It's not a wiki if people can't edit it
-
Mb because it is FAF wiki, not scfa one?
-
What is weird about it?
-
@jip Well, if we ignore that random people without rights can't edit it, the search engine returns pages for all languages, and... nothing feels right. Where did you find it?
-
If you can stop random people registering for FAF, then entering the forums to post random generic text just to sneak their advert links into our page, then, well then we might open up the wiki for everybody again.
-
Overall it sounds like a huge headache for mods to manage even without the automated spam. Someone would have to be constantly checking for trolls or just generally stupid content.
-
@melanol said in It's not a wiki if people can't edit it:
@angelofd347h Never worked in my tests.
If you nuke just inside the ring it will shoot down two, the defence will fire its third too late.
If you fire on the far side of the ring (still inside the defence range) it will shoot down 5, fire a 6th too late to hit.
If you fire over the top it will shoot down 4.
#17351466 -
just coming back the original post:
not sure why do you think it's okey to have everyone being able to edit quite an important informational source, considering that you eventually end up with 50% of the info being collected from a subjective perspective. -
You guys are funny. You are trying to convince me that wikias don't work.
-
It's FAF. Half the people have no clue what they are doing, letting them play around with wikia surely won't mean rampant disinformation.
Case in point, latest balance thread.
-
Don’t most wikis work because they have some highly motivated guys to keep stuff accurate and organized? Most games with successful wikis are huge franchises that have the userbase to rely on that popularity.
Reminds me of the Elder Scrolls wiki (there are two) and the more casual fanbase ran one had some headcanon stuff that was kept in for years on the wiki that eventually was taken at face value by the casual viewers. It was the classic feedback loop where people assume that since it’s on the wiki it must be true.
This solution seems more of a stopgap because we’re aware we do not have that highly motivated self-policing force to regulate wiki contributions.
