Useful Information - Revision history

Abb3w: /* What information isn't useful? */

2011-05-08T00:38:39Z

What information isn't useful?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 8 May 2011
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! [[Retconjuration]] is [[Naughtymancy]].		Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! [[Retconjuration]] is [[Naughtymancy]].

-	Spam isn't useful. Kill it with fire.	+	[[ErfWiki:SpamWars\|Spam]] isn't useful. Kill it with fire.

	== What about style? ==		== What about style? ==

Miment: Protected "Useful Information": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)))

2011-05-05T03:13:11Z

Protected "Useful Information": Excessive vandalism ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)))

← Older revision

Revision as of 03:13, 5 May 2011

RemusEiren: Undo revision 49015 by 70.91.162.85 (Talk) Cheerleader!

2011-05-05T02:57:14Z

Undo revision 49015 by 70.91.162.85 (Talk) Cheerleader!

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:57, 5 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~With~~ the ~~bases laoded~~ you ~~struck us~~ out with that ~~answer~~!	+	== "Add useful information" ==
		+
		+	This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.
		+
		+	== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==
		+
		+	That's intentionally broad. In general, the more users who would benefit from the information you're adding, the better. But that is only one guideline!
		+
		+	An article about one obscure aspect of [[Erfworld]] that only a few people would care about is also useful! Even a deep and lengthy article on a topic that only half a dozen fans would ever care about makes the wiki better and more useful by existing than if it were not there to read.
		+
		+	And even an article which only the person who added it would find value in could STILL be useful, if it's something like personal reference page that you use to store information and references for future articles. But if you ''are'' the only person you could imagine getting value out of it, then consider whether it would be better if you kept it as notes on your own hard drive.
		+
		+	== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==
		+
		+	Articles that establish and explore facts about the [[story]], the [[characters]] and the [[Erfworld\|world]] are the most obvious and important subjects for articles.
		+
		+	Articles that help establish a frame of reference for the story can also be useful.
		+
		+	Articles about meta-facts, such as the creators, the fans, events related to Erfworld, the history of the project, press that the project has received, etc. are also useful and should be added.
		+
		+	== What information '''isn't''' useful? ==
		+
		+	Misleading information isn't useful. Speculation that looks like fact needs to be clarified. Facts should be sourced when possible, but do not fall into the trap of classifying whole sources as off limits. Use common sense and reason. Challenge and research anything stated as fact which causes you to doubt it.
		+
		+	Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! [[Retconjuration]] is [[Naughtymancy]].
		+
		+	Spam isn't useful. Kill it with fire.
		+
		+	== What about style? ==
		+
		+	A consistent style is useful. But enforcing a consistent style to the detriment of the usefulness of the tool is what has killed most of [[Wikipedia\|Wikipedia's]] awesome potential. So if you want to contribute your time cleaning up articles and making them clearer and more consistent, that is great! Please, please do, we need that! Just remember always that style is trumped by substance, and never hurt an article's utility in the name of improving its look and feel.
		+
		+	Some things you can do to improve an article:
		+
		+	Make it clearer to understand, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Improve its organization, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Clean out redundant information, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Correct the grammar, spelling and punctuation, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Track down sources of facts, especially facts you question. That's useful not for its own sake, but for the sake of having an article with true information in it! If the information you're looking at is unsourced, but you have no reason to doubt it, then don't worry about it. We do ''not'' need to see "'''There are five fingers on the human hand.[''citation needed'']'''" That's not helping.
		+
		+	In short, editors here should not get hung up on points of style. Don't give the slightest consideration to the word "encyclopedic" or anything similar. This wiki is not meant to be pretty, academic, or encyclopedic. It's meant to be comprehensive, dynamic, constructive, and helpful. If we eventually do get bogged down by trivia, then organize the trivia. Do not delete it!
		+	[[Category:Wiki]]

