Mission Making - Getting Started – ArmA: Armed Assault Talk

This article serves no purpose as Armed Assault isn't even released yet not to mention the article is not complete and full of errors. I'm removing it from the Armed Assault category, you can continue to work on it in your sandbox. I've noticed that with many of your articles, your english isn't the greatest, maybe you can have someone for a proof read your articles before they are listed in the main categories, I'd be happy to just leave me a talk.hoz 01:09, 6 August 2006 (CEST)

Perhaps it's only my feeling - you confuse standard content management system and wiki. In wiki people only edit pages, with help of content management system they publish articles. It means if you find inconvenient article there, isn't good idea to give it to author to rewriting. Wiki is about improving; with lot of small improvements from lot of people can this article be great. That's what I newer can reach myself.

I know there aren't many people, but if we don't start practise wiki principes, who start? --Djura 13:31, 7 August 2006 (CEST)

The problem with your article is that its very incomplete, very in accurate and about a topic (ARMA) where the game isn't even released yet. I agree the wiki is about improving upon topics and articles, but an article being incomplete as this one shouldn't be categorized until its atleast readable and understandable. I don't want to scare away contributors either you present some interesting ideas, but lets make an article that is fit to digest before it ends up in the main stream categories. hoz 15:52, 7 August 2006 (CEST)

While in theory a Wiki should be self-correcting, that only works when you're dealing with a well established Wiki, with a large and active user-base (and even then you will need moderators!).

In our case this Wiki's "identity" is still being defined. Any new visitors will see what is written here as a sort-of guideline as to what is wanted and appropriate. Therefore we have to put fairly high quality standards on these initial articles, so that new members will get a good, as well as right, impression as to what this Wiki is about, and what kind of articles we are looking for.

Once the Wiki is well established - with thousands or articles and thousands of users - we don't have to worry as much about those issues anymore. The existing articles will give any submitter a good example, and there will also be enough "editors" out there, to use the existing work as guidelines to correct any articles that are lacking.

Until then though, we have to be a bit more pro-active when it comes to article editing. --Kronzky 19:38, 7 August 2006 (CEST)

I have to admit I'm with Djura on this one. I understand the need for moderation but I think the administrators have got the balance too far in favour of 'finished' content at the moment. Some of the current policies are a little odd for a wiki. The requirement that articles should only be posted after doing as much research as possible or that questions about topics should be discouraged seem to miss the fundamental strengths of a wiki - ie that it does support 'incremental' development of content and that there is often as much value in pointing out missing information as in providing articles. In particular, the constant admonition to move questions and discussions back to the forums is just plain wrong IMHO. ;-) At my workplace we have successfully mixed wiki and forums (actually NNTP newsgroups) for the last 4 years. Users don't generally have a problem confusing wiki-type requests for clarification or improvement of content with the kinds of free-ranging discussions that happen on forums. However, I would suggest that if you really _are_ intent on pushing discussion back to the BI forums, you would do much better to have a top-level 'Wiki discussions' forum so that the link between the two is clear. --sbsmac 19:22, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Well, there is nothing wrong with articles that have gaps in them. There are lots of those around, and it's even encouraged by the guidelines.

What we don't want though, is incorrect information. This is supposed to be the authoritive source for OFP documentation, so anything that is posted here better be correct. Therefore the request to research before posting, and not to post vague, untested guesses. The demand for accuracy isn't so contrary to the spirit of wikis either. (If you read the article on Verifiability for example, that sets a pretty high standard for Wikipedia submissions.)

As far as mixing wikis and forums - keep in mind that this wiki will be flooded with thousands of kids, once ArmA comes out. They may not be quite as disciplined as your colleagues at work, when it comes to separating forums and wikis, and will most likely use the closest and easiest place (the discussion page) to post their questions. But since those pages aren't really designed to handle a lot of posts and are erased frequently, using them for technical discussions (a lot of which would be worthwhile preserving) wouldn't really serve anybody. --Kronzky 21:05, 7 August 2006 (CEST)

I don't know what about we are speaking about. In this article are (till now) only general information - they are true about OFP, ArmA, VBS... Is natural that about user interface of Mission editor can be writed after ArmA goes out... And about incompletion - aricle without description using mission editor is incomplete... I agree. Big gaps? Like almost each other editing. You dont edit all the document in one editating session? And what's incorrect?--Djura 21:52, 7 August 2006 (CEST)