Guild Wars Wiki talk:About

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

"Official" wiki[edit]

This page should make much clearer that, even though the wiki is hosted on the official website, the wiki content is provided by the community, and therefore not "official". ANet may want to write a proper legal disclaimer. --Tetris L 00:28, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I see, the disclaimers are right here. A link and a summary should be included in Guild Wars Wiki:About. --Tetris L 00:31, 12 February 2007 (PST)

The Other Wiki[edit]

Can yall find a reasonably easy way link to a page where you explain how/if this wiki relates to Is this one meant as an official replacement of the other? How can users participate in a knowledge transfer if needed... What is the official stance of each of the site owners in relation to the other... can material from one be moved to the other etc... This may be the "official wiki" but it's currently 1/5th the size of the other. What are we going to do about it? Jkyarr 16:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi; see Guild Wars Wiki:FAQ and Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content. Hope this helps a little Fox 16:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Agree, this page should probably link to Guild Wars Wiki:FAQ. -Smurf User Smurf.png 17:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Added a link to the FAQ on the page. --Rainith 17:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


was reminded of all this by a link from slashdot regarding the way that some people perceive gravewit to have allegedly shafted them all at guildwiki. Funny how he couldn't sell it to ANet but he could sell it to Wikia. maybe he was holding out for the stock options. ;) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

The Legal Mumbo Jumbo.....[edit]

As a contributor to another Guild Wars Wiki fan site, I am unsure if I can re-post my content on this site, due to the copywrite complications..... In the real world, when ever someone starts to talk in legaleeze, my eyes just glaze over. I'm only refering to content I wrote previously, not "borrowed" from someone else.LeFick 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's your content, you can do whatever you wish with it, including posting it here. The copyright stuff concerns only other people if they want to copy your contributions from somewhere else to here. :) --Dirigible 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But beware that the content then is contributed under GFDL, which means that everybody (who uses GFDL, too) can reuse it. poke | talk 09:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine with me. I don't expect anything I could write here to make anyones best seller list....LeFick 11:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dump Available - Usable?[edit]

A notable participant with the currently self-destructing GuildWiki has made the dumps of their data available. Given the precedent set by the apparent reuse and sale-of-services to Wikia, can we now consider ourselves within rights to reuse that content, or is it still verbotten to import or derive things from their articles?Themagicmoedee 18:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can use it, i wouldn't think we could, alot of the formatting we use here is different anyway. Fall 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The facts available in the articles have always been possible to add to this wiki. It's just clear "copy+paste" that isn't allowed, and I don't think that has changed. I think we can have much use of the dump, since GuildWiki doesn't seem that stable atm. - anja talk 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, see here: [...]The FuryWiki, GuildWiki and OblivioWiki dumps are offered under the Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.0 license.[...] We need stuff that's released under GFDL. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Anja's right..all you really need to do is look, read, type on this wiki, but if the old wiki dies, then bye bye potentially useful info, making the dump amazingly valauable. On another note, not to ask a stupid question, if all the dumped info is ONLY the data of the user who dumped it, then couldn't the user simply state that he/she is willing to release it all under the GFDL? Or would that somehow conflict with CC by-nc-sa? Calor - talk 19:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if the dumped information is only from users who have specifically stated that they have released their contributions ALSO under GFDL, then it is admissible on this site. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I wasn't sure where to ask this, but here seems it's the most appropriate place for my question. I was looking for a database dump of this official wiki, but I cannot find that information in any place. Can anyone help me with this? It was only for personal use. Thank you. 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Content update[edit]

Reading through this article it seems like alot needs to be updated to our current "status", so to speak. Most of it seems to have been written before the larger userbase moved here from GuildWiki. — Galil Talk page 05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is basiclly an Anet article, writen by them for potential editors of the new wiki. We've only modified it slightly. Backsword 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Galil however that this page needs some serious content updating.--Wyn's Talk page Wynthyst 06:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It was actually part of the FAQ. For want of a better name, I just took over the "About" and placed them here, since the FAQ was getting longer and people (at that time) aren't even looking at the FAQ when coming here to complain about why are we "cloning" GuildWiki. -- User Sig.png 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I asked Emily and she responded User_talk:Emily_Diehl#Question that we should feel free to update this as we feel is necessary.--Wyn's Talk page Wynthyst 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Feedback[edit]

Hi, Sorry if this isn't the right spot for feedback on this wiki. I just had to write & say that I have never in my entire life seen such a convulated process for posting suggestions & replying to other peopls suggestions. I can see the advantage of the wiki for the main content but not for trying to post suggestions & have a discussion. I can't understand why you wouldn't just have a forum section devoted to feedback & discussions. Please add such a section. Maybe a site poll would support my pov. Cheers, --Bradkay aus 12:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Long and short: this is a wiki, not a forum. --JonTheMon 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't work with polls of any sort, and wiki's can not be moderated in the same way that forums can. That is not their function. Longer of it, ArenaNet has opted to NOT have an official forum, but has chosen to provide a separate section of the wiki to accept suggestions. We purposefully made it a convoluted process to limit suggestions to those people who cared enough to put the thought and effort into following the process. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 13:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we told Arenanet that and suggested that they make an official forum, but they ignored us. Misery 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not true Misery, they didn't ignore us, they responded with a clear "No" to the suggestion, and offered the alternate licensing for the feedback space instead See:User_talk:Mike_O'Brien/Archive/2009a. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I meant ignored the advice and proceeded in another direction, not that the suggestion was ignored. Misery 15:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback namespace[edit]

Do we need to add a note about that and the different licensing terms there under the "Does ANet own this stuff?" section? Misery 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably. --JonTheMon 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)