4 ms·

The Runescape wiki is simply amazing. It’s one of the most well built fit for purpose pieces of quality software+content that I have ever come across. It’s clea

by dcow 2y ago

The Runescape wiki is simply amazing. It’s one of the most well built fit for purpose pieces of quality software+content that I have ever come across. It’s clean and crisp visually and well organized at the IA level despite being exactly the type of content problem that resists such attempts by nature. What a solid community. The software doesn't fell clunky, it’s fast and responsive and still feels modern. I can only assume that’s a testament to the quality of mediawiki. I’m glad that it’s getting the attention it deserves.

Waterluvian 2y ago
> I can only assume that’s a testament to the quality of mediawiki. I was curious about this so I poked around both and I think I disagree. Both load very fast for me and are snappy and look pretty nice. The one difference is that the Runescape wiki has a single ad in the sidebar or at the bottom, below the content footer. While the Fandom wikis have 3+ ads, far larger, one of which covers content until interacted with (like being closed). For me, Fandom's ad approach absolutely falls within "offensively bad," while the Runescape ad approach reminds me of early 2000s, "here's an ad to pay the bills. We've tried to keep it well out of your way." So I'd opine that it has less to do with the quality of mediawiki, and more about how much money both Wiki hosts are seeking to gain from the existence of these resources.
- Nadya 2y ago
  Try editing anything on a Fandom wiki and that's where the real differences in experience comes from. Fandom makes it extremely difficult (nigh impossible) to do something as simple as access the page of an image asset.
  - Waterluvian 2y ago
    Woof. Yeah, you're right. That was not great.
- wodenokoto 2y ago
  Fandom runs on media wiki too.
candiddevmike 2y ago
Factorio and Rimworld have amazing wikis as well. And they're both maintained by the developers AFAIK...
- bombcar 2y ago
  The Dwarf Fortress wiki https://dwarffortresswiki.org https://dwarffortresswiki.org is perhaps the most impressive I've seen, as it maintains namespaces to maintain (and update!) information about particular versions, because many players end up staying on a version for various reasons.
  - munificent 2y ago
    I wish the Minecraft wiki did that. I don't tend to play the latest version because I feel like it got overly complex and I get analysis paralysis if I play the latest version. But being on an old version makes navigating the wiki hard. I'm never sure if some content applies to me. Sometimes they say which version a feature was introduced in, but if a mechanic changes, they often just document the latest behavior.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Tell me about it; playing GregTech:New Horizons and trying to figure out vanilla mechanics related to 1.7.10 is annoying. All the GTNH specific stuff is on their wiki, but vanilla mechanics are just assumed.
  - sph 2y ago
    The good ol' Mediawiki look of the DF wiki reminds me of the underrated, and oft maligned Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup wiki: http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Crawl_Wiki http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Crawl_Wiki
    - csmcg 2y ago
      I haven't played DCSS regularly since probably v0.24 or v0.25, so things may have changed - but if I recall correctly, it was not kept up to date very well, character guides are flat-out wrong, etc...
sph 2y ago
I have seen cookmeplox, one of the admins of the Runescape wiki, round these parts. Thank you for your work, as a gamer and new Runescape addict. For an MMORPG as massive as OSRS, having a good wiki is crucial and probably the reason why it's seen a resurgence over the past few years.
- cookmeplox 2y ago
  That's me! I also wrote the blog :)
cyrnel 2y ago
It's more a testament to the devs. I kept up with the RuneScape wiki Discord server for a bit and there were flamegraphs flying left and right. You can see some of there recent performance improvements here: https://meta.weirdgloop.org/w/Forum:Board_Meeting_-_2024-06-15 https://meta.weirdgloop.org/w/Forum:Board_Meeting_-_2024-06-... I think the theory is people edit more if pages load lightning fast. I can attest to that, especially if you use tools for partially-automated mass edits like https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/JWB https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/JWB

by dcow 2y ago

Waterluvian 2y ago

> I can only assume that’s a testament to the quality of mediawiki. I was curious about this so I poked around both and I think I disagree. Both load very fast for me and are snappy and look pretty nice. The one difference is that the Runescape wiki has a single ad in the sidebar or at the bottom, below the content footer. While the Fandom wikis have 3+ ads, far larger, one of which covers content until interacted with (like being closed). For me, Fandom's ad approach absolutely falls within "offensively bad," while the Runescape ad approach reminds me of early 2000s, "here's an ad to pay the bills. We've tried to keep it well out of your way." So I'd opine that it has less to do with the quality of mediawiki, and more about how much money both Wiki hosts are seeking to gain from the existence of these resources.

Nadya 2y ago
Try editing anything on a Fandom wiki and that's where the real differences in experience comes from. Fandom makes it extremely difficult (nigh impossible) to do something as simple as access the page of an image asset.
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  Woof. Yeah, you're right. That was not great.
wodenokoto 2y ago
Fandom runs on media wiki too.

candiddevmike 2y ago

Factorio and Rimworld have amazing wikis as well. And they're both maintained by the developers AFAIK...

bombcar 2y ago
The Dwarf Fortress wiki https://dwarffortresswiki.org https://dwarffortresswiki.org is perhaps the most impressive I've seen, as it maintains namespaces to maintain (and update!) information about particular versions, because many players end up staying on a version for various reasons.
- munificent 2y ago
  I wish the Minecraft wiki did that. I don't tend to play the latest version because I feel like it got overly complex and I get analysis paralysis if I play the latest version. But being on an old version makes navigating the wiki hard. I'm never sure if some content applies to me. Sometimes they say which version a feature was introduced in, but if a mechanic changes, they often just document the latest behavior.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Tell me about it; playing GregTech:New Horizons and trying to figure out vanilla mechanics related to 1.7.10 is annoying. All the GTNH specific stuff is on their wiki, but vanilla mechanics are just assumed.
- sph 2y ago
  The good ol' Mediawiki look of the DF wiki reminds me of the underrated, and oft maligned Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup wiki: http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Crawl_Wiki http://crawl.chaosforge.org/Crawl_Wiki
  - csmcg 2y ago
    I haven't played DCSS regularly since probably v0.24 or v0.25, so things may have changed - but if I recall correctly, it was not kept up to date very well, character guides are flat-out wrong, etc...

sph 2y ago

I have seen cookmeplox, one of the admins of the Runescape wiki, round these parts. Thank you for your work, as a gamer and new Runescape addict. For an MMORPG as massive as OSRS, having a good wiki is crucial and probably the reason why it's seen a resurgence over the past few years.

cookmeplox 2y ago
That's me! I also wrote the blog :)

cyrnel 2y ago

It's more a testament to the devs. I kept up with the RuneScape wiki Discord server for a bit and there were flamegraphs flying left and right. You can see some of there recent performance improvements here: https://meta.weirdgloop.org/w/Forum:Board_Meeting_-_2024-06-15 https://meta.weirdgloop.org/w/Forum:Board_Meeting_-_2024-06-... I think the theory is people edit more if pages load lightning fast. I can attest to that, especially if you use tools for partially-automated mass edits like https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/JWB https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/JWB