X-COM Wiki

[NKF]

Apparently the database appears to have a safeguard that may save it from being indiscriminately erased by malicious individuals. If I'm not mistaken it it keeps records of all the previous edits that were made to any page. So if someone comes along and messes up, they should be recoverable from the archives. Although I don't know how far back the database will be able to keep backups.

 

After having a few goes at it already, I feel the Wiki actually seems like a handy thing to have in general, even as a personal journal or notepad on your own PC to keep all your ideas and notes in order and to be able to add and remove pages and references here and there at will without having to muck around with actually creating new files to link to and all that. Of course, I can still imagine that the organisation would end up being a bit of a nightmare even for one person.

 

- NKF

[FullAuto]

could a morally degenerate individual enter bogus entries in the Base Facilities section

 

Drat! Foiled again!

[GazChap]

Hmm, how about the sections that are common to UFO and TFTD? Like the stats and a heap of the mathematical formulas?

In that case I would suggest the pages to just be named as "Mathematics" or whatever without any suffix.

 

We also need a team of editors, who can come along and rework a lot of the information that is dumped into the page into some form of standard, or just make it sound better.

Most definitely. I will add as much information as I can but unfortunately I am incredibly busy with work at the moment. Of course, one of the bonuses of using a Wiki is that everyone can contribute so people can pick up where I (and others) leave off.

[Bomb Bloke]

Is there any way we can set it up so that only account holders can enter information, and account holders must be verified before they are allowed to enter information? That would be the easiest way to prevent malicious users access. The extra time it would take to get a login might well convince them not to bother creating chaos.

[Jman4117]

Or maybe post into a pool of info that has to be apporved?

[druid]

Looking good so far, good work!

 

It's one of those things that, when there are loads more entries, I can seeing people wonder how they lived without it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pete dude I went an bought UFO Aftermath.....why dos nobody mention it here?

And why dos it suk so much?

I cant belive how bad it is,I dont endorse violence but im beginning to change my mind.

 

I have the first 3 UFO games are there any more? (I dont include aftermath)

 

<<<<Mr Fozzie Bear

[NKF]

Aftermath is not an X-Com title per se, so it doesn't really count even though the people who made it have made a passing nod towards the X-Com series. Also if you look at the main list of forums, there is an UFO: Aftermath forum. If anywhere, that's where you'll find any mention of it.

 

---

 

Re security issues: While I agree some means of securing the information needs to be in place, I think what's more important at the moment is to increase the activity a bit in order to flesh out some sections.

 

I mean, at this point in time, there's only three or four of us that've actually put anything in - and I'm sure we've only done so on a 'whenever we've got free time' basis.

 

A members only contribution system seems like a good start. For now. The finer details can be worked out later.

 

- NKF

[druid]

Aftermath is not an X-Com title per se, so it doesn't really count even though the people who made it have made a passing nod towards the X-Com series. Also if you look at the main list of forums, there is an UFO: Aftermath forum. If anywhere, that's where you'll find any mention of it.

 

---

 

Re security issues: While I agree some means of securing the information needs to be in place, I think what's more important at the moment is to increase the activity a bit in order to flesh out some sections.

 

I mean, at this point in time, there's only three or four of us that've actually put anything in - and I'm sure we've only done so on a 'whenever we've got free time' basis. 

 

A members only contribution system seems like a good start. For now. The finer details can be worked out later.

 

- NKF

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thx dude,the penny dropped 10 secs after I posted the above......jeez I am dumb,sry to

waste 30 secs of your life

[Zeno]

I agree that entering the information is a priority, but security shouldn't be pushed aside. Also, I'm not talking so much about security as data integrity. Maybe I've just worked on too many projects where the database has become unuseable--not because of viruses or data thieves, but because of simple human error.

 

If only 3 or 4 people are entering data, then you won't have a major problem anytime soon. But with unlimited users, eventually you will have duplicate entries, entries in the wrong place, and a spiderweb structure where finding the data you want may take hours of reading (you know, like finding something very specific in the forums...)

 

In addition to duplication, you'll also have mistakes. Not everyone is as careful with their words as the people currently entering information. People have different versions of the software, people forget that they're using XCOMUTIL, people simply type the wrong number accidently, people aren't fluent in English, people write their assumptions and guesses, people write blobs of text without focusing on organization, people write suggestions they "read somewhere but can't remember the source"...