70.91.162.85: kmFGNbFYUyFCaHSMHsu

2011-05-05T02:47:44Z

kmFGNbFYUyFCaHSMHsu

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 5 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~== "Add useful information" ==~~	+	With the bases laoded you struck us out with that answer!
-		+
-	~~This should be~~ the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you ~~want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==~~	+
-		+
-	~~That's intentionally broad. In general, the more users who would benefit from the information you're adding, the better. But that is only one guideline!~~	+
-		+
-	An article about one obscure aspect of [[Erfworld]] that only a few people would care about is also useful! Even a deep and lengthy article on a topic that only half a dozen fans would ever care about makes the wiki better and more useful by existing than if it were not there to read.	+
-		+
-	And even an article which only the person who added it would find value in could STILL be useful, if it's something like personal reference page that you use to store information and references for future articles. But if you ''are'' the only person you could imagine getting value out ~~of it, then consider whether it would be better if you kept it as notes on your own hard drive.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==~~	+
-		+
-	~~Articles that establish and explore facts about the [[story]], the [[characters]] and the [[Erfworld\|world]] are the most obvious and important subjects for articles.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Articles that help establish a frame of reference for the story can also be useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Articles about meta-facts, such as the creators, the fans, events related to Erfworld, the history of the project, press that the project has received, etc. are also useful and should be added.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== What information '''isn't''' useful? ==~~	+
-		+
-	Misleading information isn't useful. Speculation that looks like fact needs to be clarified. Facts should be sourced when possible, but do not fall into the trap of classifying whole sources as off limits. Use common sense and reason. Challenge and research anything stated as fact which causes you to doubt it.	+
-		+
-	Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! [[Retconjuration]] is [[Naughtymancy]].	+
-		+
-	~~Spam isn't useful. Kill it~~ with ~~fire.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== What about style? ==~~	+
-		+
-	A consistent style is useful. But enforcing a consistent style to the detriment of the usefulness of the tool is what has killed most of [[Wikipedia\|Wikipedia's]] awesome potential. So if you want to contribute your time cleaning up articles and making them clearer and more consistent, that ~~is great! Please, please do, we need that! Just remember always that style is trumped by substance, and never hurt an article's utility in the name of improving its look and feel.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Some things you can do to improve an article:~~	+
-		+
-	~~Make it clearer to understand, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Improve its organization, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Clean out redundant information, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Correct the grammar, spelling and punctuation, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	Track down sources of facts, especially facts you question. That's useful not for its own sake, but for the sake of having an article with true information in it! If the information you're looking at is unsourced, but you have no reason to doubt it, then don't worry about it. We do ''not'' need to see "'''There are five fingers on the human hand.[''citation needed'']'''" That's not helping.	+
-		+
-	In short, editors here should not get hung up on points of style. Don't give the slightest consideration to the word "encyclopedic" or anything similar. This wiki is not meant to be pretty, academic, or encyclopedic. It's meant to be comprehensive, dynamic, constructive, and helpful. If we eventually do get bogged down by trivia, then organize the trivia. Do not delete it!	+
-	~~[[Category:Wiki]]~~	+

90.211.10.48: Undo cheerleader vandalism revision 47837 by 139.91.190.41 (Talk)

2011-05-02T12:00:47Z

Undo cheerleader vandalism revision 47837 by 139.91.190.41 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:00, 2 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~Thanks~~ for ~~sharing~~. ~~Alywas good~~ to ~~find a real expert~~.	+	== "Add useful information" ==
		+
		+	This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.

	== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==		== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==

139.91.190.41: /* "Add useful information" */

2011-05-02T11:59:56Z

"Add useful information"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 2 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~== "Add useful information" ==~~	+	Thanks for sharing. Alywas good to find a real expert.
-		+
-	~~This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline~~ for ~~what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful~~. ~~Seriously, go~~ to ~~town~~.	+

	== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==		== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==

90.211.10.48: Undo cheerleader vandalism revision 47827 by 91.143.58.1 (Talk)

