Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I had thought gamepedias claim to be the official survive the ark wiki to be true. However, gamepedia is now masking the site under fandom resulting in a lot of broken pages with big fat ads blocking the content.
just one example of many where gamepedia is stripped out, no drop down for spawn map, and fat add blocking content.
https://ark.fandom.com/wiki/Spawn_Map_(Crystal_Isles)

ark bad fandom page.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Volunteer Moderator

They are clearly milking it. I get that they have to generate revenues for the service they offer for free, but a few months ago, I did the mistake of quickly looking something up on my phone without ads-blocker and it was a terrible experience. There was a sticky video at the top, a sticky banner at the bottom, along with a few auto-refreshing ads across the page. Reading and navigating was a pain; the page wasn't only extremely slow to scroll due to the lazy-loaded ads, but the content was constantly moving up and down randomly as the ads were refreshing themselves.

Not only that, but the ads themselves were quite unethical for the target audience of the site. I mean, this is a wiki for a video game about dinosaurs, and they advertise gambling, betting, keto bs, investment guru scams, etc.

Since then, despite @Larkfields's efforts, I haven't and will not contribute to the wiki. Not that I was very active either way, but I personally don't feel like wasting my time doing any edits just for them to promote that kind of stuff to an young audience. I won't support and participate into that model. Others may do; not me. 🙃

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

A lot of it is wrong too. I routinely find that kibble requirements for taming are off (yes I know its Easter and factor in the multiplier).

Yeah, I've noticed the same about the wiki too. It's certainly the best website for technical information about the game, which isn't saying much since it's one of, what, three sites, all with limited info. I've noticed missing info and straight-up misleading info that relying on has set me back in my own game. It kind of surprised me after having been involved in the communities of other games whose wikis were really well curated.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 4:43 AM, St1ckyBandit said:

A lot of it is wrong too. I routinely find that kibble requirements for taming are off (yes I know its Easter and factor in the multiplier).

So do you take the trouble to fix it when you find errors? A wiki is only as good as the players who work at making it better. If you leave bad information on the wiki then you're just as guilty as anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 2:57 PM, TorgosSolaris said:

Yeah, I've noticed the same about the wiki too. It's certainly the best website for technical information about the game, which isn't saying much since it's one of, what, three sites, all with limited info. I've noticed missing info and straight-up misleading info that relying on has set me back in my own game. It kind of surprised me after having been involved in the communities of other games whose wikis were really well curated.

Same question for you, are you doing your share to make it better? A "community" also includes the people who ignore problems on wiki and then complain about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

So do you take the trouble to fix it when you find errors? A wiki is only as good as the players who work at making it better. If you leave bad information on the wiki then you're just as guilty as anyone else.

I purposely left it wrong as a homage to how broken the game is. I'm very poetic.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

I purposely left it wrong as a homage to how broken the game is. I'm very poetic.

So you're a typical complainer who doesn't want to do your fair share to make things better. Brilliant "joke".

 

And just to be clear, in my view the root cause of this problem is WildCard's fault, not the players. For a game of this size and scope a wiki a) should be Official, b) should be hosted by the game company for free and without adds. I don't expect a game publisher to hire people to maintain a wiki, it's ultimately a community resource, but there are plenty of games that make much less money than ARK that have their Official wiki hosting costs paid for by the game company. This game is pretty darned close to being uplayable without a wiki, and it's for darn sure that they wouldn't have nearly as many players if a good wiki doesn't exist, so it behooves them to pay for wiki hosting costs so that players aren't stuck with crappy add-farms like fandom.

Having said that, the content of the wiki is still the responsibility of players, if you don't do your part to fix mistakes then you have no business complaining about errors, that's just plain hypocritical.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

So you're a typical complainer who doesn't want to do your fair share to make things better. Brilliant "joke".

 

And just to be clear, in my view the root cause of this problem is WildCard's fault, not the players. For a game of this size and scope a wiki a) should be Official, b) should be hosted by the game company for free and without adds. I don't expect a game publisher to hire people to maintain a wiki, it's ultimately a community resource, but there are plenty of games that make much less money than ARK that have their Official wiki hosting costs paid for by the game company. This game is pretty darned close to being uplayable without a wiki, and it's for darn sure that they wouldn't have nearly as many players if a good wiki doesn't exist, so it behooves them to pay for wiki hosting costs so that players aren't stuck with crappy add-farms like fandom.

