Improving The Wiki

[Cheese]

So you've just gotten your Pandora and you want to look something up, where's the first place you look? I don't know about you, but the wiki was one of the first places I looked, and then I realized how outdated it is. Here are a couple of the more obvious examples:

on http://www.pandorawiki.org/Pandora:

The Pandora is a seventh-generation handheld game console. When it ships, it will be the most powerful handheld gaming console available.

So obviously it's shipped or I wouldn't have it sitting beside my on my desk right now.

Under "Full Specs" on that page it says, "These are constantly changing," I can't imagine how confusing that could be to someone who's not familiar with the Pandora and has come to this page to find out about it.

There's a lot more where those came from, as well as many other pages being out of date, like the emulator list or the games page.

Basically, I think a few of us need to go through it and look for these sorts of issues and correct them. I'm more than willing to help with this (or even do the bulk of the work), and in fact I was going to just go ahead and do it but I thought it would be better to bring it to the attention of everyone here before I went ahead and did it without help. This is something anyone should be able to do, so if you're bored you can take a look through the wiki for anything that's out of date and correct it.

Also, would anyone object if I made a few larger changes as well? I don't know exactly what I want to do right now that you could call a larger change, but mostly there's just some things about the organization of some of the pages that bothers me (redundant information, etc). Maybe I shouldn't admit this after saying I'll help with all this, but I've never really contributed to a wiki before except for really small changes, anyone have advice for me?

 

[vadsamoht]

<snip>
Basically, I think a few of us need to go through it and look for these sorts of issues and correct them. I'm more than willing to help with this (or even do the bulk of the work), and in fact I was going to just go ahead and do it but I thought it would be better to bring it to the attention of everyone here before I went ahead and did it without help. This is something anyone should be able to do, so if you're bored you can take a look through the wiki for anything that's out of date and correct it.

<snip>
Also, would anyone object if I made a few larger changes as well? I don't know exactly what I want to do right now that you could call a larger change, but mostly there's just some things about the organization of some of the pages that bothers me (redundant information, etc).

I've also had a similar thought, however being relatively new to the community I figured it would perhaps be a little wiser to let somebody else do it. One my exams finish (~2weeks) I plan on doing some work updating it if nobody has by then.

 

[mali]

however being relatively new to the community I figured it would perhaps be a little wiser to let somebody else do it.

If you think you can do it, just do it

It would be really great if these inconsistencies get sorted out

 

[tsh]

i could point inconsistencies, but as a non native english speaker, better not touch it.

Use the talk page - or just change it, otherwise it will remain unloved.

 

[Cheese]

OK, I've made some changes to http://pandorawiki.org/Pandora, there was a bit of information I thought was wrong but I wasn't sure.

"The first batch of 4000 Pandoras are still available to pre-order, but only a few are left"
I think this is still true, but maybe it would be better to say something like
"Preordering for the second batch will start when most of the first batch has shipped, there may be a small number of units still available from the first batch."

"Case will be a bit smaller the GP2X, and will be a mix of metal and plastic."
I don't know about the mix of metal and plastic. The hinge maybe? I think it would be best to just remove this line since you can see size comparisons lower down on the page and the last part seems wrong. Anyone agree?

Under full specs, possible software it says Gnash must be ported, however it's already in the Angstrom repo (http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/repo/?pkgname=gnash)

Also, I want to update the image so it's not an outdated render, which one should I use? I was thinking the one from the Wikipedia article.

Then also under full specs, possible software, I want to remove that list of emulators and just link to http://pandorawiki.org/Emulators but then that page needs to be updated to include the emulators from the list I would have to remove. I'll probably do this next if no one else wants to.

I'd appreciate it if someone went through and looked at my changes to make sure I didn't make any mistakes.

 

[Cheese]

Saw your edit tsh, I missed a lot of those tenses and I see a few more we both missed.

Can someone who has permission to edit the main page of the wiki remove the dead "Downloads" link?

 

[tsh]

The further through I got, the more I thought that the whole main page needs a re-write. It has so much replication. More important though is transferring any question which is answered here to the wiki. Forum is fine for asking questions, but the answer the 2nd time a question is asked could be a wiki link. There is too much junk on the forum for it to be a useful reference.

p.s. This keyboard isn´t half bad for sofa forum surfing.

 

[timofonic]

Case is a bit smaller than the GP2X, and will be a mix of metal and plastic.

Will? But it's already released...

That render photo is OLD, it needs a proper replacement. Are there some good photographer with a Pandora?

The size comparison is a bit cheapo, it could be nice if having a more proper style.

