anything. That, and I have a natural aversion to achievements appearing in every damned aspect of online activity.
Overall I would be in Support of it, as long as it was implemented in the right way. The way I see it happening is 1. People like it and start editing more and we get a better wiki 2. People try to abuse it and we give them a swift kick in the ass 3. No one cares and the current wiki editors get Achievement whorish (I know I would) and edit the wiki even more. Yes it's sad that we are achievement whores, but it's true :P So overall I would support it. Nascar8FanGA (talk • contribs)
Wow, so much can be done when you're gone for a day. :P Any who, as Bobogoobo and Imperial Empire pointed out, I have, in the past, attempted to start the Barnstars project. However, as you can see, it received little team effort and essentially died. While I do like the idea of achievements, I sincerely do not believe it will have any significant benefit for our wiki. Our wiki is generally a community to record the aspects of CN, the alliances, and roleplay. Like Ansontx points out below, an achievement could allow the user to do some undesirable methods to gain so. As he points out, if say there were a 1,000 edit medal, a contributor could easily manipulate this by repeatedly editing only minor stuff and see as the edits stack. Quality is better than quantity and I fear that some contributors will only come here as a means to feel "superior" on the wiki in terms of edit count. Basically, it could make our wiki into a community of n00bs controlling a edit scoring game. :P However, if this can be controlled, I'm all for it. JustinVuong | Talk | Nation 00:25, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Against - Normally I'm all for that shiny award, pin, button, or ribbon. However, in this particular application I'm profusely against it. Reiterating above sentiments, I don't see any particular need for it. Additionally, I honestly think it would cause a lot more harm than good. For example, if I was looking for the 1000 edits award (pretending that was an option for just a moment), what would stop me from just editing my alliance's page, intentionally omitting certain information, going back, making a spelling error, fixing it but making another error, etc. Before you know it, that one change has snowballed into 15 changes at least. One or two fixes make sense. As Bobogoobo knows, I've made my share of mistakes on various wikia pages (Tips hat in gratitude for fixing them). EDIT: Prime example, I'm editing this post because I forgot to sign it.18:29, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair people will notice. I have made a few "too" many edits before when I didn't use preview as much or would forget something, and Locke or another admin beat me with a stick on IRC telling me to stop notifying them of all my edits :P For every time people edit a page I'm following I get an email, so if people start pointlessly editing a topic 100 times, people will notice and complain. Nascar8FanGA (talk • contribs)
Comment: I'm really neutral to the idea of achievements in general, but I do want to know why Wikia thinks the entire Internet needs to be a social network. It's already to the point where articles are somewhat incidental to what the entirety of Wikia is about, between blogs, Facebook and Twitter connections, the comment system more and more wikis have, &c. Achievements would really only make that aspect worse in my opinion. Michael von Preußen | talk
Support: I liked the idea on other Wikias, while I can see it being abused, I made meaningful contributions to those places and maybe the CN Wiki will see some more meaningful contributions from it. --LittleRena (talk • contribs) 14:47, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Against - I think Locke really hit this issue on the head, and I quote, "I think they're really just more trouble than they're worth. I doubt achievements are going to do much for the state of the wiki, and anything extra to clutter the layout will be problematic, especially for the majority of people who don't know how to change that."
Not only that, but I think a far better way of getting solid contributors is for us to foster them in our own alliances. We have to show our fellow members how useful and fun the wiki can be, how they can chronicle their alliance's achievements, their achievements and the history and mechanics of CN as they perceive them. It would probably prove more useful for us to message our Ministers of Internal Affairs, Communications, or Media (depending on which it would pertain to in your alliance), and encourage them to create a small team to edit the wiki. I know NPO has one, and I know MHA used to have one. I think the acclaim one is afforded by the members of their alliance for making quality wiki pages and for knowing their way around the wiki is a far better encouragement than achievements could hope to be.
Additionally, things as bright, colorful and showcased as achievements will make the wiki (and especially user pages) harder to access for those with slower internet connections. This idea might actually hurt the number of people we have on the wiki. In the best-case scenario, if achievements do work, then you would have a number of contributors solely editing for achievements. Their edits would probably be of poor quality, and might even be more broken up than normal (just to try to earn the achievement), making the history of pages harder to navigate. It would be hardly worth the work.