 

People make mistakes. Going through a large database and "cleaning up the data" is not so easy as it sounds.

 

I think relying on archives, and the history of who changed what, is not the best solution. Sure, if someone found a way to delete everything, archives are the way to go. But for the day-to-day maintaining of information, we need some assurance that the data is accurate and stored in the correct place, without duplication.

 

Having a single, or small group, of people constantly checking, editing, and updating the Wiki would require people without offline lives. However, it seems to me that the people who use the data while playing their game are the best judges of data quality.

 

Is it possible to implement a ranking system? Have users rank an entry as "good" or "bad" (or 1-10, or whatever). An entry with a high rank would have a higher priority for search results, and appear first when drilling through topics to find data. Perhaps an entry with a very high rank would become "confirmed information" while all unranked or low-ranked data would remain "pending". Very low-ranked data should be checked by the administrator(s) for possible deletion.

 

I would also recommend that entries not be edited by anyone except the original writer. Often, the editor will misunderstand the author, and "fix" something incorrectly. The fix is actually an error, as the author intended to write something else.

 

Instead of editing entries, allow anyone to post comments to the entry. These comments should be reviewed by the author, or the site administrator(s), before editing the entry. Once an entry is edited, the comments should be archived and the rank reset to 0, pending users to review the newly revised entry.

 

Some of my ideas for the ranking system can be seen in action here at "Urban Dictionary", a fun site for people trying to learn English slang. I use it as an example only because it is the people who use the site who control the quality of the information--rather than one editor or group of editors managing the site.

 

------

 

I'm sure others here have ideas about data integrity and security. We need to find a simple, non-invasive solution that doesn't require any one person to do everything. No offense to anyone here, but if we rely on one person to manage the information, then it'll become another "indefinitely postponed" project when the one person becomes busy with other things in life.

 

This Wiki thing sounds like a great way to compile and manage all the information users have researched and discovered about the XCOM games. I would hate for it to become non-useful simply because we didn't think about data quality soon enough.

 

If we're not careful, an XCOM Wiki search will be equivalent to an XCOM Forum search--a good tool, but one that requires a lot of patience reading through extraneous, erroneous, and excessive text.

 

(Kind of like this post...sorry about the length, again...)

 

--Zeno

[NKF]

Oh, no argument about the security or at least some form of control.

 

But arguing about security before there's anything much to argue over is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Or the horse before the cart, or whichever variation you prefer.

 

Hence why I said, a members only system would be satisfactory for the time being. We can work out a better security or content standardis/zation scheme as we go along.

 

Don't worry about the length of your posts. Some of us are just used to it - or some us just put up with it.

 

I'm trying to kick the habit of writing long wordy essays. A bit of a throwback to my high school days where we were caned if we did not meet the stringent word requirements for an essay that could be answered with one or two sentences but needed 350 - 500 words. Okay, so we weren't caned, but we were threatened to be caned. Some were caned, or others were humiliated (one person messes up, whole class was punished .... aieee). But never you mind that.

 

- NKF

[GazChap]

I can certainly change the Wiki so that you need to create an account to create new pages, but I think that is pretty much the only security system it offers, unfortunately.

 

Thats the problem with Wiki's in general - the idea of them is that everyone can contribute.

[Bomb Bloke]

Contribution is one thing. But full access is quite another. For example, if every single user on this forum had admin rights, it would be chaos.

 

Is there any way we can have accounts verified before access is granted? That would be good enough for me. Just so we can check that the people posting understand the concept of 'grammer', and that non-provable information shouldn't be presented as fact.

[GazChap]

Don't think you can do that unfortunately. I'll have a detailed look in the configuration files and see if there is anything like that.

[NKF]

GazChap, is there an editing reference or whatever to show us what can be done and how it can be done?

 

So far I've only been parroting what's already been used when it comes to minor text formatting, section headings and lists.

 

Apart from that, I haven't a clue on how to use any naming conventions for organising the articles into their respective sections. I'm sure some would-be contributors may feel a little apprehensive at adding articles because they don't know how to create the articles. And the editing help page is .. well, it's rather a bare bones help page, if you know what I mean.

 

- NKF

[GazChap]

Yes, unfortunately it doesn't seem to be incredibly easy to use!

 

There is a Wiki on the MediaWiki website which gives some useful information on organising and creating articles.

 

Thats what I used to learn more about how to do stuff.

