Articles and the Wiki

[Buster's Uncle]

Dio, when this Faction Editing Guide is finished and ready, I would like a copy also posted to Articles, in the modding section, please.

[ete]

Okay Dio, I'll update with Probe Cost and any other results you have later. And I thought wormpolice worked? Maybe there's some factor in your test blocking it?

@BU: I'd prefer not to add more duplication. I'd actually like to move all the Articles onto the wiki where they're editable, easy to back up, have good interlinking, categories for finding things, etc, then direct people towards the wiki (not actually delete articles, but remove prominent links to them and add links to the equivalent wiki sections in their place). Having two copies means that either when someone updates one you've got to go update the other (or contact someone to update the other, since most people can't edit others articles), one is just outdates which means people viewing the articles are not getting the best information possible, or worst we get edit conflicts. I understand the appeal of having one in articles to you, but it really makes sense to focus on one CMS.

[Buster's Uncle]

ete, I disagree.

This is a forum that hosts a wiki, not the other way around.  I see your point about efficiency, but I hope you see mine about it being unlikely that one can have too many copies lying around of useful stuff.

In that same spirit, I hope you'll make free with my rambling graphics course, and indeed, my Prog xenopology article in another section.   It's problematic that none of it's exactly encyclopedic, but it is information people look for -bait; I did all of that mountain of work as bait for the forum- and duplication is good for SEO, I should think.

[ete]

The whole site AC2 is built around the forum. The articles section was created when we had no other CMS. A wiki is a /spectacularly vastly better/ CMS than the articles plugin for dozens of reasons, some of which I've explained in this thread. Having two CMSs (or having too many publicized copies of something lying around) directly impacts negatively on:
1. User experience and access to good information - have to look in multiple places, users may not be aware of all, content may be outdated, content is poorly interlinked
2. Work for contributors - Updating and posting on multiple places with no real gain is just pointless busywork. I am not opposed to work, but I am opposed to vastly increasing work for no gain.
3. Contributor retention - Having a bad CMS in public and having your updated work not seen by the users looking for it because there's a copy somewhere else is quite discouraging.
4. SEO - Duplication is actually terrible for SEO. http://www.midphase.com/blog/six-reasons-why-duplicate-content-is-bad-for-seo/ or just google "is duplication good for SEO": https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&q=is+duplicate+content+good+for+seo&oq=is+duplicate+content+good+for+seo

It's not a competition. The wiki is part of AC2, and it's clearly the place to store articles because it's built to be a CMS, not a tagged on extension to a forum. Articles do not have to be encyclopedic, that's a wikipedia rule not a wiki rule. We are not wikipedia. Unencyclopedic pages which are interesting or useful are entirely welcome.

You did a lot of work setting up articles, writing and collecting them. I respect that. That's the hard work and you won't stop being credited for it if they're moved to the wiki. Your work will just be easier to find, have more interlinking, and be part of a better CMS (with regular backups!).

Sorry about that side track Dio, excellent research . What does negative strength do?

[Buster's Uncle]

We can start a new thread or split off from here if Dio cares.

Your words have merit.  Tell you what; Articles was sisko's thing that he asked me to post to.  If he says you're right, I'll defer to his good judgment.

However - go have a look at my, dunno, 13 or so Graphics tutorials.  A wiki entry might be best edited into one long article with all the repetition and non-technical instruction taken out - and back-linked to the original collection for all the very important talk about the art and the why of it.

[ete]

I've PMed sisko asking for his input.

I'll go look through some graphics tutorials now and see how I feel they'd fit best onto the wiki.

@Dio: Updated all but wormpolice with your research (want to check myself, was sure that worked), thanks!

[ete]

Okay BU, I think I'd be happy to move the graphics stuff over pretty much as-is. Making it more formal/taking out non-technical instruction stuff and joining it up would be unnecessary imo.

[Buster's Uncle]

Okydoke.  If we do away with Articles, BTW, I'd suggest simply taking down the button, as I'll never track down every spot I've linked one, and it would take hours to even try...

[ete]

Yep, that's what I was thinking. Just in future link to wiki versions.

Are you splitting the posts about the articles/wiki thing off into a new thread? This one is at least half about the guide Dio wrote.

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay, it'll take me a few minutes, 'cause the SMF workaround to do that is awkward, but you wanting it is good enough for me.

[BU Admin]

This is annoying - there used to be an option to dupe posts, so I could have edited your posts with bits directed separately at Dio and I into their proper places in each thread.  Where did that button go?