The ups and downs of contributing to WoWWiki
by Adam Holisky 
Feb 2nd 2008 at 7:00PM
Besides news here at WoW Insider, one of my favorite places on the web is over at WoWWiki. The site is a virtual treasure trove of World of Warcraft lore, class information, formulas, and strategies. Back in October the site passed 45,000 articles, and today it stands around 53,000 articles. That's A LOT of content, much more then anyone could possibly hope to read.Where does all this come from?
The way community wiki's work (wikis like WoWWiki and Wikipedia) is that everyone who reads them can effectively edit anything in them. If you're looking at the strategy for Zul'Jin and see something that's not right, or that needs to be added, you can do it right on the spot. Of course you have to sign up for an account and make sure what you're putting in is correct, but that takes all of five minutes. User submitted content is critical to the success of a wiki, and WoWWiki is (as I'm sure most of our readers would agree) one of the most successful game wikis out there.
There are some down sides to WoWWiki, or a community wiki in general. While everyone can edit, everyone should most definitely not edit. For instance, I'm much more interested in what someone from a guild that's killed Illidan has to say about him then what a 12 year old thinks of his helmet. Another problem is that sometimes the information can be dated or inaccurate, especially after a patch has come about that's changed the mechanics of a fight. My guild often times has a "sanity check" on information that comes from WoWWiki, or any other source for that matter, just to make sure it makes sense in terms of the fight as we know it. Of course, this only leads to knowing the fight better and having an easier time defeating the encounter.
I know there's a lot of other folks out there who use this great tool. What are your thoughts and opinions on WowWiki? Do you contribute?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matthew Feb 2nd 2008 7:18PM
I like it, but it definitely could use some better editors. Far too many contributors think that they're supposed to write in the first person, or sign their contributions, or other stylistic problems that for whatever reason don't really pop up on Wikipedia. It doesn't bug me enough not to use it, but it's still kind of annoying.
Overall, though, wowwiki and wowhead offer up enough information to get through almost any challenge the game gives me.
Sky2042 Feb 2nd 2008 11:50PM
Definitely. We at WoWWiki have managed to phase out most of the signing deal, but we always need help copyediting, as well as the rest of the meta-content that keeps WoWWiki looking pretty. You're invited to come help! =)
Atilim Feb 2nd 2008 7:22PM
Well if you read the warlock patch you will notice 1 thing, that it seems that warlocks can kill every class witch isn't true, we can kill noobs but they don't say that.
Oilof Feb 2nd 2008 8:27PM
Was it really necessary to have "what some 12 year old thinks of his helmet", wouldn't "what someone thinks of his helmet" be just as fine, and prove the same point? It was quite ageist, please, refrain from saying things like that unless it's absolutely essential. Concerning WoW, a mature 12 year olds opinion is just as valid as a mature 26 year olds opinion, why the prejudice?
Charlie Taylor Feb 2nd 2008 8:38PM
Ageist? You've got to be kidding me. If you're a twelve year old that's mature good job, but the majority of twelve year olds are immature. For a majority of people age=experience, therefore the older you are, the more experienced and the more mature. This doesn't apply to everyone as there are always special cases, but those cases are few and far between.
Kryptonls Feb 2nd 2008 8:51PM
Haha - don't be so silly.
theRaptor Feb 2nd 2008 11:23PM
Sorry, but the number of 12 year olds that can provide insightful commentary and analysis, is much smaller then the number of 26 year olds who can.
When you get older you will realise you knew a lot less then you thought you did.
Velen Feb 8th 2008 5:36PM
Actually, I speak on behalf of the WoW-Instanc-Boss-Helmet-Admiring Community and I have to say that I am very disappointed at this egregious display of anti-helmet admiring bigotry. Once again we have here another example of this mindless hatred towards people who love to play WoW simply for the opportunity that it provides to admire the helmets of instance bosses. But on behalf of my community, I can say with steadfast assurance: "We will overcome... we will overcome...."