Having said that, the content of the wiki is still the responsibility of players, if you don't do your part to fix mistakes then you have no business complaining about errors, that's just plain hypocritical.

Meh never edited a wiki before nor have I ever come across a game one that was incorrect. Dont plan on starting now, certainly not with a game as neglected as this.

I have enough trouble playing ark without losing everything due to DCs and bugs as it is. Just today my whole server crashed as I was over the water on the way to do a boss fight with all my boss gear. Its a miracle I got back in time before drowning.

Sorry not gonna sink additional time into the game doing research for a wiki.

For the record I find dododex to be off too, especially with tranqs required to KO a dino.

You're acting as if I went on some big rant bashing the wiki, when in reality it was more of a warning to other players not to trust it.

Furthermore, have you never used the wiki  ? Because someone so gung ho about others not doing their part to edit it could certainly fix it themselves as well.

Edited by St1ckyBandit
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 2:23 PM, Pipinghot said:

Same question for you, are you doing your share to make it better? A "community" also includes the people who ignore problems on wiki and then complain about them.

I've never gotten involved in a wiki, nor do I know enough about the game to contribute. All I know is that some information I got on the wiki turned out to be wrong and it's chipped away at my faith in the information there. I'm not obligated to contribute just because I play the game. Moreover, though I've never bothered with wikis, I've known people who have, and any changes, regardless of how accurate they may be are as likely as not to be removed by someone who isn't personally familiar with the information. I have better things to do than to involve myself in wiki politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

Meh never edited a wiki before nor have I ever come across a game one that was incorrect. Dont plan on starting now, certainly not with a game as neglected as this.

Excuses.

15 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

I have enough trouble playing ark without losing everything due to DCs and bugs as it is. Just today my whole server crashed as I was over the water on the way to do a boss fight with all my boss gear. Its a miracle I got back in time before drowning.

Excuses.

15 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

Sorry not gonna sink additional time into the game doing research for a wiki.

Excuses.

15 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

You're acting as if I went on some big rant bashing the wiki, when in reality it was more of a warning to other players not to trust it.

Nope, I'm not acting like that at all, trying to flip this over on to me isn't going to change anything.

I simply pointed out that if you're not going to help fix a problem that you have every opportunity to help with then you don't have the right to complain about it. It's a pretty simple concept that applies to RL as much as to wiki's. Every player in the game can contribute to the wiki, the wiki is only as good as the players who take the trouble to help each other, if you're not going to contribute (and clearly you're deliberatly refusing to contribute) then don't complain. Other people are donating their time to the wiki out of the goodness of their hearts, if you're not going to help make it better then you get what you get, end of story.

You're the one who has turned this into a multi-post exchange by trying to defend your complaining when you're not helping make anything better, that's on you. If you don't want to contribute then don't, but then you also don't get to complain about it, it's a pretty simple concept.

15 hours ago, St1ckyBandit said:

Furthermore, have you never used the wiki  ? Because someone so gung ho about others not doing their part to edit it could certainly fix it themselves as well.

Again, trying to flip this over on me isn't going to work, I'm not the one who was "warning" about it.

Edited by Pipinghot
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TorgosSolaris said:

I've never gotten involved in a wiki, nor do I know enough about the game to contribute. All I know is that some information I got on the wiki turned out to be wrong and it's chipped away at my faith in the information there. I'm not obligated to contribute just because I play the game.

That still comes down to complaining without helping. If you know enough to know that the information is wrong then you do, in fact, know enough about the game to contribute.

6 hours ago, TorgosSolaris said:

Moreover, though I've never bothered with wikis, I've known people who have, and any changes, regardless of how accurate they may be are as likely as not to be removed by someone who isn't personally familiar with the information. I have better things to do than to involve myself in wiki politics.

Translation: The world is not a perfect place, therefore you choose to do nothing.

Mind you, you're not under any obligation to do anything, nor am I saying that you have to do anything, you can do or not do whatever you want, it's a free world. What I am saying that if you complain while doing nothing then others have the right to call you on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

That still comes down to complaining without helping. If you know enough to know that the information is wrong then you do, in fact, know enough about the game to contribute.

Translation: The world is not a perfect place, therefore you choose to do nothing.