2011-05-02T11:41:42Z

Undo cheerleader vandalism revision 47827 by 91.143.58.1 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 2 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~Hey~~, that ~~post leaves me felieng foolish~~. ~~Kudos~~ to you!	+	== "Add useful information" ==
		+
		+	This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.
		+
		+	== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==
		+
		+	That's intentionally broad. In general, the more users who would benefit from the information you're adding, the better. But that is only one guideline!
		+
		+	An article about one obscure aspect of [[Erfworld]] that only a few people would care about is also useful! Even a deep and lengthy article on a topic that only half a dozen fans would ever care about makes the wiki better and more useful by existing than if it were not there to read.
		+
		+	And even an article which only the person who added it would find value in could STILL be useful, if it's something like personal reference page that you use to store information and references for future articles. But if you ''are'' the only person you could imagine getting value out of it, then consider whether it would be better if you kept it as notes on your own hard drive.
		+
		+	== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==
		+
		+	Articles that establish and explore facts about the [[story]], the [[characters]] and the [[Erfworld\|world]] are the most obvious and important subjects for articles.
		+
		+	Articles that help establish a frame of reference for the story can also be useful.
		+
		+	Articles about meta-facts, such as the creators, the fans, events related to Erfworld, the history of the project, press that the project has received, etc. are also useful and should be added.
		+
		+	== What information '''isn't''' useful? ==
		+
		+	Misleading information isn't useful. Speculation that looks like fact needs to be clarified. Facts should be sourced when possible, but do not fall into the trap of classifying whole sources as off limits. Use common sense and reason. Challenge and research anything stated as fact which causes you to doubt it.
		+
		+	Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! [[Retconjuration]] is [[Naughtymancy]].
		+
		+	Spam isn't useful. Kill it with fire.
		+
		+	== What about style? ==
		+
		+	A consistent style is useful. But enforcing a consistent style to the detriment of the usefulness of the tool is what has killed most of [[Wikipedia\|Wikipedia's]] awesome potential. So if you want to contribute your time cleaning up articles and making them clearer and more consistent, that is great! Please, please do, we need that! Just remember always that style is trumped by substance, and never hurt an article's utility in the name of improving its look and feel.
		+
		+	Some things you can do to improve an article:
		+
		+	Make it clearer to understand, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Improve its organization, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Clean out redundant information, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Correct the grammar, spelling and punctuation, because that's useful.
		+
		+	Track down sources of facts, especially facts you question. That's useful not for its own sake, but for the sake of having an article with true information in it! If the information you're looking at is unsourced, but you have no reason to doubt it, then don't worry about it. We do ''not'' need to see "'''There are five fingers on the human hand.[''citation needed'']'''" That's not helping.
		+
		+	In short, editors here should not get hung up on points of style. Don't give the slightest consideration to the word "encyclopedic" or anything similar. This wiki is not meant to be pretty, academic, or encyclopedic. It's meant to be comprehensive, dynamic, constructive, and helpful. If we eventually do get bogged down by trivia, then organize the trivia. Do not delete it!
		+	[[Category:Wiki]]