The introduction text seems a bit lame and too short, too much saying how much good our thing is looks stupid. Better make stronger and ellaborated facts to convince instead. Look at the Wikipedia article for a bit of inspiration. Even that article needs a massive fixing and improving (see the references warning, for example), but has some stuff better than the Pandorawiki one.

 

[tsh]

The size comparison is a bit cheapo, it could be nice if having a more proper style.

There is no point complaining about the wiki if you are not prepared to fix it yourself. Sure, it takes 30 sec to register - but you can then contribute for the next 5 years or more, so its a good investment in time.

 

[timofonic]

The size comparison is a bit cheapo, it could be nice if having a more proper style.

There is no point complaining about the wiki if you are not prepared to fix it yourself. Sure, it takes 30 sec to register - but you can then contribute for the next 5 years or more, so its a good investment in time.

Good invest of MY time, you mean...

Who are you to be so demanding on me? I'm already registered since quite some time and contributed in some stuff. Also, you quoted me in a wrong way. I don't see your point.

I added a big bunch of software to the "Port requests" in hope of helping developers what can be ported so everyone can benefit, but it seems the effort was worthless.

At least there's my opinion. English is far from being my native language, so I hope others are able to do it better than me.

I did think the forum thread being like a section of people making constructive cristicism about the wiki, so other volunteers can improve it or themselves after being sure how to do it.

That "shut up" comment is one of the things that makes people to disappear. Please think about saying to others what they should do.

Part of Pandora stuff is done by volunteers and others get monetary benefit from it (distributors and ones behind OpenPandora Ltd.). Even if my work is voluntary because appreciating the Pandora product as it is, I invest my time in what I consider worth it.

It seems forums are a total waste of time, instead of just an "invest". This is scaring away lots of people, I'm starting to think on it and invest my time on more interesting stuff...

 

[SomeGuy99]

It seems forums are a total waste of time, instead of just an "invest". This is scaring away lots of people, I'm starting to think on it and invest my time on more interesting stuff...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I had some good feedback on my Pandora guides, including comments from the likes of Gruso and ED. That was a nice feeling! I don't like to think about anyone here being pushed away after being helpful.

Consider sticking around longer maybe? There are some great people here, I think so anyway.

 

[tsh]

My impression is that people are scared of editing the wiki for fear of either getting it wrong or writing bad English. I think it is better to improve the wiki than talk about how bad it is. port requests - yes, maybe that page was a bad idea to create since there is now so much listed there that making progress in porting (assuming anyone wishes to contribute) will seem very slow.
edit: really, what is missing there is any prioritisation, or indication what is already in the Angstrom repository.

 

[Cheese]

The further through I got, the more I thought that the whole main page needs a re-write. It has so much replication. More important though is transferring any question which is answered here to the wiki. Forum is fine for asking questions, but the answer the 2nd time a question is asked could be a wiki link. There is too much junk on the forum for it to be a useful reference.

Yeah, I think I agree with you on the main page needing a rewrite (do you mean actual main page or the main Pandora page? Though they both do). Take a look at the German wiki for an example, it's a lot more organized.

Another thing which sort of bothered me is the whole "Projects Under Development" page. The fact that it's outdated isn't really the problem (though it is a problem), but the fact that it's only for projects which haven't been released yet is, so you end up having to look in multiple places to see what's soon to be released and already out (this was fine before the Pandora was released, but not so much now). I think it needs to become just a general "Project Status" page (maybe even break up the larger sections like Games and Emulators into their own pages), so you can quickly get an idea of what's released, what's in development and maybe what's released but not ready for the public yet or something. You could colour code them by filling in the backgrounds with red, yellow, and green.

Also, I agree with you on the questions asked multiple times needing to go in the wiki, maybe in the FAQ section.

I think what I'll do in the next few days is work on getting a new, more organized, Pandora page. Is it possible to create a separate page like Pandora_newpage on the wiki while I work on the new page so that others can see it and contribute? Then when it's ready to replace the old Pandora page, we can copy and paste everything to Pandora_newpage to Pandora and delete Pandora_newpage.

 

[Cheese]

I've gone ahead and spent a few minutes putting together an outline of how I feel the main "About Pandora" page should be organized:

Pandora
Nice text introducing it.

Overview
Not sure yet, maybe this section should just be omitted and replaced by the “nice text introducing it” (above). Everything that is in the current overview is already listed in the specs area, and there's no reason to list it twice.

History
Brief history of how it came to be. See the Wikipedia article for an example.

