Just requesting clarification from one of the top bananas at squad

[r4pt0r]

Is the KSP wiki The official wiki?

It came up in a thread yesterday and I was confused it seems.

The main page states:

Welcome to the

Kerbal Space Program Wiki

The official community-driven guide to the game.

It says offical, but it also says community driven, so....

and the planned features page states:

This list is not an official road-map for KSP. It is maintained by the community, and has no direct relation to what may or may not be included in the final product.

and as I read it, that means that anything on the planned features page cannot be taken as squad gospel, and is unofficial.

Also, IDK who does the main ksp site, but this page needs updating, partially because some of the planned features have been implemented, and partially because certain team members have departed.

[baijuncheng]

It's the official wiki. It's on the same domain as the other official stuff.

The wiki format is designed to allow anyone to edit it. This way people can work together to get a lot of writing done. The most famous wiki of all, Wikipedia, is friggin' huge because of it.

[cantab]

It's the official Wiki just like this is the official forum. Both, of course, are full of definitely not official info.

[r4pt0r]

I only bring this up because some people reference the wiki's planned features page as facts, and I don't think they should.

[Alshain]

I only bring this up because some people reference the wiki's planned features page as facts, and I don't think they should.

As I mentioned before, those items on the list are taken from various sources at Squad, including this forum, the dead forums long gone (which makes citation difficult now unfortunately), twitter, reddit, and several other places. In almost all cases they were accurate at one point, but Squad always has the freedom to change their minds. That is true of any list, including the very small list on the main page, as that doesn't constitute a contract either.

If the wiki is wrong, you have the power to fix it. However, it is a valuable resource to me. Most importantly, it's not your place to tell people what they can and can't link. I mean no offense by that, but I don't know how else to put it. Unless it's in the forum rules that we can't link to the official wiki, then you can't tell people not to (in fact doing so is called back seat moderation, which IS against the rules).

[Sirrobert]

It's official in that Squad said 'jup, that's the Wiki for this game guys'

[r4pt0r]

-snip

know that I meant no offence either. I just dont think that using un-reputable sources as references is ok.

for example, the wiki says gas planet 2 is planned, but that was nova, not squad. so referencing that as a planned feature is not ok(that is you can, but you're wrong and I would call you out on it)

I just wish squad would have an official planned features list or roadmap. They can change it at will as their goal or intentions will change im sure, but something stamped with the squad seal of approval.

Edited August 20, 2014 by r4pt0r

[Alshain]

know that I meant no offence either. I just dont think that using un-reputable sources as references is ok.

Unfortunately that is how Squad continues to convey their communications. I don't like it either, but we get more breaking news from Twitter and somethingawful.com, just look at the Spaceplane Plus announcement. Maxmaps broke the news elsewhere which started the whole thing, whether we knew which mod it was or not was irrelevant, he broke the news that they were acquiring assets on third party communications. The wiki helps to compile those, because that's all we have.

for example, the wiki says gas planet 2 is planned, but that was nova, not squad. so referencing that as a planned feature is not ok.

I'm not familiar with that particular item so I can't comment on it's accuracy, but if the wiki is wrong, fix it.

[WololoW]

Most importantly, it's not your place to tell people what they can and can't link. I mean no offense by that, but I don't know how else to put it. Unless it's in the forum rules that we can't link to the official wiki, then you can't tell people not to (in fact doing so is called back seat moderation, which IS against the rules).

Your statements here are both false and libel.

OP never claimed that he is able to "tell people what they can and can't link." But you do seem to try and tell him(incorrectly) what he is allowed to do in the following sentences. He is well within his rights on this forum to suggest that people don't reference a non-official list of planned features when talking about officially discussed planned features. You though, are very close to breaking the same rule you reference by even mentioning (incorrectly I might add again) that an infraction has occurred.

Please re-read what you type before posting it to make sure it is not rude, false, or libelous.

