• 64 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by atomic_dumpling (2487 posts) 1 year, 4 months ago

Poll: Should GB really maintain a big wiki right now? (324 votes)

No. I don't see the need and/or it has technical issues 5%
Yes. It is vital to Giant Bomb and I love it 66%
Maybe? I'd prefer they keep it, but seeing how broken the site is … 12%
*fartnoise* 17%

I just read that people can't edit the SEGA wiki entry. One of my own larger wiki entries has fudged up images since the relaunch. I don't need to tell you kaput parts of the main website are.

So, here comes a radical suggestion: Get rid of the wiki. Significantly reduce its size to a hundred or so key entries, tug a snapshot away for later and fix the broken-ass main website first. This injured horse ought to be shot. They did it with Quests, so why not with the wiki as well?

I just wonder if it is really worth having a vast database around when the technical framework is as flimsy as it seems. It sure was awesome in the old days, but uses up a lot of resources and manpower in these uncertain CBSi times. Besides, today it feels more like an image dump than a wiki.

There is also the little detail that the staff almost exclusively refers to wikipedia anyway when looking up video game stuff (bombcast, lifeshows).

So, keep the wiki?

#51 Posted by chilibean_3 (1728 posts) -

I don't think I've done anything to the wiki since the redesign. I never made huge edits but I would at least change typos, fix links, update info as I came across it. Now I just see it and kind of move one. I'm not really sure why.

Still, I want it to stay. I hope the engineers/designers get a chance to work on it but there is a lot of stuff elsewhere on the site that needs work too.

#52 Posted by BisonHero (7306 posts) -

@pandabear said:

@benpicko said:

@familyphotoshoot said:

Sometimes I forget the wiki even exists, to be completely honest.

I just don't find it useful. I come to Giant Bomb almost exclusively for video and audio content.

Yeah, harsh but true. I pay my subscription just because I want to support the Bombcast and some of the video content. I'd prefer they ditched the Wiki (I mean I usually Google the game I want to know about and that usually leads me to Wikipedia) and wrote some more articles. I get so much of my news from places like Joystiq and IGN and like the longer features from Kill Screen. They need writers to write stories.

The Wiki is filled with conjecture and has a strong American bias... I've made changes in the past about PAL releases and had them either rolled in the US release or deleted entirely. For example - Sonic on the Master System is an entirely different game from the Mega Drive version, but the 16-bit and 8-bit versions were merged. They have one level in common. But hey, the Master System wasn't big in America so it doesn't matter. Sounds petty I know, but if you don't care about acurrately recording the history of video games what's the fucking point in this who section of the site?

tl;dr -- Ditch the Wiki, write more stories (and news), focus on the site's strengths (Bombcast, Quick Looks, other videos). Or keep it. Whatever haha

I really don't see what would be gained by GB writing news stories like Joystiq and IGN, other than "Oh sweet, now I can read about same news stories on Joystiq, IGN, Kotaku, and Giant Bomb. And great! Now the staff has even less time to properly inform themselves on how a game works before they Quick Look it because they're busy writing news stories every hour about minor shit that is being written about elsewhere." Other sites already do the 24-hour video game news network/tabloid thing a lot better than GB's small staff would be capable of, and I really don't think it would enhance my experience with the site whatsoever.

#53 Posted by bobafettjm (1487 posts) -

I think the biggest thing the wiki needs is a style guide. We could also use more people updating and adding information, even just fixing typos and such is extremely helpful.

#54 Posted by leebmx (2236 posts) -

They need to keep it but they also need to get people back into it and get it more noticed. There always used to be rewards for doing stuff which needs to come back.

All in all, I think the site needs some major changes and I hope they are thinking what to do. I don't know what CBS will budget them for, and from all the joking at PAX it doesn't seem to be much but I think they need more staff in front of camera and behind the scenes. With Patrick and Ryan *tear* gone they really need some new folks West Coast side.

#55 Posted by Rorie (3039 posts) -

Wiki's not going anywhere, alas. Keep in mind that we do have engineers focused on bugfixing now, so if you have technical stuff you want to bring up regarding the wikis (or the forums), please let me know and we'll look into it.

Staff Online
#56 Edited by HurricaneIvan29 (862 posts) -

Before you guys come to a conclusion, just ask yourself "How often do you actually refer to the Wiki on GB?" ...and not the other contents of the game's page, but the Wiki itself.

Maybe that's what the poll should really be.

#57 Edited by cikame (1097 posts) -

The main site has problems?
Works as intended for me...

On topic, i use wikipedia more than i use the GB wiki for game information, has more people editing it.

#58 Posted by Slag (5074 posts) -

At this point I don't see any benefit to removing the wiki. It's not like it's a resource or time drain on GB, so removing it wouldn't allow say the creation of two extra premium videos a week etc.

That being said it does feel very neglected at this point and is at risk of losing relevance on the web compared to other competitors like wikipedia or even IGN's recent attempt. It needs some serious attention and resources if it's going to win back/maintain a meaningful amount of editors to really keep it humming. No wiki can survive without the good will of a very devoted set of editors.

#59 Posted by Dalai (7093 posts) -

You guys heard @rorie! Burn it all down and start over, this time with passion!

Wait... we're talking about lists, right? No?

#60 Posted by Yummylee (22679 posts) -

#61 Posted by Yummylee (22679 posts) -
@dalai said:

You guys heard @rorie! Burn it all down and start over, this time with passion!

Wait... we're talking about lists, right? No?

But the @Mentos! Won't somebody think of the @Mentos!?

#62 Posted by Axl_Rose (10 posts) -

I think the idea of the wiki was originally what this site was mainly about and it turned into more of a video focus as time went on. But no I think the wiki is still a valuable resource on the site.

#63 Edited by Veektarius (5069 posts) -

I've rarely used the wiki and rarely gotten what I wanted from it when I did.

#64 Edited by Gamer_152 (14126 posts) -

@bisonhero said:

@gamer_152: Fair points. Part of what I meant was also that there maybe isn't enough coordination among those community volunteers, in terms of a consistent style and tone on wiki articles. Is there a style guide? I remember Jeff talking about how it really needed one, but I haven't really kept up with the wiki.

I agree entirely. There's no style guide and it's something that's been brought up within the mod team before, but due to certain internal difficulties we haven't been able to give users one thus far. I'd been interested in pushing for one again.