EPTHelp BW - Edit Liquipedia! - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19305 Posts
| ||
|
floi
203 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19305 Posts
On June 16 2012 21:10 Chef wrote: The problem with liquidpedia is that users find it really discouraging that their information can be editted from right to wrong, or that most of the info on there is already wrong so it's hard to want to put up good information, esp. in strategy (probably not much of a problem with basic facts). There isn't really an easy solution to this which is why liquidpedia is an amazing project that never took off the way it should have. I mean it's got good info, but most of that info is just lifted from TLPD so it feels redundant when I could just use that. The other huge problem is that strategy guides take a tonne of work, and you get the most recognition just making a thread for them. and if you're gonna put in all that work just to have some D level player edit your stuff ignorantly not even knowing that the changes they're making are bad... Well I guess that's just my first point. Someone really needs to do some serious thinking about this. Either have some people you know are reasonably competent allow changes only on their approval, or think of something better... system right now just doesn't work for strategy it seems. Yeah, the strategy portion is something I've always been afraid to touch because I am not a pro therefore don't feel qualified to write in there. However there are plenty of other good sections to dabble in. I"m learning a lot about foreign BW teams through this process. I just created this page: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/NrT While it's not much it was pretty cool learning new things about the foreign scene while putting together what information I did get for the actual article. And once I'm actually better at formatting I can start doing crazy cool stuff. | ||
|
Bakuryu
Germany1065 Posts
On June 16 2012 21:28 BisuDagger wrote: Yeah, the strategy portion is something I've always been afraid to touch because I am not a pro therefore don't feel qualified to write in there. +1, its hard to write "right" stuff without it being wrong.... | ||
|
GeckoVOD
Germany814 Posts
On June 16 2012 21:10 Chef wrote: The problem with liquidpedia is that users find it really discouraging that their information can be editted from right to wrong, or that most of the info on there is already wrong so it's hard to want to put up good information, esp. in strategy (probably not much of a problem with basic facts). There isn't really an easy solution to this which is why liquidpedia is an amazing project that never took off the way it should have. I mean it's got good info, but most of that info is just lifted from TLPD so it feels redundant when I could just use that. The other huge problem is that strategy guides take a tonne of work, and you get the most recognition just making a thread for them. and if you're gonna put in all that work just to have some D level player edit your stuff ignorantly not even knowing that the changes they're making are bad... Well I guess that's just my first point. Someone really needs to do some serious thinking about this. Either have some people you know are reasonably competent allow changes only on their approval, or think of something better... system right now just doesn't work for strategy it seems. I'm not sure I fully understand. Is the problem that a) someone could "destory" your work or b) nobody trusts the articles, cause you don't really know where it came from? I don't think any user should worry to much about this issue, as soon as a page is created, every version will be saved. There is, as far as I know, no more anonymous editing, which should erase both cases completely. Any user that edits any change in will be recorded and the original article can be restored with only two clicks. There are also sections "ordinary" users can't edit, because there either completely cut off from editing or semi protected. The next thing is that TLPD might be a terrific system for Korea, but when you actually want to search for something big that has happened in the foreign scene (basically something like Sandlot Tournament for example) TLPD has no sources at all. At least most of the events I tried to add have little to no information. Anyone who edits a wiki should understand the nature of such a portal. Due to its nature it will always change, hence edits are somewhat normal. An Editor should be able to live with the idea, that someone might point out errors or flaws, that's why there are talk pages. It's not a competetion. The same way any user might see his thread closed in strategy forums, when his content sucks or ignorant players saying that it isn't true. The general consent will either back him up or not - depending on the quality of the article. And this works pretty well with Liquipedia, at least in my experience. There might be the approach to gather a few people that would be generally interested in helping out with strategies and discuss how articles should look in threads created only for this task. I'm sure some of the LP admins would help out. Could something like that help you with doubts about the legitemacy of guides, or make you less worried about trolls touching LP? | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 16 2012 21:34 Bakuryu wrote: +1, its hard to write "right" stuff without it being wrong.... When Gecko and I were talking yesterday, I actually said "I hope Bakuryu adds something to the strategy section." | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19305 Posts
| ||
|
medic_ro
Romania105 Posts
| ||
|
Artunit
Philippines399 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule19192 Posts
| ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
Both do need a lot of work. But since there wont be anymore pro matches for brood war and you have production tabs in sc2 VODs, brood war needs it more, even though it is for less people. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On June 16 2012 21:34 Bakuryu wrote: +1, its hard to write "right" stuff without it being wrong.... Well, there is basic stuff that you know is well founded from studying pro replays and VODs and such, and there is theoretical stuff which is harder to talk about. It is like how real wikipedia works, you want to have at least some citation to add credibility to your arguements (but as far as I know almost none of wiki strategy has citations). I made a guide on Zerg walls using pictures from pro games, stuff like that is fine. I also made a guide for the stove and it was editted in weird ways that didn't make sense and made it sound like shit, so I kinda gave up on it. I dunno, I really wanna give it another chance, but some things I read on it are just so frustrating that I know there are gonna be 10 people to edit back every 1 thing I could fix. Like sometimes liquid wiki uses weasel words like 'it's said that' or 'many believe' and if you bring it up on the discussion page you actually get people defending it so it feels hopeless. I really would like to add some builds and stuff tho, so I dunno. Maybe the ideal way would be to make a TL thread but format it in such a way that it could be used for liquidpedia too, and then if the liquidpedia gets screwed up at least the thread still exists. Ya there's multiple copies to each page, but no one wants to baby sit pages and no one is gonna look at more than the final draft in 99% of cases... | ||
|
Bakuryu
Germany1065 Posts
On June 17 2012 01:37 Chef wrote: Like sometimes liquid wiki uses weasel words like 'it's said that' or 'many believe' and if you bring it up on the discussion page you actually get people defending it so it feels hopeless. i feel the exact same way. imho a big part of the wording needs to be rewritten.... (e.g. in zerg_strategy, down at the ZvZ builds: "This matchup is considered a rock-paper-scissors match between all very low economy builds.") | ||
ZodaSoda
Australia1191 Posts
so if anyone is interested in doing that via TLPD match lists, there that.  | ||
Harem
United States11393 Posts
On June 17 2012 02:29 Bakuryu wrote: i feel the exact same way. imho a big part of the wording needs to be rewritten.... (e.g. in zerg_strategy, down at the ZvZ builds: "This matchup is considered a rock-paper-scissors match between all very low economy builds.") Yeah, it's pretty painful to even read. There is other stuff too like how FD in tvp lists fac cc fac when it's not even an FD at all. (the flash variation part) I pointed this out to Ver a while ago and he just laughed. ;; I think another overlooked issue people had with editing on LP is that people weren't actually reviewing changes made. Seemed to discourage some from adding/editing LP. This probably won't be an issue anymore though considering this initiative. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
Introduction of the strategy (the point of going through this route, a brief history) Build Order explained in details (reason of building X instead of Y) Mentality behind it (what to look for, deviation at specific circumstances) Possible transition (Any other plan followup) Strengths should add evidence to back it up Weaknesses also require evidences. Examples and replays If one can't formulate according to the above template with coherency, then they are simply not experienced yet. | ||
|
FyRe_DragOn
Canada2056 Posts
| ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19192 Posts
On June 17 2012 08:52 FyRe_DragOn wrote: im interested in editing the strategy forum. any suggestions of where i should start? edit: strategy section i mean Know what you're talking about in regards to strategy. I don't mean "high masters" either, we want people who make it their life to know this stuff to help us out... | ||
| ||
