Trying to keep people from getting "too hot" as the discussion "heats up."

Those are lyrics from a song they play about global warming here in the US.

Guess nobody got it.

_________________
http://boder.games.googlepages.com/

Oluseyi, I'm not trying to portray GD as some evil site. I have an account there since 2000 or so, and have been a regular poster in the past .

And I really dislike your agressive attitude to be honest. Especially since I have been part of this community for more than 10 years by now. You are on the winning side of getting things, we are on the "losing" side. I know the idea is to have a 50/50 situation, where just everyone benefits, but I simply remain skeptical towards things. What if Gamasutra came up and wanted to get GD.net. Would you give it away as free lunch? I definetly hope you wouldn't.

For the rest, what Spodi said. Again, I'm positive towards it, but my Dutch blood just gives me the need to say whatever is on my mind .

_________________
Serious game developer

http://www.persistentrealities.com
http://www.persistentrealities.com/vbfibre
http://www.ambiances.nl

Wooden shoes. Wooden head. Wouldn' listen.

_________________
In brightest day, in blackest night. No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might, beware my power... Green Lantern's light!
Twitter!

Allow me to spill my Dutch blood all over this thread.

Besides being just another member of GameDev, I am also a fan of the GPWiki initiative.

I think many agree that the larger the community contributing to 'the' or 'a' wiki is, the faster it can grow in size and hopefully in quality. From a personal point of view (like everything in this post), I couldn't care less where it is hosted or what its domain name will be, as long as it stays as accessible as the current GPWiki. Accessible in terms of no special user privileges other than the usual mod or admin, user friendliness and performance of the site's software and hardware. I have no reason to believe that any of these requirements will be disregarded.

Other than the more liberal use of smileys on these forums, I don't see much of a difference in culture. Some members of GameDev may be more blunt in their statements, but if I look at the treatment of beginners or first posters, I wouldn't qualify it as rude or hostile. I think the only occasional harsh reply is made in threads where it is obvious that the OP has made no attempt whatsoever to solve his problem himself (herself) or didn't bother to google at least once to find an answer. And as far as I understand this forum will remain intact and will not placed under the influence of GameDev in any shape or form.

I do understand the general feeling of uneasiness expressed by some of you. Although Ryan has the final say in this, you all (or at least some of you) have put a lot of work into making the wiki what it is today. And it seems that there's a bit of a gap between the 'political' and the 'business' side of things. I can understand Oluseyi cannot reveal each and every detail of GameDev's plan, but I can see how statements like 'doing different things in the future', 'something we're going to address' aren't particularly reassuring. It would love to see a more open discussion and a more detailed plan of what the new system would look like and when these transitions will take place.

I realize I'm expressing my opinion of something I have no part in, uninvited. The real reason to post was of course the ability to test out some of those awesome emoticons:

Hey guys,

When I met with the GameDev guys at GDC, we did not agree to transfer ownership of the gpwiki.org domain name. Instead, we said that gpwiki.org would display a page telling people to go to wiki.gamedev.net, and explaining why. The page can also link to our forums (which will still be hosted at gpwiki.org/forums), so we'll still see quite a bit of forum traffic from that. (Possibly even more than we do now, we shall see.)

The GameDev folks also agreed to link to our forums from somewhere within the wiki, but we didn't specify where. In any case, this should also get our forums a few new users now and then, which is (as I see it) what we want. We don't even want a ton of new users, we just want the occasional newbie, to keep things interesting I believe we will still have that!

Lastly, I do believe that the wiki itself (and the game development community, at large) will be better off with one major wiki, rather than two competing wikis. GDNet's community will certainly help populate the wiki with great articles, and I can't wait to see that happen.

However, I do hear your concerns about GDNet server speed, advertisements, and the "vague future" of the wiki. I believe that the GameDev guys have the right mindset, and will do what they can to make the wiki what it should be. But, if for some reason things go horribly awry, we can always fork.

The user-submitted wiki content will still be GFDL (or some compatible license), so if we feel that things are going in the wrong direction, and we are not able to resolve the issues by talking with the GameDev management, then we can fork and re-create the GPWiki.org wiki.

So, basically, I think things WILL be better with a merged wiki. I'm quite confident of that, in fact. However, if for some reason I'm wrong and things go bad, we do have the ability to revert to our old ways of doing things.

_________________
FizzBall, Professor Fizzwizzle, The Amazing Brain Train, and My Tribe!

Well, we'll see what happens I suppose.

Mediawiki is already running at gamedev.net - with PHP -, so I suppose transferring everything shouldn't be much of a problem anymore.

