Torque Wiki
by Bil Simser · in Torque Game Engine · 06/23/2003 (9:03 am) · 59 replies
Hi guys,
Don't get me wrong. I think having as much information is great however I'm seeing a trend (and maybe this has been going on for awhile) in that there are several (I can count about 5 so far) in creating various walkthrough/newbie guides to TGE.
It makes me wonder if we, as the community, should be more community oriented. I was thinking maybe a wiki site for these docs might be a good way to keep things together. I'm not knocking the efforts of those who are creating the guides, but I think it would be more beneficial to both the TGE community both public and private in having a single unified source of living documents. With something like a wikiweb approach not only could everything be captured but searchable, subscribable, etc. and everyone can contribute (that's the power of wiki).
Anyways, let me know what you think and maybe we can organize and unify the documentation efforts that are going on all around the globe.
Thanks!
Don't get me wrong. I think having as much information is great however I'm seeing a trend (and maybe this has been going on for awhile) in that there are several (I can count about 5 so far) in creating various walkthrough/newbie guides to TGE.
It makes me wonder if we, as the community, should be more community oriented. I was thinking maybe a wiki site for these docs might be a good way to keep things together. I'm not knocking the efforts of those who are creating the guides, but I think it would be more beneficial to both the TGE community both public and private in having a single unified source of living documents. With something like a wikiweb approach not only could everything be captured but searchable, subscribable, etc. and everyone can contribute (that's the power of wiki).
Anyways, let me know what you think and maybe we can organize and unify the documentation efforts that are going on all around the globe.
Thanks!
#42
But a wiki-like thing where people can post to a single categorised thread is a good way of working (myself and beffy have one, its good).
I'm sure there are better ways of doing something like a wiki, maybe we should actually think about what is most optimal in terms of our needs rather than just jumping on the wiki bandwagon?
03/11/2004 (2:05 am)
I personally find the wiki format both good and bad. Its scary that just anyone can post. I dont like that idea at all (not because of any leetness, but because it is wide open to someone deleting everything and writing buttocks everywhere).But a wiki-like thing where people can post to a single categorised thread is a good way of working (myself and beffy have one, its good).
I'm sure there are better ways of doing something like a wiki, maybe we should actually think about what is most optimal in terms of our needs rather than just jumping on the wiki bandwagon?
#43
Meaning that -yes- everyone can delete and edit, but it is very easy to revert back to older versions of media/text content.
If they can create a 230.000+ article encyclopedia and maintain it, we should be able to do the same. But it will take some trusted people to be organizers of data and keep things neat.
The current codesnippits and resources area is a big mess in my oppinion, with loits of outdated information. Half the forum could be deleted too for the same reason. If we could sort through the 3 and transfer the knowledge over into a wiki/cms/XXX system, then that would be perfect.
03/11/2004 (7:20 am)
I just installed the wiki running behind wikipedia (http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/), and it was quite easy to install and setup. It has functionality for hiding edit+read for registered members, and automatic versioning of all content.Meaning that -yes- everyone can delete and edit, but it is very easy to revert back to older versions of media/text content.
If they can create a 230.000+ article encyclopedia and maintain it, we should be able to do the same. But it will take some trusted people to be organizers of data and keep things neat.
The current codesnippits and resources area is a big mess in my oppinion, with loits of outdated information. Half the forum could be deleted too for the same reason. If we could sort through the 3 and transfer the knowledge over into a wiki/cms/XXX system, then that would be perfect.
#44
03/11/2004 (1:13 pm)
I agree with you there Thomas. The moderators would obviously be trusted, if they did'nt do it right then they would be fired ;-). If the wiki was open only to people with the SDK (eg: the link would be in the SDK private forum, or via email) then that would reduce the chance of stupid posts/edits. But then you would have the problem of people not seeing it :(
#45
Anyway, there are some very good wiki apps out there. Unfortunately even the best are a bit on the bloated and evolved side, meaning it's very hard to adapt them to our needs. :-/
03/11/2004 (8:14 pm)
Darn it, Thomas. Every time I want to talk to you you're offline! ;)Anyway, there are some very good wiki apps out there. Unfortunately even the best are a bit on the bloated and evolved side, meaning it's very hard to adapt them to our needs. :-/
#46
Move to a nicer timezone then, hehe. GMT+1 is perfect
Regarding Wikis and CMS systems etc. Yes. They are bloated and contain way way too much code, are typically written in some obscure language and/or the one that are coded in "insert language of preference" they dont have the nice features of the one coded in "insert language you dislike".
But we are faced with a situation where
1) Rick does not have time to code one that fits GG
2) Forums and resources are constantly getting more and more filled with outdated information that is also hard to search
Even a bloated and maybe only 90% perfect fit Wiki/CMS would be better than what we got now, and Rick can spend time on something nice. Like making more screenshots of orcs in shaded armour :-)
Again - all that ONLY if you can find moderators that you trust and who can organize the data.
