Wiki distinctions

First of all, good work. Thanks for that. I really can't say that enough. Now, I move on to my point.

I understand the need to treat NPCs and other wikis differently (because you can post as NPCs), but I'm not sure I understand why it is otherwise sorted into "references" and "Wiki." I'm sure there is a reason for this, and I don't doubt the validity of that reason. However, if someone could advise me of it, I'd be grateful.

What I don't understand is why NPCs are automatically linked, but references and wikis are not. Again, I am sure as I am that the sun rises in the east that there is a good reason for this. However, the fact that I don't remember if some of the things I defined are references or wikis leads me to be only further confused. Is there a way to either have them linked automatically or have it figure out if it's a wiki or a reference for me?

Or, can we merge the reference and wiki definitions, and just let us create classes of wiki entries that group them up under our own insane xenological catalogueing systems?
Permalink
I understand your confusion. In the beginning, wikis and references were very different. A wiki was meant to house pages and pages of information on broad topics. A reference is mean to only have one or two lines of description for a specific entity (person, place, thing). Then there was the auto-linking. Given the previously stated definitions, it made sense to auto-link references, but not wikis. It makes sense to have multiple revisions of wikis, but not necessarily for references.
However, as functionality expands and campaigns grow, this becomes less and less obvious (not that this was obvious to begin with).
With a couple extra tweaks, there will start to be fewer and fewer distinctions between them (from a technology stand point). I can see that down the road, there will be a unification of all these things. This would make development easier and lessen confusion. As well as making it easier to find the information you want.
Permalink
Admin
However, as functionality expands and campaigns grow, this becomes less and less obvious (not that this was obvious to begin with).
With a couple extra tweaks, there will start to be fewer and fewer distinctions between them (from a technology stand point). I can see that down the road, there will be a unification of all these things. This would make development easier and lessen confusion. As well as making it easier to find the information you want.
Aside from the spam, is there any progress on this front?

I'm most interested with automatically linking Wiki entries. If this week's game goes well, I might be starting a new campaign soon, and plan on using Epic Words to support it.
Permalink
Also, it would be nice to create references that only some players can see. But I think that might be complicated.
Permalink
This is still on my to-do list. I was hoping to be further along by now, but I will let you know when it happens!
Permalink
Just in case others are referencing this thread, the practical differences usually favor references over wiki entries.
  • References are linked automatically, and the short definition appears as a tooltip of sorts when you hover over the reference.
  • Wikis entries track changes and have a unique url.
Permalink
If you want to crowdsource efficiently, you must be open. People need satisfaction. If the content they provide goes into a black hole of approval and curation, they do not get the instant gratification of understanding their assignment service online work distributed, and gratification delayed is gratification refused. You won't get a lot of content from the people except you let the people publish.
Permalink