_________________
Serious game developer

http://www.persistentrealities.com
http://www.persistentrealities.com/vbfibre
http://www.ambiances.nl

I'm pretty sure the wiki is on a different server than the GD site right now.

_________________
NetGore - Open source online RPG engine

First, we don't plan to write a new wiki platform from scratch. If we do anything complex, we'll rip the wiki engine out of an existing, familiar implementation and leverage that. Secondly, we intent to place a WYSIWYG interface on top of it, so the specific wiki syntax will not be a major concern.

(Third, we plan to deploy said syntax site-wide, including in our forums, so users only have to employ one syntax.)

As for GDNet dropping ASP/ASP.NET for PHP, you can't possibly be serious.


I still don't understand this. What, you think people will place put-downs to unknown future readers of wiki entries in the body text? Let's even assume that GameDev's site does lead to a more impersonal community; this will affect discussion about wiki entries, but nobody's going to add text to an entry that reads "Seoushi is a doo-doo head" without it being universally considered vandalism.

Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit more.


There are Google Ads on GPWiki, you know. And that Linux analogy? One of my biggest pet peeves on the internet is atrocious analogies. A more accurate Linux one would be asserting that because, say, Linus Torvalds ran a company which then birthed Linux and hosted kerneltraffic, git changeset publications, development tools and announce mailing lists from day one - not after the fact - therefore Linux is commercial. Oh, yeah, and Linux would have to come with a Verizon-branded browser to provide a small revenue stream from it.

Yeah, that's about right.

GameDev has been a commercial entity from day one, in that it is a limited liability company in order to protect its founders/shareholders from being personally liable for the company's debts. It employs advertisements and a few other marketing services (jobs, events) to generate revenue, which is reinvested in the business. Nobody's getting rich off of GameDev. If the fact that GameDev is a commercial entity inherently "frightens" you, then there's nothing I can say to you. Live long and prosper.


Across the internet, as opposed to across the room.

A second ago I checked our user stats; 59 people were concurrently accessing the forums at 1:46 AM EST on a Friday night - a doubly-off-peak period. Keep in mind that those stats were for that precise second, or however long it took the request to complete. At peak times, we see multiple hundreds of users per second. Let's say that 40% of them are looking at forum threads, and each of those forum threads needs to access the database multiple times to generate the glossary. Let's say that we cache the glossary, only updating it every 10 posts or 24 hours, for performance reasons. Working with an average thread length of 32 posts, that's something like three updates for multiple terms per hundred users per hour... and that doesn't include people actually editing the wiki.

Across the internet.


Well, since you all keep insisting, I guess I'll show my "bad, rude" GameDev colors and point out that our ownership really doesn't think much of your wiki. It's nice, and it has some traction and goodwill attached to it, but it's no superlative technical resource. This is a goodwill play, an attempt to work together rather than divide, to include rather than steamroll.

Put extremely bluntly, GameDev could create a brand new wiki and, within months, make GPWiki seem quaint in terms of article length, breadth, subject domain, technical sophistication, language quality, internationalization... After all, this thread was started by someone mad that GameDev had started its own wiki. Right?

Except I did:



and:



Plus, I also wrote this:


I have repeatedly provided answers to the questions you've asked, but because my answer to the question you haven't asked isn't the one you want, you keep ignoring them. The question you haven't asked is, "Can you just forget about GPWiki and go away?" My answer is "We can, but we're not. We're doing this thing. We think it's good for everyone, and Ryan concurs."

Some of you are afraid not because GameDev will do anything, really, but because you won't be as prominent in the new, combined wiki. It's ego at work, and I should have recognized it sooner. Essentially, recognition is the currency of gift economies such as open source and wikis; even Wikipedia finds a way to recognize frequent and high-credibility contributors. You're afraid of obsolescence. *shrug* I can't help you there; the key to continued relevance is continued contribution.


Well, we left that to Ryan to announce. I guess he didn't.


I think I'm done addressing your conspiracy theories, actually.

Ironic, given that it's a song about the heat in hip hop dance clubs, sung by a rapper/singer who personifies, to some extent, the excessive consumerism that many feel has led to global warming. Lol.

That's unfortunate. My aggression is my classic reaction to aggression - basically, I was attacked, and I subscribe to the Powell Doctrine: respond with overwhelming (aggressive/military) force.

This is me being tame. If this conversation was over on my "home turf," all of you would have written letters complaining about me to the site owners. Heh, I give you these two usernames as a casual example. I'm a very, very nice guy, but I'm also a very, very big dick. I have limited patience and a ready temper, especially as regards predominantly intellectual affairs. I'm not terribly empathetic - my girlfriend fights with me for not being "emotionally responsive."