91.143.58.1: VVaQIBfdpbDf

2011-05-02T11:41:20Z

VVaQIBfdpbDf

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 2 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~== "Add useful information" ==~~	+	Hey, that post leaves me felieng foolish. Kudos to you!
-		+
-	This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, ~~it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==~~	+
-		+
-	~~That's intentionally broad. In general, the more users who would benefit from the information you're adding, the better. But~~ that ~~is only one guideline!~~	+
-		+
-	An article about one obscure aspect of [[Erfworld]] that only a few people would care about is also useful! Even a deep and lengthy article on a topic that only half a dozen fans would ever care about makes the wiki better and more useful by existing than if it were not there to read.	+
-		+
-	~~And even an article which only the person who added it would find value in could STILL be useful, if it's something like personal reference page that you use~~ to ~~store information and references for future articles. But if~~ you ~~''are'' the only person you could imagine getting value out of it, then consider whether it would be better if you kept it as notes on your own hard drive.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==~~	+
-		+
-	~~Articles that establish and explore facts about the [[story]], the [[characters]] and the [[Erfworld\|world]] are the most obvious and important subjects for articles.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Articles that help establish a frame of reference for the story can also be useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Articles about meta-facts, such as the creators, the fans, events related to Erfworld, the history of the project, press that the project has received, etc. are also useful and should be added.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== What information '''isn't''' useful? ==~~	+
-		+
-	Misleading information isn't useful. Speculation that looks like fact needs to be clarified. Facts should be sourced when possible, but do not fall into the trap of classifying whole sources as off limits. Use common sense and reason. Challenge and research anything stated as fact which causes you to doubt it.	+
-		+
-	Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! [[Retconjuration]] is [[Naughtymancy]].	+
-		+
-	~~Spam isn't useful. Kill it with fire.~~	+
-		+
-	~~== What about style? ==~~	+
-		+
-	A consistent style is useful. But enforcing a consistent style to the detriment of the usefulness of the tool is what has killed most of [[Wikipedia\|Wikipedia's]] awesome potential. So if you want to contribute your time cleaning up articles and making them clearer and more consistent, that is great! Please, please do, we need that! Just remember always that style is trumped by substance, and never hurt an article's utility in the name of improving its look and feel.	+
-		+
-	~~Some things you can do to improve an article:~~	+
-		+
-	~~Make it clearer to understand, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Improve its organization, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Clean out redundant information, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	~~Correct the grammar, spelling and punctuation, because that's useful.~~	+
-		+
-	Track down sources of facts, especially facts you question. That's useful not for its own sake, but for the sake of having an article with true information in it! If the information you're looking at is unsourced, but you have no reason to doubt it, then don't worry about it. We do ''not'' need to see "'''There are five fingers on the human hand.[''citation needed'']'''" That's not helping.	+
-		+
-	In short, editors here should not get hung up on points of style. Don't give the slightest consideration to the word "encyclopedic" or anything similar. This wiki is not meant to be pretty, academic, or encyclopedic. It's meant to be comprehensive, dynamic, constructive, and helpful. If we eventually do get bogged down by trivia, then organize the trivia. Do not delete it!	+
-	~~[[Category:Wiki]]~~	+

90.211.10.48: Undo cheerleader vandalism revision 47770 by 85.214.149.158 (Talk)

2011-05-02T11:00:51Z

Undo cheerleader vandalism revision 47770 by 85.214.149.158 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 2 May 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.		This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.

-	That's ~~not just~~ the ~~best asnewr~~. It's the ~~bestest answer!~~	+	== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==
		+
		+	That's intentionally broad. In general, the more users who would benefit from the information you're adding, the better. But that is only one guideline!
		+
		+	An article about one obscure aspect of [[Erfworld]] that only a few people would care about is also useful! Even a deep and lengthy article on a topic that only half a dozen fans would ever care about makes the wiki better and more useful by existing than if it were not there to read.
		+
		+	And even an article which only the person who added it would find value in could STILL be useful, if it's something like personal reference page that you use to store information and references for future articles. But if you ''are'' the only person you could imagine getting value out of it, then consider whether it would be better if you kept it as notes on your own hard drive.

	== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==		== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==

85.214.149.158: /* Useful to whom? Users of this Wiki! */

2011-05-02T10:59:48Z

Useful to whom? Users of this Wiki!

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 2 May 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.		This should be the mantra of all writers and editors here. It is your main purpose and guideline for what kinds of articles and information belong in this wiki. Add useful information. Err on the side of too much. If you want to add it, it's probably useful. Seriously, go to town.

-	~~== Useful to '''whom'''? Users of this Wiki!==~~	+	That's not just the best asnewr. It's the bestest answer!
-		+
-	That's ~~intentionally broad. In general,~~ the ~~more users who would benefit from the information you're adding, the better~~. ~~But that is only one guideline!~~	+
-		+
-	An article about one obscure aspect of [[Erfworld]] that only a few people would care about is also useful! Even a deep and lengthy article on a topic that only half a dozen fans would ever care about makes the wiki better and more useful by existing than if it were not there to read.	+
-		+
-	~~And even an article which only the person who added it would find value in could STILL be useful, if it~~'s ~~something like personal reference page that you use to store information and references for future articles. But if you ''are''~~ the ~~only person you could imagine getting value out of it, then consider whether it would be better if you kept it as notes on your own hard drive.~~	+

	== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==		== Useful '''how'''? Understanding and enjoying Erfworld! ==