Updating the wiki should give you GBP

[TheSmallBlue]

Don't know if this should go on the coding thread or here, so I'm posting it here.

I believe one of the most outdated and ignored aspects from the game is the wiki. Administration has a lot of people behind it, there are tons of people coding, yet I can count on a single hand how many active wiki editors there are. Which is, yknow, bad.

Any new player to the game will check the wiki, it is intended to be the place to go when you want to know *anything*, yet the wiki itself is full of outdated, unfinished, or badly written pages which will drive new players mad, so it needs to be actively updated.
Problem with that is, editing the wiki absolutely and utterly sucks, and you get nothing back because of it. As a coder, the thing you'll code will be on the game. As an admin or GM, the event you do or the shitter you banned will make the round better. As a wiki editor you'll update a page only for a coder to change the system entirely making you have to re-write it from scratch.

The wiki is stupid important so this should change, and I think this should be done by making the coders themselves, who understand the game the best, so making wiki edits should give gbp.
It would also be good for less skilled coders who've tried bug hunting, but due to the many systems in the game written by people who haven't been online since 10 years ago this is impossible for people who don't know the game code from heads to toes.

This would also help the wiki, not only for getting better written pages, but also for doing daunting tasks like updating map images or making new template pages.

The amount should be small, something like 0.33 GBP for 100 words (so that but fixing remains the best way to get the most gbp the fastest), and the wiki should have an approval system like the github, where each edit should be approved by a Wiki Master.
If wiki editing ends up being more popular than bug fixing, a limit on the amount of wiki edits should be set to something like, 3 wiki edits per bug fix.

This would be hard to implement I think, but the wiki seriously needs some love. Hell, I'd be willing to make a code bounty to make this happen, but first I wanna know if this idea is dumb.

[Mothblocks]

The wiki is important no doubt, but it would be a real maintenance effort to connect the two (even ignoring chance for abuse), and GBP is a system that is meaningful in the sense that we use it to ensure that contributors will fix the bugs they create, it's not just a barrier of entry. If someone PRs in a broken feature, but makes a great wiki page, we're still left with a broken feature.

[Shadowflame909]

we should do wiki rankings and the top 4 wikipedia contributors get a fancy name color in discord (Maybe spawning with the multi-colored pen in their pda slot ingame??)

[TheFinalPotato]

something something separation

[cacogen]

MSO should use extra Patreon bucks to give monthly cash prizes to the top wiki contributors

[Farquaar]

Coders not updating the wiki to reflect their new features/changes is a pretty big problem. If the coders were willing to implement GBP bonuses for wiki documentation, it would be pretty cool.

[cacogen]

Coders not updating the wiki to reflect their new features/changes is a pretty big problem. If the coders were willing to implement GBP bonuses for wiki documentation, it would be pretty cool.

Yeah, this is a good idea. It could be a PR tag for maintainers to reward contributors for updating the relevant wiki articles for their PR.

[Pandarsenic]

Major changes without Wiki updates should just get closed/rejected until they have the Wiki updates.

[blackdav123]

maybe add a "requires wiki updating" tag to slap on PRs that need documentation before they can be merged?

[TheSmallBlue]

If someone PRs in a broken feature, but makes a great wiki page, we're still left with a broken feature.

Yes, this is true, but I believe that having a great wiki page with a broken feature (which can layer be re-written by someone else in exchange for gbp) is better than having any kind of feature with no wiki page. Even if the feature is amazing, game changing, etc etc, with no good wiki page barely anyone will use it.
For example, certain things like Virology or Toxins are ultra powerful when used right but barely anyone knows how to use them.
In a perfect situation there'd be something else that could be given to wiki editors other than GBP, but I believe GBP is the best choice, given the overlap between wiki writers, mappers, sprinters and coders.

[TheSmallBlue]

Major changes without Wiki updates should just get closed/rejected until they have the Wiki updates.

maybe add a "requires wiki updating" tag to slap on PRs that need documentation before they can be merged?

Don't think this is the best idea. In the same way how some novice coders can't fix complicated bugs, but are able to edit the wiki, some people aren't good at making wiki articles but are good at coding. FORCING coders to make wiki articles would just end up making it so that either less people code, or more badly redacted wiki articles appear.

[blackdav123]

Major changes without Wiki updates should just get closed/rejected until they have the Wiki updates.

maybe add a "requires wiki updating" tag to slap on PRs that need documentation before they can be merged?