In other words, it's unfortunate but I'm not apologizing.

I came in nice. I came in apologetic. I came in deferrent. I've been attacked repeatedly, and I really have no reason to put up with it. If you want civility from me, show me the same civility I showed you.


I'd negotiate. I'd seek clarification of terms, attempt to secure commitments. I wouldn't call CMP interlopers, exploiters, soulless, seeking to crush... I'd behave like an adult engaging in business and put my personal feelings aside.

Understand this clearly, I really don't need to come here and clarify our intentions or canvas for your support. I don't need to engage you, and I could have shut Boder down back on GDNet's thread about the wiki, but I did what I thought showed the necessary respect, consideration and inclusiveness to all. Yes, my manner is more brusque than you may prefer, but I did you no harm and showed you no disrespect. So don't talk to me about "aggressive attitude"; it doesn't play.

In some cases, I'm not at liberty to say. In other cases, we really don't know. However, we do know this much: the wiki won't change.

Really, what we decide to do with wiki technology and content in terms of cross-linking useful and relevant information across our site doesn't matter, as long as content on the wiki remains accessible to all, licensed under GFDL or compatible, and open to contributions from all. So I don't get these "concerns" about "ominous plans"; the scenarios I've encountered here border on stupid, and insult my integrity and intelligence.

"Make the wiki accessible only to GDNET+..." because exposing it to only 1% of our audience, selected by willingness to pay a subscription fee, is a smart way to build a valuable technical resource.</sarcasm>

No, not really. What you are telling us is what we have now will be preserved. Great, thats a nice start, but I highly doubt most people here care about what is there now as much as what will be there - I know I sure don't. You have told us that "any service that is currently available" will stay that way, but theres not just one way to take such a broad statement. For all we know, it could mean you want to take the current wiki, throw it into an obscure offset of the site as it is now, then take a copy of the wiki and make an "enhanced" version full of "great new ideas and wonderful content"... for GDNet+ users only. If you don't want that, well you will just have to find the original wiki and try to find what you want through an excessive amount of spam and a complete lack of moderation.

I know this isn't what you're going to do, but you have to realize, your explanation on what you plan to accomplish with the new wiki and how things will change really do lack in clarity.



You got us. We want everyone to know how great we are. Thats why in the 20k+ edits made, we always sign our name near them so people who read it can idolize on what a magnificent being we are.

But really, this seems like nothing more than a cheap shot. People like recognition, yes. Nothing wrong with that. If we want recognition, we put it in our User Page so people can use that or our contributions list if they want to see more of our work since they liked what they saw from us, or so we can show off what we've done. This is affected by having more users... how? That we are a lesser percentage of the edits? I guess you would assume we all stay far away from Wikipedia, too, seeing as our contributions would be dwarfed by the millions of other editors.

Its not about recognition as much as it is about control, and you have made it pretty obvious there will be less control from the users on this new wiki.



Funny, I feel the same about your lack of ability to take people's expressed theoretical concerns about the possible future of the wiki no matter how slight the chance, instantly stamp them with a "conspiracy" tag and treat them as an insult either towards yourself or GameDev. If you were a cop and some kid asked you what would happen if you accidentally missed a target and hit a hostage, I get the feeling you would snap back at him for indirectly calling you a murderer or claiming you had an elaborate plan to assassinate the hostage.

Get it through your head. We're not attacking you or GameDev... at least I am not, nor does it look like anyone else is here. We are addressing possible concerns that have yet to be dismissed. And what do you do? You kick and scream for us insulting you or GameDev when that was clearly not the issue at hand. I have no problem with you - you don't strike me as a dick, just blunt - but you do seem to have a problem with taking everything way too personal.



Wrong. Yet again with the attacks. I don't see anywhere from Boder's initial posts anything about him being mad. The closest you got is:



Sadden, not madden. Would you be sad if GameDev got dwarfed by a huge, incredibly expansive and content-rich site to replace it, not because of the loss of income but because the loss of the site you have put so much time into? I'd sure as hell hope so.



GameDev's community has a much more professional and formal voice in comparison to GPWiki's - at least this is what I see, granted I only browse the forum's technical categories. I think the concern brought up is that while GPWiki'ers may be fine with pages that are less structured and highly informal, the GD community may not be, resulting in a clash of what kind of content would be acceptable. Overall, the GPWiki is very laid back, and I, along with others, do not see this being retained after the merge.