Mind you, you're not under any obligation to do anything, nor am I saying that you have to do anything, you can do or not do whatever you want, it's a free world. What I am saying that if you complain while doing nothing then others have the right to call you on it.

You can know that information is wrong without knowing what the correct information is. For example, during the Halloween event, I noticed an unusual color appearing on the wild animals that wasn't listed on the wiki as part of the event colors. Considering I had not ever seen this color on wild animals prior to participating in the event, I knew it had to be an event color, but I did not know what the code for the color was in the game, ergo I had nothing to contribute to the wiki. Unless you're suggesting I effectively vandalize the wiki by posting under the color listing about how "A color is missing from this list but I don't know what its code is, so I can't add anything meaningful"?

For what it's worth, others have the right to call me on anything they please. That's called freedom of speech. You want to call me on how I cook my pasta or what color car I chose? Nobody can stop you because that's how free speech works. That doesn't make your complaint any more valid or make you any more righteous. For that matter, the irony of you complaining about other people complaining is not lost on me. Don't like complaints? Don't contribute to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

You can know that information is wrong without knowing what the correct information is. For example, during the Halloween event, I noticed an unusual color appearing on the wild animals that wasn't listed on the wiki as part of the event colors. Considering I had not ever seen this color on wild animals prior to participating in the event, I knew it had to be an event color, but I did not know what the code for the color was in the game, ergo I had nothing to contribute to the wiki.

Also, in case it's important to you that this gets acknowledged, that's a fair point. That's a scenario I didn't consider before you pointed it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

Wow, specious argument much?

It's amusing how far you're going to avoid responsibility for your choice to complain while not contributing.

Here's the point you're missing: I don't have a responsibility to the wiki. I've never had a responsibility to it. I'm not getting paid by the admins, I never made a promise to contribute, and I owe nothing to the site. I have no incentive, ethically or otherwise to contribute, so why bother when I can just get better information from these forums? Some things simply aren't worth the time and effort it takes to make improvements, and in my opinion, the wiki is one such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

Here's the point you're missing: I don't have a responsibility to the wiki. I've never had a responsibility to it. I'm not getting paid by the admins, I never made a promise to contribute, and I owe nothing to the site. I have no incentive, ethically or otherwise to contribute, so why bother when I can just get better information from these forums? Some things simply aren't worth the time and effort it takes to make improvements, and in my opinion, the wiki is one such thing.

I'm not missing anything. I already said, "you're not under any obligation to do anything". At no time have I said or implied that you have a specific responsibility to the wiki.

The only thing I did was point out that you're complaining about a community, volunteer effort without doing anything to help or contribute. That's a valid criticism in nearly any context, and definitely a valid criticism in the context of a player & volunteer supported resource.

You've made the claim that the wiki "has set me back in my own game," and you criticized it by comparing it to other games and saying, "It kind of surprised me after having been involved in the communities of other games whose wikis were really well curated," and yet the only example you've given to justify your criticisms is the failure to list one of the temporary colors for a holiday event. That's not even remotely the kind of thing that would 'set you back in your own game' nor is it something that justifies accusing the wiki of being poorly curated. The wiki has tons and tons of correct, accurate and useful information but somehow you want to present the argument that a missing holiday color is an example of something that "chipped away at my faith in the information there". If you're going to describe the wiki in such dramatic terms then you'd better be able to provide an example that's much more dramatic than a missing holiday color. The wiki is not perfect, absolutely true, but the idea that the wiki 'set you back in your own game' is pretty absurd.

And in the end it all comes back to the same basic point - if you're going to complain about a community resource created & maintained by volunteers while at the same time refusing to contribute to making it better, calling you out for that is a valid critique of your complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pipinghot said:

I'm not missing anything. I already said, "you're not under any obligation to do anything". At no time have I said or implied that you have a specific responsibility to the wiki.

The only thing I did was point out that you're complaining about a community, volunteer effort without doing anything to help or contribute. That's a valid criticism in nearly any context, and definitely a valid criticism in the context of a player & volunteer supported resource.

