I have seen this occurring lately, on the [[Special:Chat|on-side chat]] and on the IRC. Some users, that don't have accounts, will sometimes come into the IRC (not often but in the past couple days I was in there, there has been a few times) and ask a question about runescape, such as.. "What will I need to bring with me for Queen Black Dragon?" Then the answer... http://i0.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/newsfeed/000/004/385/trollsciencelightspeed.jpg . Sometimes, the chat isn't any better. It will usually result in: You're on a wiki, find it yourself. Something should be done about this, allowing a place for users and anons to ask quick questions about the game and get quick answers... always. I was thinking that we could open a new irc channel "#rswiki-help" and give a link in the chat module (if you want to see the js code: look here) to the channel. This channel wouldn't be meant for discussion, as we already have 2 places to do that, but just a place for people to come and ask questions and get answers. Rules would still be the same as #rswiki (except it isn't meant for general discussion of course)
Support - As nominator. Hair 17:10, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
Support - Sure. How would the access list be handled in this channel? Also, was that response of the image directly pointed toward the user? Or was it just the next thing that came up because of a conversation that was already going? 17:17, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
- 1. The current ops can be ops. 2. The image was posted ~1 1/2 minutes after the question was asked so enough time was given for someone to answer the question. Hair 17:34, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion:
- Currently Hairr and I can modify rights, but if that should change I am okay with that too
- I think all S:C, CC and IRC mods/ranks/ops who want can be ops. There should be no "fun kicking" like what happens in the main IRC channel though.
- Yes I do think so. People won't need to register with nickserv, because the voices can be attached to the
*[email protected]*for webchat users. That is unique per IP, while it won't show the IP in the flags list.
- I currently have +F but like with the first point, I'm okay with any changes
- Yes I think runescript and bullbot would be useful to have.
- Those are some answers I'd like questioned, but do not question my wisdom, young 'un, or thou shalt be smiteth. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 18:16, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - This is a wiki, they can freakin' search for it themselves. ._. There is also the Answers Wiki which generally has one active user that actually answers the questions. I don't imagine there will be many people who will actively help these individuals by answering the same questions every single day, with tons of people asking them per day. It will get old, people will move on. 17:56, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Why can't we personally help some users? I bet most users obtain the information themselves since they don't trust us, they trust the articles though as they contain more information. That's just a majority of our users, but we have a lot of users that visit us, so the 10 users an hour that ask questions... we can deal with it. (And Fergie, I'm glad you suited my example perfectly from above) Hair 23:33, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose with regards to IRC, neutral with regards to S:C. I am a regular in #rswiki and I see people come in all the time to ask questions. These people always receive constructive answers, even if it's simply a link to a page on the wiki. It's safe to say that I've not noticed the issue you've brought up. Splitting the channel into a help channel and a general discussion channel just seems like unnecessary mess to me. It gives us another channel to maintain and another set of rules to enforce. Between the lack of need for a split and the extra work it would create, I can't support this.
Oppose unless some evidence of a proper implementation can be provided - The problem I have with this proposal is that I cannot see it gaining traction. On the IRC, no one but channel regulars read the topic (or know what the topic is). In Special:Chat, the topic is squeezed into two lines at the top and the users list obscures half of it.
Furthermore, I have doubts that questions are going to get answered in a speedy fashion in the new channel. As the people who go into there are obviously not wiki regulars, it is doubtful that they know the intricacies of the IRC (meaning that it is unlikely they'd ping someone who is present in their questions). This means that unless people were to set up their clients to ping every line or something annoying like that, the time delay before a question is answered is likely prohibitively long; anonymous users are not going to stare at an IRC channel for five minutes waiting for someone to see the question, as channel regulars are not going to have the IRC window open all the time. I realize that it's not necessary to have the client on this specific channel, but still, I know almost no one who keeps the IRC open all the time.
Furthermore, I agree with what Andorin said about people getting their questions answered in a timely fashion in the IRC. There are of course instances where the system fails, but I think that creating this new channel will increase, not decrease, the number of system failures.
- Technically, [[MediaWiki:Chat-default-topic]] controls the topic, which is displayed as an in-line alert upon joining the chat. What you see in the header is just some generic useful links, which doesn't really count as a topic imo (but that's probably just nitpicking). As for your point about the header not being properly viewable with the size of the window I did ask Joey about it a while back, but never got around to trying to get it implemented. cqm 19:44,4/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose - Not being hugely active in IRC I can't say how often answers like the one given as an example are given, but from my experience in Special:Chat, assuming there are active users, the majority of questions are answered although rude users are generally ignored. It can also depend on the answerer's mood as to whether they direct them to the search or use the extensive knowledge the majority of us have gained through editing here/being a long-term player to answer the question directly. I don't really think of this as a problem, if the chat media provided are failing there is always an article's talk page. As a question, how would those of us with dynamic IPs be affected with regards to using webchat and being operators? Not everyone in Special:Chat who might be eligible for being an op under the proposed selection system is going to have a client. cqm 19:44,4/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose (IRC) - I have not seen the behaviour presented in the opening statement on the IRC channel. I see many people try to help RSWiki-Visitors the same as other (named) users. But, as always, there may be a conversation overpowering the question, and a standard guideline on IRC is to be patient and ask one's own question again in a few minutes if that happens.
As a few users have already said, sometimes the question is best answered on the wiki, so a link to an article is a valid answer. Opinion questions are not going to be answered on the wiki, though, such as "Given that I have such-and-such armour and can afford such-and-such weapons, what would be some good creatures to fight?". Additionally, I'm not sure whether the IRC regulars would look in #rswiki-help often, and I'm not sure you can have two Special:Chats on a wiki.
From someone who isn't often on Special:Chat,
02:29, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt a second Special:Chat channel is possible on the wiki. It would also be a pain to moderate for the busy periods when the RS servers go down. I've seen 40 people in the chat during such times and I can barely keep up with the line of conversation. cqm 02:41,5/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose - IRC is (unfortunately) too complicated for your average RuneScape player to understand. This would be incredibly useful as an extension for Special:Chat, but in this situation we'd want to allow anons, and we'd need more than one chat. I don't see either situation working out. ʞooɔ 02:57, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The IRC actually treats the RSW-Visitors better than the regulars . Oh and another channel will just be more added complication and I think none of the helpful people would bother lurking there. 222 talk 03:27, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe in aussie time, but when you're asleep, we slaughter them. <insert evil laugh> JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:00, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I was going to post this earlier, but my account doesn't seem to be working. I don't think that the IRC would be the best place to have this "help channel", (per Cook). Maybe we could ask Wikia for a helpline special page, where anons can join and also get an ip cloak so non-autoconfirmed users can't see their ip (or something like that )? I dunno, otherwise. Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 11:06, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Although I do think Wikia should add another type of chat room for any user, they wouldn't do it. It'd require more work on their part for what they think would be "one wiki" (us) although I could see many wiki's using the profound extension. Hair 15:12, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - Users who need help can just join one of the existing chats to ask for help (IRC, CC or S:C). The
#rswiki-help channel will be closed, and the links to the channel will be removed from the wiki. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 15:30, July 16, 2012 (UTC)