Don't think this is the best idea. In the same way how some novice coders can't fix complicated bugs, but are able to edit the wiki, some people aren't good at making wiki articles but are good at coding. FORCING coders to make wiki articles would just end up making it so that either less people code, or more badly redacted wiki articles appear.

Not having wiki articles can make some features be left on the shelf without ever being touched, and it goes from being a neat addition to unused bloat. Exploration drones (https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/57851) were added over a year ago and still do not have a wiki page. I have tried to figure them out, but I have never seen any one else attempting to interact with them. The authors of features like this one are in the best position to create the foundation for documentation on the features they make, and requiring it for cryptic things like this would be beneficial.

[Pandarsenic]

Only reading the PR just now has finally made me discover that Exploration Drones and their stuff have nothing to do with Circuits

[TheSmallBlue]

Not having wiki articles can make some features be left on the shelf without ever being touched, and it goes from being a neat addition to unused bloat. Exploration drones (https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/57851) were added over a year ago and still do not have a wiki page. I have tried to figure them out, but I have never seen any one else attempting to interact with them. The authors of features like this one are in the best position to create the foundation for documentation on the features they make, and requiring it for cryptic things like this would be beneficial.

I 100% agree, that's why I posted this, but I dont think it should be forced upon coders. Coders who do add wiki pages with their PRs should be rewarded, but those who don't shouldn't be punished.

[TheSmallBlue]

The wiki is important no doubt, but it would be a real maintenance effort to connect the two

On this, I'm willing to place a hefty 200 dollar bounty for it to be done to make the effort worth it, but I'd like for the kinks to get ironed out (maybe even make a design doc of sorts?) and get approval from the coder head honchos. I can't do all of this alone though, so I want to get the ball rolling

[SpaceSmithers]

I definitely love the general idea of a rewards program for the wiki; it reminds me of previous wiki improvement drives from some time ago (example: 2018 Improvement Drive).

[Pandarsenic]

but those who don't shouldn't be punished.

But big changes without proper documentation punish everyone else

[TheSmallBlue]

But big changes without proper documentation punish everyone else

Hmm, that is a good point. What if coders who want to add a big feature HAVE to also make a wiki page for it, but it doesn't have to be necesarilly written by them?
Like, you make a PR with a cool new feature but you cant wiki at all, so you go to say, a new subforum called WIki Help and you ask them "Hey would anyone be willing to give me a hand making a wiki page for [feature]?", and whoever does, once the PR is merged they both get GBP

[Farquaar]

Not having wiki articles can make some features be left on the shelf without ever being touched, and it goes from being a neat addition to unused bloat. Exploration drones (https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/57851) were added over a year ago and still do not have a wiki page. I have tried to figure them out, but I have never seen any one else attempting to interact with them. The authors of features like this one are in the best position to create the foundation for documentation on the features they make, and requiring it for cryptic things like this would be beneficial.

Another example is the Guide to Cytology. Granted, the basic mechanics of cytology were added to the wiki upon its release, but the page was incredibly barebones and somewhat misleading until I (as a brainlet non-coder) forced myself to code-dive to find information that was completely undocumented. Without code-diving, the average player never would have known:

1. ...what items you can swab to find cells (before code-diving, the page implied that any piece of trash might have cells on it, rather than a small subset of very specific items)
2. ...what items to swab to find particular cell lines (there are several "categories" of swabables that give rise to particular lines)
3. ...what grows out of particular cell lines (Google won't tell you what a "Blattodeoid Anthropod" is)

It would be like if the Guide to Chemistry didn't explain the recipes or effects of chemicals, or if the Guide to Virology didn't list symptoms and how to obtain them. Poor wiki documentation was one of the reasons that nobody ever tried out cytology when it came out- you just couldn't understand it without reading the code itself. Even a small GBP boost as an incentive for a feature coder to copy-paste their design notes onto the wiki would make the whole tutorial-writing process a lot easier for the layman.

[Sirryan2002]

Heyo, I wanted to chime into this post. I'm the wiki admin over on Paradise Station and I've been mulling over this issue for a very long time. I've been trying to build our wiki contributor base for about a year and a half at this point and it has yielded very poor results. You can't force coders/github contributors to write wiki pages for the work they do. I don't think you will get the result you want by putting GBP/PR locks that are tethered to wiki edits and there is a few very important reasons why this is the case:
1. Most code contributors do not know and do not want to learn how to edit the wiki effectively.
2. Wiki editing/writing is a skill in itself and it takes a decent amount of practice and time to get it right.
3. It will have the opposite effect of the desired outcome, as people forced/encouraged to write pages by GBP reqs/incentives will just write high-quantity shit pages.