Availability
Some notes regarding the batches, when the pre-ordering started, how it started at 3000 units but increased to 4000 (actually this bit of information could go up in history). That currently there aren't any left but some could become available as people cancel their pre-order. Then that the 2nd batch pre-ordering will likely start before the end of 2010. Also list the price of it.

Capabilities
What it can and can't do (mentioning the fact that you can't [for all practical purposes] run Windows software would be good).
Links to games list, emulator lists, projects under development list, etc.

Specifications
More or less what's there already, with the removal of the software section (as it would be above, under capabilities), the general section should be removed (with the exception of the dimensions which could go under core hardware). Also we seem to be missing the weight of it on the current page, which can be found in the Wikipedia article.

 

[gruso]

^ Looks like a good start to me. One of the biggest problems I find on niche wikis is the lack of "general" info. You get a few links on the home page if you're lucky, other than that you have to search for specifics. But sometimes you just want to know why you're there, in plain language.

Feel free to mine the Pandora thread on neogaf to help fill up those sections with text. It already has a similar structure, but the language is very informal so it would have to be cleaned up a bit for the wiki.

 

[tsh]

Also, I agree with you on the questions asked multiple times needing to go in the wiki, maybe in the FAQ section.

I don't think the FAQ is the place the dump everything. For example, i set up pages for Power modes, and Nubs since these are sufficiently large subjects to have FAQs of their own.

I think what I'll do in the next few days is work on getting a new, more organized, Pandora page. Is it possible to create a separate page like Pandora_newpage on the wiki while I work on the new page so that others can see it and contribute? Then when it's ready to replace the old Pandora page, we can copy and paste everything to Pandora_newpage to Pandora and delete Pandora_newpage.

You can create pages by putting a non-existant page name in the URL, it is only the main page which is currently protected. Remember everything has version control, so it is easy for someone else to revert your changes if they want to do it differently. What you've got so far looks good. It would be reasonable for the intro page to provide summaries of deeper pages with more info (example, history)

 

[Eniko]

Remember everything has version control, so it is easy for someone else to revert your changes if they want to do it differently. What you've got so far looks good. It would be reasonable for the intro page to provide summaries of deeper pages with more info (example, history)

This is why I wonder why this is even being debated or why content is being debated, at least here. It's a wiki folks, you're expected to edit and refactor it! And if there is discussion needed on the structure or content on a specific page, that's what the discussion pages are for.

Not that I don't think the goal of working on the wiki isn't admirable; to the contrary. Just that the best way to grow the wiki is to actually start using it and not discussing it here on the forums, if you ask me.

 

[Polossatik]

@Eniko : In theory I would agree with you, however I can perfectly understand that for bigger rewordings/changes on a wiki you want to have some feedback.
If want input then opening a thread will give far more responses than the "talk" page, simply because it's more visible.

Bottom line is, let's not try to scare off people who want to invest time into this by arguing about what is basically semantics.

@Cheese & TSH: thankx for doing this!

Comparison pictures from Canguy : http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?/topic/54034-pandora-size-comparison-pictures/page__hl__pictures

Nice hi res pictures by comp_wizard : http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?/topic/53960-hi-res-pandora-product-pictures/page__p__866109__hl__pictures__fromsearch__1&#entry866109

 

[Cheese]

Remember everything has version control, so it is easy for someone else to revert your changes if they want to do it differently. What you've got so far looks good. It would be reasonable for the intro page to provide summaries of deeper pages with more info (example, history)

This is why I wonder why this is even being debated or why content is being debated, at least here. It's a wiki folks, you're expected to edit and refactor it! And if there is discussion needed on the structure or content on a specific page, that's what the discussion pages are for.

I took a look at the discussion pages and decided against using them since it seemed like nobody ever looks at them (most of them are empty). By making a topic here I was guaranteed that at least someone would see it. Plus if I want to make changes spanning multiple pages, then no one discussion page is really suitable.

I´m aware of the version control but I don´t really feel like spending time on something that gets reverted, so a bit of discussion or at least stating my intentions goes a long way so I know if people disagree before I make the changes. Admittedly, waiting for feedback has slowed down my changes a bit.

 

[tsh]

Bottom line, at the moment the wiki is unloved because the content there is mostly quite weak. Start editing it, improve it, link to it, and with luck a few more people might take an interest. The point about revision control is that it is easy to take your edits and merge them in a different way if anyone takes an interest. In 6 months, if you are lucky, you won't recognise your edits from today because you have given more people some good ideas about how to improve it. (which is the way a wiki should be)
It's unlikely that your edits will be blindly reverted 100% - just tweaked over time

Sure - post threads here to say 'I've updated these sections in the wiki, and need some proofreading/help/contributions' but don't make it a blocking task...