I don't think anyone has said that. GameDev being a commercial entity doesn't "frighten" us, its that being a commercial entity may and probably will have influence on what is free and what is not instead of everything being free as it is now. At least this is, I believe, what the statement originally meant when it came from Almar.







Who said "make the wiki accessible only to GDNet+"? We have expressed concerns at the possible chance that the wiki could be limited to non-GDNet+ users, and I am quite sure you have acknowledged that GDNet+ users will have stuff over regular users. Thats about it.

_________________
NetGore - Open source online RPG engine

Sigh...

There's nothing more to be said here. Lucky asked for our input before deciding on whether or not to go through with this. He has now since agreed to the deal, so there's no point in arguing about it anymore.

GameDev.net's motivations are their own, and if you want to discuss them, I'd suggest taking it to the GameDev.net forums, where you're likely to get a response from more than one person.

(Aside: The angrier you make Oluseyi, the worse GameDev.net will seem, which seems like it should fall into some category of logical fallacy.)

Furthermore, for the purposes of this discussion, technology is completely irrelevant. It's entirely up to GameDev.net to decide what to use.

_________________
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed, and ultimate power.

In a wiki, red is the ugliest colour.

Actually Dial-Up, he confirms my idea about the difference between people we have across the sites*. I have never seen someone in all those years write so agressive and hateful to any of our forum members of VBGC, Nexus, VoodooVB, Lucky's, VBGamer and this site. Well, maybe once on VoodooVB. I'm starting to like The-Moon .

* I know, lots of users, and many personalities on GD, but still.

_________________
Serious game developer

http://www.persistentrealities.com
http://www.persistentrealities.com/vbfibre
http://www.ambiances.nl

Yeap it was a wishful joke (hense the smily).


I know personal insults won't be tolerated however just look at the tones of voice used here and used there. They are quite different, heck it's even apparent in your posts compared to ours.


Ok so I made a bad analogy however the point still stands gpwiki isn't commerical. While I'm not "frightened" over a commerical entity it does mean a change the way the site is handled, usauly for the worse.


I agree our wiki isn't the end all of information and do agree that working together will help but that doesn't mean that it has to be taken over. All it means is people need to add more content. Why not use the existing outlets instead of grabbing one in the name of gd.net? Thats all I was getting at.


However we would still be around because of our content that is unique and useful. It would suck to be competing with the 500 lbs gorilla but it might actually have a good effect of motivating us to make ours better.

As others have said at this point it doesn't really matter, the deal has been made. Hopefully it works out, if not we can always fork. Also I'm not here to attack you Oluseyi, I'm not sure when I came off like that. I'm here to help make sure that we aren't getting the shaft. Although I have shown some concerns I don't think it's going to be that bad, although I would rather it just stay the way it is.

But I've answered this over and over. We can contribute to the wiki - ostensibly, GameDev members already do, as individuals - but then it's still just a wiki. Alternately, we can start our wiki and provide deep integration with our forums, articles, reviews and new applications we're developing - because providing such deep integration with GPWiki as is presents a significant challenge.

To do what you want, which is merely contribute to GPWiki, we'd have to abandon what we want - integrate a wiki into our various services and content offerings. Additionally, it diminishes our incentive to contribute significantly - as you've all pointed out, we are a commercial entity.


True, it might motivate you. In fact, if so many people hadn't said "Why not work with GPWiki?" we might be in that situation. But they did, so we did, so we are.


Change is always... interesting. Despite my excoriations, I harbor no hard feelings. What can I say? I enjoy verbal sparring.

Some people lack sufficient personality to survive large communities. I think we call it Big-Fish-Small-Pond Syndrome

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all month; try the fish!

@Spodi:

You know what, forget everything that's gone before, because going back and forth nitpicking each other is counterproductive. What specific concerns do you have? No bullshit hypotheticals, now. List 'em and I'll address them to the best extent I can.

It's unknown territory so it is scary because people focus on what could go wrong rather than how it could be better in the future.

I'm probably more a part of the gamedev.net community as far as forums go, but I contribute to the wiki a lot, and post in this part of the forum (sometimes in Announcements).

To Oluseyi:

I think it might be a chance to salvage old, rotting gdnet articles on the new wiki, but would that be possible because the old articles are copyrighted?

Some people are concerned about the informal, personal pages. I don't think they would be deleted, but maybe moved or if they really aren't helpful, they could be deleted after being discussed on the talk page.

To me, I've seen the gpwiki recently floundering in spam and not adding as much new content. To combat spam, it is possible to allow only registered users to edit, but at the same time you miss out on a lot of typos being fixed.

_________________
http://boder.games.googlepages.com/