A wiki/cms without someone structuring things and keeping it up to date will end up in the same outdated/unstructured situation that we are in now with forums/resources.
03/12/2004 (1:13 am)
*grins 2 Ben*Move to a nicer timezone then, hehe. GMT+1 is perfect
Regarding Wikis and CMS systems etc. Yes. They are bloated and contain way way too much code, are typically written in some obscure language and/or the one that are coded in "insert language of preference" they dont have the nice features of the one coded in "insert language you dislike".
But we are faced with a situation where
1) Rick does not have time to code one that fits GG
2) Forums and resources are constantly getting more and more filled with outdated information that is also hard to search
Even a bloated and maybe only 90% perfect fit Wiki/CMS would be better than what we got now, and Rick can spend time on something nice. Like making more screenshots of orcs in shaded armour :-)
Again - all that ONLY if you can find moderators that you trust and who can organize the data.
A wiki/cms without someone structuring things and keeping it up to date will end up in the same outdated/unstructured situation that we are in now with forums/resources.
#47
Not very many wikis do this. :-/
03/12/2004 (10:02 am)
There are also security and integration issues. I don't think Rick would like to have docs in yet ANOTHER format (we already have them in DocBook and HTML and Word...), so it would be good if the wiki/cms ran off of DocBook. And it has to be accessible to licensees when appropriate - and it would be nice if it could integrate with Doxygen, too.Not very many wikis do this. :-/
#49
--Rick
03/12/2004 (1:20 pm)
Trying to pull a few more people into the discussion by posting a .plan--Rick
#50
I think there are two areas to this issue
1) Documentation
2) Torque SDK community
1) Documentation, at the moment there is lots of good info but it is mixed in with outdated information, questions and discussions. Also structurally all the information is on the same logical level so related topics aren't physically grouped.
The new documentation is on the way which is great, however a lot of the information on the forums right now would not be the type of thing you would expect to find in official documentation. The SDK community has limitless amounts of good info to contribute and on a massive array of topics.
2) I'm new to torque but I can already see that:
Torque SDK community = The forums + the irc channel + the .plans + the resources + external related websites.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that there is quite a lot of crossing over, for instance the purpose of the forums is ask questions, answer questions and discuss things. Well so is an irc channel but just in realtime.
So what is my point I hear you cry! It seems to me that both the documentation and the SDK community has evolved into what it is today and the site needs to aid its future development in a more structured way for it to reach what it could potentially reach.
What I think would really help the community and the documentation to thrive would be for the GG guys and the SDK community to come up with some type of roadmap or structure that shows what each part of the site is aimed at doing and in regard to documentation maybe come up with some sort of "documentation pipeline" that would allow the users to contribute and for the official documentation to remain focused.
I've probably not put across very effectively what I'm getting at but I'll be happy to explain further if there anything that I've said that has interested you.
Abuse and comments welcome. Am I on to something or just blabbering?
03/12/2004 (5:26 pm)
I've been thinking about this some more, and came to the conclusion that this Wiki discussion is working on such a technical level that we may be hiding the true issue. Here is my new take on the situation:I think there are two areas to this issue
1) Documentation
2) Torque SDK community
1) Documentation, at the moment there is lots of good info but it is mixed in with outdated information, questions and discussions. Also structurally all the information is on the same logical level so related topics aren't physically grouped.
The new documentation is on the way which is great, however a lot of the information on the forums right now would not be the type of thing you would expect to find in official documentation. The SDK community has limitless amounts of good info to contribute and on a massive array of topics.
2) I'm new to torque but I can already see that:
Torque SDK community = The forums + the irc channel + the .plans + the resources + external related websites.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that there is quite a lot of crossing over, for instance the purpose of the forums is ask questions, answer questions and discuss things. Well so is an irc channel but just in realtime.
So what is my point I hear you cry! It seems to me that both the documentation and the SDK community has evolved into what it is today and the site needs to aid its future development in a more structured way for it to reach what it could potentially reach.
What I think would really help the community and the documentation to thrive would be for the GG guys and the SDK community to come up with some type of roadmap or structure that shows what each part of the site is aimed at doing and in regard to documentation maybe come up with some sort of "documentation pipeline" that would allow the users to contribute and for the official documentation to remain focused.
I've probably not put across very effectively what I'm getting at but I'll be happy to explain further if there anything that I've said that has interested you.
Abuse and comments welcome. Am I on to something or just blabbering?