Zeplar Feb 3rd 2008 6:25AM
Some 26 year olds still know a lot less than they think they do :)
Judge based on IQ please.
Aerei Feb 3rd 2008 9:22AM
IQ doesn't mean much either. I won't get into the innacuracies of intelligence testing, but I will say that there are a great many very smart people with personality problems that can get in the way of useful contribution. On the other hand, someone around normal intelligence can be very dilligent and organised, allowing them to make astute observations, just taking slightly longer to do so.
Conduct is the key to being a useful contributer, and it is true; younger people are less likely to have learned proper conduct than older people.
Joene Feb 3rd 2008 7:55AM
I use WoWWiki a lot to check the great WoW lore. Whats up with that NPC, why is this area like that, etc.
And aside of that, the site contains some great guides about faction, bosses, etc.
I have contributed a few things, about Zul'Gurub back in the old days :)
Warlock Feb 3rd 2008 2:49PM
This is a big problem with the lore that comes out of there as well - which is one thing I've always disliked about the site (it would be ok if people didn't always take the site as gospel). I mean, I've seen things as bad as Flamewakers from MC being called "Fire Naga" who were originally Dark Iron Dwarves transformed by Ragnaros, who, by the way, was called an Old God. I've seen WarCraft 3 bonus maps taken as real lore. I've seen D&D creatures (some as lame as Leprechans!) added because the Monster Manual suppliment of the WarCraft RPG line has an appendix for adapting regular D&D monsters for the WarCraft setting. It's rediculous crap like this that confuses everyone.
Overall though, as long as people go there with a bit of skepticism (which should be true of ALL wikis), it's not a bad site.
Oilof Feb 3rd 2008 6:30PM
@Charlie Taylor
I understand what you're saying, however, it was completely unnecessary to add age in there to make his point, as I said, wouldn't his point still be just as valid without it? All the age discrimination adds is frustration and annoyance to that certain group of people who know what it's like to be discriminated upon.
@theRAPTOR
And you're assuming that I'm around the age of 12? Does looking down on someone and saying one of those cliche "you'll understand when your older" comments make you feel more mature?
I'd like to see what a mature 12 year olds opinion is on this, or maybe even a parent of a mature child, I'm sure their thoughts would be similar to mine. Just like with race or sexuality, even the smallest bit of unnecessary discrimination can sting. It's one of those things where most people just have to experience it to understand, but if it could offend some people, why not leave it out if your argument is just as valid?
bonse Feb 4th 2008 6:07AM
I have to admit when i read that one line it stuck out as an unnecessary generalisation. To be honest it undermined any legitimacy the rest of the artical had, thats why most people tend to avoid sectioning off parts of their audience. Sorry, it smacks of a 'making myself feel better' kind of throw away line
Jo (Aged 30 and 11/12ths)
Good_Idea Feb 4th 2008 11:46AM
I love wowkiki, it's one of the best sources of information. Sadly I don't contribute, although some articles could use some corrections I've noticed. But most of the time it's 100% accurate.
Hunter Mar 2nd 2008 4:05PM
The reliability of the lore at wowwiki is always in question, such is the nature of the wiki, and while most information is accurate it's still always best to look at an articles source (this is true of any secondary source). I contribute a bit and always try and find and replace old outdated information and fallacies, provide citations and refrences, rewrite summaries, remove bias, increase readability, enchance accessability, etc...do everything i can to improve the overall quality. I can't say i agree with 100% of the policies but most work for the overall benefit of the community and to assure wowwiki provides the most accurate information it can. And mistakes are fixed rather qucikly. Despite all this its still the most comprehensive collection of warcraft lore on the web, and despite a few drawbacks the good heavily outweighs the bad. And its still far better than no source at all.
Ragnar_rahl Apr 24th 2008 1:59PM
"Sorry, but the number of 12 year olds that can provide insightful commentary and analysis, is much smaller then the number of 26 year olds who can.
"
About physics, maybe. But about an online game? I wouldn't be so sure of that.