-- 13:23, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Support - Great idea, it would draw in more active contributors, but we may have the problem of people just doing minor edits or poor quality edits in order to get the achievements. Though, I know it would encourage me to do more edits. I am for the idea, but must point out that this may have more kinks in it than we first imagine. -- Zabuza825 (talk • contribs) 00:50, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
Against - I'm going to repeat what someone else said about what Locke said, because those are my feelings exactly: I think Locke really hit this issue on the head, and I quote, "I think they're really just more trouble than they're worth. I doubt achievements are going to do much for the state of the wiki, and anything extra to clutter the layout will be problematic, especially for the majority of people who don't know how to change that."
Against. I've refrained from adding this feature to another wiki I administer for the same reasons stated above. I'm afraid that adding in achievements will bring in users who are just editing for the sake of hording shiny medals, and such edits would probably be of poor quality. 21:15, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 (ET)
Wikia finally does something good
According to this notification, the first thing users will see on January 18th will be a large ad campaigning against SOPA and PIPA. The ad overrides local skin settings, but refreshing will temporarily get rid of the ad. I'm not sure how this would impact the CN Wiki, but I guess it's good that Wikia's doing something good for a change. :P 18:04, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 (ET)
- Would it be okay if we followed this guy's idea? JustinVuong | Talk | Nation 03:56, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
I figure I should start a discussion for newest feature Wikia has crapped out. Screenshot with descriptions can be found here and the blog post is here. Personally I think it's stupid and the most obvious Facebook copy they've released so far. Unfortunately I haven't been able to be active here recently, but when I return to my previous level of activity I'd rather be able to use it as a wiki rather than a second Facebook.
- I completely agree Bobo, this is crap imo. If I wanted a message wall I would get a facebook account. 02:53, Thursday, 2 February 2012 (EST)
- Much as I'd love to jump head-first into Wikiahatefest 2012, there is actually something I like about the new Message Wall, as opposed to the current talk pages, and that is the automatic archiving feature: assuming it actually works. A lot of Wikians have a habit of either deleting old talk page messages, which is bad for the community, or just never archiving, leading to insanely long talk pages. Heck, even my own talk page, despite being previously routinely archived, has grown unruly since I've stopped regularly editing. Automatic archiving sounds like a great idea to me.
- Now, here's where that caveat comes in: without using the message wall, it's hard to tell if it will archive it nicely, neatly, and efficiently, or if it'll just end up putting all old posts on another page (making the archive as unruly as an unarchived talk page). Though I had only a few messages on my Wikia Community Hub Talk Page before the Message Wall was introduced, it just automatically shoved them off and onto their own page, without any seeming care for whether they might even still be active discussions or not.
- Furthermore, there's no clear way to link to a discussion. Discussion links no longer follow a clear User talk:User#Discussion format; rather, if I were to link to, for example, one thread on Dopp's Message Wall, I'd provide a link to Thread:352726, which gives absolutely no context (from the link) as to where the thread is actually located, whose Message Wall it is on, or what messages may have come before or after it (because it's displayed on its own page entirely). In a related note, it also doesn't look to me as though there's a table of contents, so good luck finding older threads.
- Other than that, everything you can do on it is pretty much the same as talk pages. In other words, it's exactly what Wikia has done repeatedly in the past: they've introduced a new feature to replace an old one, there's one or two good things about the new feature, and everything else is broken (oh, and looks like a social network, too!). So yeah, not pleased. Michael von Preußen | talk
I've turned this feature on for the time being to test what it exactly does. It mentions fixes to preview and support for more links in the header, which would be nice. I'm also considering enabling Chat as the only reason it was ever removed was because of Wikia doing so in Oasis. However, it was never highly used and probably will be hidden by CSS, so the utility of it is questionable. ~ 15:08, Thursday, 2 February 2012 (ET)
- Not a fan. It takes up more space with about the same content (or less, as I see you removed some because of the Contribute button). I don't see a "new preview tool." It also brought back some things that I had removed with CSS, like the Talk button (I changed it to a heading/link) and having the number of pages at the top of every page for some reason. And yeah, Chat wasn't used much and it goes in the sidebar, so if you wanted to see it the width of the entire article would be reduced for that little thing. So yeah, I'd rather keep things roughly the way they have been, which in most cases worked better than all the stuff Wikia is adding.
- I miss the old look D:, also I think that the wiki chat would help users who do not use IRC... but I'm still apprehensive at best. Overall, I'm not a fan of either, sorry Locke. 05:34, Friday, 3 February 2012 (EST)
- Can we switch back to the old navigation now... :3 I dislike this extended navigation greatly D: 18:23, Saturday, 18 February 2012 (EST)
- Figure I'd throw my 2 Pfennige in; I've always liked the expanded navigation when I've seen it on other wikis. I always thought it was part of Semantic MediaWiki, though. It's nice to see I was wrong. Michael von Preußen | talk
Okay so since we're not really using any features of the new navigation to make it work better than the old method and it also breaks some improvements I made with CSS on the old nav, how would you all feel about changing it back to the old way?
