GameDev has privately and publicly stated that it will NEVER convert any service that is currently available for free into a subscription service. We intend to expand our free offerings considerably, and also increase the value of GDNet+ by adding built-in and for-pay premium services that are valuable to subscribers.
I have repeatedly provided answers to the questions you've asked
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
After all, this thread was started by someone mad that GameDev had started its own wiki. Right?
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:
Boder @ GameDev wrote:
it would actually sadden me because it would take away from gpwiki.org
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.
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.
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.
If the fact that GameDev is a commercial entity inherently "frightens" you
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.
There are Google Ads on GPWiki, you know.
We didn't even have ads until the community suggested it and agreed on it. If we hated the ads and all asked for them to be removed, they most likely will be.
"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>
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.