As someone who has been busting their ass to implement QC standards/rules + building proper guides/documentation for my wiki contributors, if you force people to write pages or create an exploitable GBP reward system, you will get garbage content that will increase your wiki's maintenance debt overtime. Much like documentation and guides for your codebase, you need a dedicated knowledge base and system that is designed to set contributors up for success.

Out of everything that has helped me get people to contribute here is a few things I recommend (some of which y'all are already doing):
1. Keep your wiki channel on the discord lively/busy to attract people to pop in out of curiosity
2. Do monthly to bi-monthly forum posts with updates about the wiki, or keep a concurrent page that you update
3. RECOGNIZE AND REWARD CONTRIBUTORS, whether through discord role rewards, mentions by staff on forums/discord, or providing other rewards
4. Set contributors up for success by making learning how to edit as easy as fucking possible
5. Be consistent, if you let development stagnate people will lose interest quickly

The 2018 Wiki improvement drive is actually a very very good idea. Having a buy-in competition like that is exactly what I've been wanting to do over on paradise because it is exactly what attracts and retains people. In conclusion, GBP for wiki edits is probably not going to work as you hope in practice even if its successfully implemented.

[Farquaar]

*snip*

But wouldn't you agree that having *some* documentation of new features on the wiki will decrease the barrier to entry for potential wiki-editors by eliminating the need for code-diving? It's a lot easier to turn rough notes into a good tutorial than it is to learn to read BYOND code, scour github for all the relevant files, and then reverse-engineer the code into something readable by the average player.

[Sirryan2002]

*snip*

But wouldn't you agree that having *some* documentation of new features on the wiki will decrease the barrier to entry for potential wiki-editors by eliminating the need for code-diving? It's a lot easier to turn rough notes into a good tutorial than it is to learn to read BYOND code, scour github for all the relevant files, and then reverse-engineer the code into something readable by the average player.

It is a good point. The PR description / design doc should be enough to fulfill this purpose, however. I think it would be redundant to make code contributors put down notes on wiki pages, especially since a lot of PRs don't add enough content to justify an entire new wiki page. Github contributors should be absolutely willing to answer questions about their PR so I'm sure wiki contributors can get their information by just asking as well. My concern with GBP is that if people are editing the wiki with the intention of getting GBP points, they're not going to put in more than the bare minimum effort to get their points, this can lead to requiring more work by contributors to fix/rewrite articles that have a bad foundation.

[TheSmallBlue]

A lot of things

While I agree with most of what you said, I do think a middle ground of sorts can be reached with most of the things you have an issue with.

First of all, wiki editing should only be forced upon coders if they implement a sizeable new feature. If the new feature is minor, like a new circuit component for example, I dont think they should be forced, but encouraged.
For example: You add a new circuit component. You can either send the PR as is, or also add your component to the list of components to the wiki to divide the GBP loss generated by the new feature by half.

Sizeable features though should absolutley get a wiki page made. I'd say the bare minimum for a sizeable feature is something like exploration drones or cytology, a whole new job of sorts for a department or an entire change of a base system of the game, such as combat. The point of adding a new feature is for players to enjoy it, and if players cant even know how to use it, then the feature might as well not exist.
However, yes, wiki editing is tough. Most coders simply are unable or unwilling to make a detailed guide about their new extensive system, which is completly understandable. Howevere, there are people in the community who not only ARE able, but also completely willing, such as the current wiki contributors. My idea is that we should make it so that it's extremly easy for a coder who wants to implement a new feature to contact any wiki contributor and offer a collaboration of sorts.
For this last thing to work though, there should be rewards for said wiki contributors. While the 2018 Wiki improvement drive was splendid, rewards should be constant. This can be done via either monthly rewards to the top contributors (Discord roles, antag tokens, steam games, etc) or, the most easily obtainable option, GBP. If you're contributing with a coder to make a wiki page for that feature, it should be noted somewhere (either the actual pr or the wiki page) and the wiki writer should get some gbp as a reward. As an idea, let's say that half of what the coder loses should be given to the wiki editor. For example, a coder makes a new feature that makes them lose 10gbp, in that case the wiki editor would GAIN 5gbp.

I also think that to do all of this it would benefit if the wiki had an approval process, similar as to how coders review PRs before merging them.

Basically, the "wiki department" should be as important as the "coding department" and the "admin department"