- I would like it if it were reverted back to the way it was :3 22:08, Thursday, 19 April 2012 (EST)
I reverted this btw. :3
- \o/ —
We seem to have a problem with some spambots visiting recently; I'm not sure whether they're targeting all of Wikia or what. But be on the lookout, they're pretty conspicuous anyway. If you get there before an admin does, please report the IP on CN:RV and undo the edit it made, and an admin will permaban it as soon as possible (though it looks like each one is only being used once anyway). Yours in vandal-fighting,
Update to MediaWiki 1.19
Please report anything that was broken by the update to the new MediaWiki version here. Current known issue: flags in the alliance infobox aren't centered. I tried to fix this but apparently it didn't work, so I'll try again soon. Anything else related to the update can go here as well. One new special page I noticed is Special:ComparePages, which looks like it could be useful. Not sure what else was changed.
A little while back I was searching "Sunshine Treaty Organization Pact" on Google, and found these:
I was wondering why our wiki articles were being printed out as books and sold. Also, it wasn't just our articles, it was a lot of articles on the CN Wiki. I looked up to see if Wikia had anything to do with it and found out that it's not just happening to the CN Wiki, it's happening to various other Wiki's as well.
It appears company called Books, LLC is taking content from various Wiki's and selling them for a commercial profit. They appear to be within the bounds of copyright law as they are following the CC-BB-SA 3.0 license. Wikia has nothing to do with this, and I quote a Wikia employee:
We've heard about a few of these "books" recently. Wikia is not involved in any way in their publication. We are listed as the source, but the publisher is a firm called "Books, LLC" (see more info about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_LLC ). Unfortunately, they appear to be within the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license that's used on Wikia wikis, which allows distribution and includes sale of the works. Here's the full license text: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode . This license is used for any text added to the wiki, except in special circumstances. Images (and some other content) may be "all rights reserved" content is used on the wiki under fair use rules. In those cases, it may be that the publisher is breaking copyright rules – but I don't know exactly how that might apply to your wiki and content. If you hold the copyright for content used on the wiki which would not be fair use in this situation, you may want to contact the publisher or Barnes and Noble about this. I hope this explains more of what's going on. Regards, – sannse Sannse Carter CushwayWikia Community Support—Sannse Carter Cushway, Wikia Community Support
It's not just happening to members of the Sunshine Treaty Organization Pact. They have also taken wiki pages made by others as well as alliance pages and made books out of them, I'll list and link to the material that may infringe copyright here.
and many more
It seems like what the company did was go to the CN Wiki and then just copy-and-paste everything onto a book. They have also done this to the UTAU Wiki, Wikipedia (English and German, they may have done it to others), and many others. For a full list of the wiki's they took info from that's hosted by Wikia, go here:
- Well that's kinda weird...any lawyers around to tell us if we can do anything? Otherwise, I doubt anyone would buy those books, so...I guess we'll ignore them?
- I don't think there's anything that can be done unfortunately.—
Who uses what links in the top navigation? Because I am guessing hardly anyone uses the diplomacy and half of the other ones. I'm trying to think of some better replacements we could make for them. One example being Active treaties instead of "Category:Treaties". I think a link to "Category:Current events" would be useful too. A link to Alliance forums and IRC list would be quite handy, it would have to be updated though, which I have no problem doing. I think a lot of the links and utilities, Diplomacy tab and community tab could be updated with more relevant or with things that provide more assistance, anyone else think so or have ideas for it? Below is a list of the navigation and in bold are items that are on the front page as well as on the top navigation.
- Special:SpecialPages|Links and utilities
- List of sanctioned alliances|Sanctioned Alliances
- Category:Alliance groups|Blocs
- Category:Political ideologies|Political Ideology
- Category:History|CN History
- Cyber Nations Wiki:Community Portal|Community
- Help:Contents|Help Desk
- Cyber Nations Wiki Talk:Village Pump|Village Pump
- http://forums.cybernations.net/%7CCN Forums
- irc://irc.coldfront.net/cn-wiki%7CCN Wiki IRC Channel
- Cyber Nations Wiki:Report vandalism|Report Vandalism
- Category:Cyber Nations Wiki administrators|Contact Admins
- Special:Contact|Contact Wikia cut off from tab
Just curious. 17:55,11/19/2012 (UTC)