[NKF]

Right ho fellow information gatherers...

 

I've been trying to write a few articles off-line, but can never quite get them done due to other things I have to deal with, like my life, sleep and work.

 

If I have time I'd like to move on to gathering the stats for the auto-cannon - and perhaps even make a half-hearted attempt at writing up a description. Anyone have any ideas on what other information should be gathered in the 'gun usage' section I've been putting into the weapons? I've included a short list on how many shots of a certain type can be fire in any given turn. Not too sure what else of interest can be included.

 

One article I've always wanted to write was a Starter's guide to X-Com Apocalypse. But I could never quite structure it right - I'd write something and end up with a big unreadable mess. If only I could work out some sort of basic skeleton that I can build off... oh well.

 

- NKF

[JellyfishGreen]

Hey warriors,

 

I did a bit of copying and pasting just now between my entries in the Field Manual and the Wiki. I would have to vote against the extra "(UFO Defense)" tag on the UFO/XCOM pages.

 

When I'm linking to the "Heavy Laser" page - there is only one heavy laser! I just want to use [[Heavy Laser]] in my link rather than adding the (UFO Defense) hidden text.

Likewise psionics, molecular control, blaster bombs, gauss guns - the names in each game are unique. So why complicate the page names?

 

As for crossover between the games - what about just "XCOM Weapons" vs "TFTD Weapons" where necessary?

 

JFG

[GazChap]

Sorry I've not been around much! I've been a bit ill over the past few weeks so haven't had much computer time at all

 

You are all free to change the pages around however you want. Removing the "(UFO Defense)" part is probably a good idea. I'd forgotten that there are no "Heavy Weapons Platforms" in TFTD, they are called SWSs aren't they? So yes, it's a unique name.

 

I'll hopefully be able to contribute some stuff now that I'm feeling a bit better, although I've now got a metric ton of work to catch up on too!

[Jasonred]

Guys... write more. Remember, a wiki is a CONSTANT WORK IN PROGRESS. So, if you don't have the time to write and edit something really polished, just add whatever useful content you have to the page, help polish the html...

 

Recent changes page is always a good place to peek at.

[Bomb Bloke]

I got my own 'net connection now, so this is one of the (many) things I need to catch up on.

 

Seems the thing has changed a little bit - You might all need to update your bookmarks.

[NKF]

For anyone who wants to write articles but don't know how, you can use the following for reference:

 

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents#For_editors

 

I found the following particularly useful:

 

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Filling_the_page

 

- NKF

[Danial]

I've made my first additions to the wiki...

 

I've added Encumberance info to the TUs section, as well as starting on all the missing soldier stats (except bravery cuz I don't know much about it).

 

I've also added the game's breifings into each mission type.

 

I've never used a wiki before, so I hope I did everything right

[Danial]

I'm on a roll now...

 

I've just finished adding the Silacoid, Reaper, and Cyberdisc pages!

[NKF]

NKF has had a minor brainstorm which has resulted in a temporary infection of 3rd person speech syndrome that will last by the end of this run on sentence that really needs more punctuation.

 

What say you if we have 64x64 or larger pixel images of the individual base modules as seen in the geoscape base screen. Dirt, modules, everything. Then, for whatever reason, if we decide that an illustration of a base is necessary, it could be pieced together in a 6 column by 6 row table? In either Wiki or HTML table formatting, it doesn't matter.

 

I was also thinking of having identicals illustrations but for the lower level floorpans of the base modules as well. It would be much more functional than the simple geoscape base screen icons and it would illustrate how movement in the base will flow. Maybe even map out the spawn points as well? Actually, that may be a little too ambitious.

 

Mad? Perhaps. But I thought I'd toss it out and see it get ripped to shreds.

 

- NKF

 

P. S: To existing part-time article writers (like yours truly) and potential new writers (you): When writing similar articles in the UFO and TFTD sections, you don't have to copy and paste entire blocks of text verbatim and only change a few game-specific nouns. Flex those creative pecs my friends! At the very least it'll break the monononononotonyny (when do I stop?).

 

P. P. S: I really should say, try not to copy and paste word for word. Sometimes it cannot be helped, so don't worry yourself too much about it. Just keep it in mind when creating new articles.

[Bomb Bloke]

I reckon I could easily build a java applet that would accept parameters and display bases accordingly.

 

If we stored it on the Wiki server then we could hotlink to it from our forums posts, even.