#51
So what you are pointing out is the need for different kinds of documentation for the 2 different groups of people here, right? And preferably separated more visibly on the webbie
Documentation as in
1) Script references, script libraries, how to use the ingame editors, debuggers etc - all for the scripters and modelleres
2) API docs, how the engine works explainations, code resources for new functionality in the engine etc - all for SDK owners
If so, then I see your point. And how does this fit into the wiki discussion? Well. I think both groups would benefit from such a system. But it might actually have to be 2 separate systems and not one for the login/account issues involved.
But how would one control the "non-protected" scripters wiki? If "Donald Duck" can create an edit account in no time (not tied up to a well known account as the SDK logins) and destroy all documentation, then it would be a big mess.
Hmmmmm - I just got this dumb, crazy idea. Feel free to shoot it down if you dont like it. Lets say we got 2 wiki systems. One for scripters and one for SDK owners.
The SDK owners (as already pointed out) has well known people behind an account, and it would all be tracable if one did something dumb - for the simple fact that they pay with credit cards for get the account, and thus are known beyond a hotmail email account.
So how about charging $5 to get an account to the scripters wiki? Once they put in the credit card number they know that you know them. And it would stop most evildoers from putting in "I own yo all" on the pages.
Just an idea
03/13/2004 (12:06 am)
@Russell:So what you are pointing out is the need for different kinds of documentation for the 2 different groups of people here, right? And preferably separated more visibly on the webbie
Documentation as in
1) Script references, script libraries, how to use the ingame editors, debuggers etc - all for the scripters and modelleres
2) API docs, how the engine works explainations, code resources for new functionality in the engine etc - all for SDK owners
If so, then I see your point. And how does this fit into the wiki discussion? Well. I think both groups would benefit from such a system. But it might actually have to be 2 separate systems and not one for the login/account issues involved.
But how would one control the "non-protected" scripters wiki? If "Donald Duck" can create an edit account in no time (not tied up to a well known account as the SDK logins) and destroy all documentation, then it would be a big mess.
Hmmmmm - I just got this dumb, crazy idea. Feel free to shoot it down if you dont like it. Lets say we got 2 wiki systems. One for scripters and one for SDK owners.
The SDK owners (as already pointed out) has well known people behind an account, and it would all be tracable if one did something dumb - for the simple fact that they pay with credit cards for get the account, and thus are known beyond a hotmail email account.
So how about charging $5 to get an account to the scripters wiki? Once they put in the credit card number they know that you know them. And it would stop most evildoers from putting in "I own yo all" on the pages.
Just an idea
#52
03/13/2004 (2:41 pm)
Wiki.garagegames.com?
#53
I was able to get pretty detailed info about Torque's internal setup before I bought it, just by keeping my ears and eyes open on the forums. Classnames, code snippets, architecture - not enough to _get_ anywhere, but enough to know what exactly Torque was. The wiki, if moderated, should be easy to get to a similar state.
Especially if we keep it relatively moderated.
Of course, as Rick said, the wiki is far down the todo list. :)
03/13/2004 (5:07 pm)
I think that if we have a wiki it should be sufficiently powerful to limit access to areas based on the type of data contained. There will always be leakage due to the nature of the beast (script is based intimately on C++), but that's not a big deal.I was able to get pretty detailed info about Torque's internal setup before I bought it, just by keeping my ears and eyes open on the forums. Classnames, code snippets, architecture - not enough to _get_ anywhere, but enough to know what exactly Torque was. The wiki, if moderated, should be easy to get to a similar state.
Especially if we keep it relatively moderated.
Of course, as Rick said, the wiki is far down the todo list. :)
#54
08/03/2006 (12:43 pm)
I'd love for the tutorials for T2D (TGB) to be on a WIKI so that we could update the little quirks and helps as we come up with them 
#56
04/24/2011 (9:04 pm)
I've started a wikia at http://torque.wikia.com feel free to add content to it...I've started on it a bit. 
#57
We already host a wiki called TDN, short for Torque Developer Network, for all our engines and some add-ons which is editable by the community. The link to it is on the documentation landing page which is under Support->Documentation. There are EULA restrictions with what information can be shared publicly with non-licensees.
04/24/2011 (9:41 pm)
@To-mosWe already host a wiki called TDN, short for Torque Developer Network, for all our engines and some add-ons which is editable by the community. The link to it is on the documentation landing page which is under Support->Documentation. There are EULA restrictions with what information can be shared publicly with non-licensees.
#58
04/25/2011 (12:34 am)
I've used it and so far it hasn't been too helpful, but if it can be changed by the community I guess I've got some stuff to do ;) 
Torque Owner James Laker (BurNinG)
[opinion]
Wiki sounds cool, but i think it's unnecessary. We should rather
spend more time on getting more articles in the resource section.
A Wiki needs to be managed too, and takes time. I think the time
spent wont be worth the results... But then again... Just an OPINION... Flame ahead :P
[/opinion]