You've made the claim that the wiki "has set me back in my own game," and you criticized it by comparing it to other games and saying, "It kind of surprised me after having been involved in the communities of other games whose wikis were really well curated," and yet the only example you've given to justify your criticisms is the failure to list one of the temporary colors for a holiday event. That's not even remotely the kind of thing that would 'set you back in your own game' nor is it something that justifies accusing the wiki of being poorly curated. The wiki has tons and tons of correct, accurate and useful information but somehow you want to present the argument that a missing holiday color is an example of something that "chipped away at my faith in the information there". If you're going to describe the wiki in such dramatic terms then you'd better be able to provide an example that's much more dramatic than a missing holiday color. The wiki is not perfect, absolutely true, but the idea that the wiki 'set you back in your own game' is pretty absurd.

And in the end it all comes back to the same basic point - if you're going to complain about a community resource created & maintained by volunteers while at the same time refusing to contribute to making it better, calling you out for that is a valid critique of your complaint.

Honestly I don't owe you an explanation why I'm disappointed in the wiki either. You want an example, you go look through my post history, I explain one of the instances where the wiki had misleading information that did in fact set me back in my game.

You do realise that calling me out for criticising the wiki makes it seem like you do think I owe something to the site? The implication is that if I don't want to participate in it, I'm not allowed to have an opinion about it, which comes awfully close to the idea that I owe my time and research to a website about a video game. I do not, and moreover it's not like my opinion is somehow harming the site. Sometimes people have negative opinions about things, and you not liking or agreeing with said opinion isn't going to change it.

There are many, many things in this world I dislike but don't put any effort into improving. I'm sure you do the same thing. Most everyone does. It's about priorities, and as long as the wiki isn't offering me a job, I don't care enough to do anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

Honestly I don't owe you an explanation why I'm disappointed in the wiki either. You want an example, you go look through my post history, I explain one of the instances where the wiki had misleading information that did in fact set me back in my game.

So you'll voluntarily provide an example that completely fails to support your argument, but you refuse to provide one that supports it. Seems legit, yeah that really lends credibility to your claims.

13 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

You do realise that calling me out for criticising the wiki makes it seem like you do think I owe something to the site?

Nope, false argument. You don't owe the wiki any more than you owe anything else in life. The basic point is that you're complaining without contributing, criticizing without being willing to help, that's a valid critique in any context, has nothing to do with the wiki specifically and will continue to be valid regardless of any other red herrings you try to throw against the wall.

13 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

The implication is that if I don't want to participate in it, I'm not allowed to have an opinion about it

Well you're "allowed" to have any opinion you want, but when you express that opinion in a public forum people have every right to question, disagree and argue, and they certainly have the right to question the validity of that argument based on your inability to support it. You have the right to a subjective opinion, that doesn't mean you can support your opinion with objective information in public discussion.

If you're going to publicly criticize and publicly refuse to contribute to a volunteer effort, in any context, then others have the right to equally publicly question the validity of your criticisms and to point out that you're complaining while refusing to help.

This is especially true when you say things like, "so why bother when I can just get better information from these forums?" The forums are much more likely to have misinformation than the wiki, people constantly give all sorts of wrong answers here, but in spite of that you're trying to justify relying on the forums instead. Any criticisms you have about the accuracy of the wiki should be multiplied by a *X factor on the forums.

It's quite frequent that misinformation on the forums gets corrected by information on the wiki, but conversely it's quite rare that misinformation on the wiki gets corrected on the forums. You shouldn't be surprised to see that claim you trust the forums more than the wiki is going to raise eyebrows.

13 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

which comes awfully close to the idea that I owe my time and research to a website about a video game.

No, it doesn't, you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.

13 minutes ago, TorgosSolaris said:

I do not, and moreover it's not like my opinion is somehow harming the site. Sometimes people have negative opinions about things, and you not liking or agreeing with said opinion isn't going to change it.

There are many, many things in this world I dislike but don't put any effort into improving. I'm sure you do the same thing. Most everyone does. It's about priorities, and as long as the wiki isn't offering me a job, I don't care enough to do anything about it.

You can keep dodging and weaving but none of that will avoid the basic point. Complaining without contributing means that you're much more guilty than any of the problems or errors on the wiki, at least the wiki contributors are trying to accomplish something useful, whereas all you're doing is complaining without being useful or helpful to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

So you'll voluntarily provide an example that completely fails to support your argument, but you refuse to provide one that supports it. Seems legit, yeah that really lends credibility to your claims.