Edit--

Unfortunately that is how Squad continues to convey their communications. I don't like it either, but we get more breaking news from Twitter and somethingawful.com, just look at the Spaceplane Plus announcement. Maxmaps broke the news elsewhere which started the whole thing, whether we knew which mod it was or not was irrelevant, he broke the news that they were acquiring assets on third party communications. The wiki helps to compile those, because that's all we have.

I'm not familiar with that particular item so I can't comment on it's accuracy, but if the wiki is wrong, fix it.

I was unclear about this too until Rowsdower cleared it up for me. Any "Official" statement by Squad about KSP will be announced via Official means(this forum or the main page.) I am on my iPad so I don't have the link at this moment to his comment but I will in a minute and edit it in.

Edit2-- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91013-Which-one?p=1359767&viewfull=1#post1359767

Edited August 20, 2014 by WololoW

[Ted]

Anything on the Wiki regarding Planned Features should be treated as untrue unless the citation for it indicates otherwise. Much of the Planned Features page lacks citations so should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Additionally, even those that do have citations are vague in both what they mean and what the citation meant. An example of this is the "New GUI" planned feature that cites a Dev Note from Jim where he talks about the new GUI he's working on, which was the Mission Control UI. So while it may say "New GUI", it's lacking the context of what that new GUI actually is and how extensive it will be. In the current state, one could take it to mean a GUI overhaul or significant GUI additions, neither of which could be cited as coming - the Dev Note talks about a feature that is implemented now.

Regarding the "Official" status of the Wiki. It's official in that we host it and have ultimate control of what is on there, but as with all Wikis anyone can add and remove content from it. So unless it's also citing an official source it shouldn't be considered official information and shouldn't be relied upon.

Hope that clears it up.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ted

[WololoW]

Thanks for the clarification Ted!

[r4pt0r]

ahh this is where this got moved. thanks Ted

[Red Iron Crown]

This rather official looking post refers to the Wiki list as the "Official Planned Features List". Perhaps it should be changed, that sort of statement from a senior mod makes it confusing as to whether the list is official or not.

[KasperVld]

Fixed :-)

[Red Iron Crown]

Just noticed that the community rules post refers to the wiki page as the "Official Planned Features list" as well.

[Murph]

There's something which seems to have been overlooked in this thread, but is rather important. It really doesn't matter, as nothing is guaranteed to happen. Even if the list was hand carved into granite by Harvester himself, or written in blood on ancient parchment, it still wouldn't guarantee that any particular feature would actually appear.

I.e. chill out, it doesn't matter, it's no big deal.

[John FX]

There's something which seems to have been overlooked in this thread, but is rather important. It really doesn't matter, as nothing is guaranteed to happen. Even if the list was hand carved into granite by Harvester himself, or written in blood on ancient parchment, it still wouldn't guarantee that any particular feature would actually appear.

I.e. chill out, it doesn't matter, it's no big deal.

What you say is true and I`m glad it`s not something that bothers you but it does bother others. Hopefully it will not bother you for this to get sorted out either.

I think I would like the `official list of planned features` to either be that or not be called that myself. Sometimes discussions get heated (look at the `should we have a Dv readout` thread for example) and having lists of possible features be labeled as `official` leads to confusion and lets those sort of thread increase the heat.

I support the very small change which could reduce that by simply removing `official list` from non official lists.

[Superfluous J]

Linking to a Wiki in an important paper (be it for school or business) would be ridiculous. You would at best be laughed out of the room and at worst discredited or fired.

While this forum is neither a school nor a business and we can't be discredited or fired for linking to the wiki, we should all be mindful to instead link to what the wiki cites as is proper in citing sources. And if the wiki doesn't cite something that supports our post (and instead just implies something we want), we should find a better source or reconsider that post.

[KasperVld]

It shouldn't be referred to as an official list, so also fixed in the Community Rules, I wonder how that one slipped through... anyway, thanks for noticing & posting