Nope, false argument. You don't owe the wiki any more than you owe anything else in life. The basic point is that you're complaining without contributing, criticizing without being willing to help, that's a valid critique in any context, has nothing to do with the wiki specifically and will continue to be valid regardless of any other red herrings you try to throw against the wall.

Well you're "allowed" to have any opinion you want, but when you express that opinion in a public forum people have every right to question, disagree and argue, and they certainly have the right to question the validity of that argument based on your inability to support it. You have the right to a subjective opinion, that doesn't mean you can support your opinion with objective information in public discussion.

If you're going to publicly criticize and publicly refuse to contribute to a volunteer effort, in any context, then others have the right to equally publicly question the validity of your criticisms and to point out that you're complaining while refusing to help.

This is especially true when you say things like, "so why bother when I can just get better information from these forums?" The forums are much more likely to have misinformation than the wiki, people constantly give all sorts of wrong answers here, but in spite of that you're trying to justify relying on the forums instead. Any criticisms you have about the accuracy of the wiki should be multiplied by a *X factor on the forums.

It's quite frequent that misinformation on the forums gets corrected by information on the wiki, but conversely it's quite rare that misinformation on the wiki gets corrected on the forums. You shouldn't be surprised to see that claim you trust the forums more than the wiki is going to raise eyebrows.

No, it doesn't, you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.

You can keep dodging and weaving but none of that will avoid the basic point. Complaining without contributing means that you're much more guilty than any of the problems or errors on the wiki, at least the wiki contributors are trying to accomplish something useful, whereas all you're doing is complaining without being useful or helpful to anyone.

I frankly don't care that it's a volunteer effort. Misinformation wastes peoples' time and is doing more harm than having no information at all. If the wiki isn't accurate, and you follow said inaccurate information, it can cause you to lose hours of time thinking you're doing something right when really you're just making things worse. Complaining about misinformation isn't hurting anybody, and it's not fooling anybody into wasting their time unknowingly. Misinformation itself costs the player time and resources, which is clearly more problematic than a simple complaint. The guilty party is not the one who was mislead by inaccurate information, the fault lies with those who perpetuate the inaccuracies. Whether or not the contributors feels like the information is useful, if people are disadvantaged by the information, it's not useful information. You don't get an A for effort in a situation like this.

For the record, I never claimed I was trying to be helpful. Some guy mentioned that he found the wiki to be inaccurate. I agreed with him. That was literally all I did, and you respond like I'm trying to sabotage the wiki. I don't care about the wiki. I'm frustrated by its inaccuracy, I'm disappointed that a game with this kind of popularity has such little solid information on its technical aspects, but I certainly don't care enough to do anything about it. I just want to play a video game with dinosaurs. I'm not going to make game time into chore time just because you're trying to guilt me into editing the wiki.

I should also mention that reading forum posts about ARK has given me a lot more useful information about the game than the wiki has, evidenced by the fact that I'm able to progress using information given on the forum. I only use the wiki for information like which food to feed which animal at this point, and the rest of it I read here on the forum. The best part is that what I read on the forum actually works and gets me the results I want. Trying to follow what the wiki says is like taking two steps forward and one step back every time.

Edited by TorgosSolaris
Minor edits for clarity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Excuses.

Excuses.

Excuses.

Nope, I'm not acting like that at all, trying to flip this over on to me isn't going to change anything.

I simply pointed out that if you're not going to help fix a problem that you have every opportunity to help with then you don't have the right to complain about it. It's a pretty simple concept that applies to RL as much as to wiki's. Every player in the game can contribute to the wiki, the wiki is only as good as the players who take the trouble to help each other, if you're not going to contribute (and clearly you're deliberatly refusing to contribute) then don't complain. Other people are donating their time to the wiki out of the goodness of their hearts, if you're not going to help make it better then you get what you get, end of story.

You're the one who has turned this into a multi-post exchange by trying to defend your complaining when you're not helping make anything better, that's on you. If you don't want to contribute then don't, but then you also don't get to complain about it, it's a pretty simple concept.

Again, trying to flip this over on me isn't going to work, I'm not the one who was "warning" about it.

Never once did I complain that no one has fixed it, just simply stated the fact that it cant be trusted.

But according to you I shouldn't have given a heads up that it contains incorrect info if I wasn't going to fix it myself. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...