Board Thread:Animal Jam Talk/@comment-26887898-20191025135320

First and foremost, let me preface this discussion with a hearty congratulations to the folks that have actually compiled this encyclopedia. That's a lot of work in consulting people on values and maintaining an active site. This argument is not intended to be against those that have created, monitor, or contribute to the Wiki, but instead, against the principle of creating the encyclopedia in the first place.

1. '''The creation of the Wiki, though helpful, makes values static and unlikely to change. '''

Before the Wiki was created, the values in Animal Jam were determined based on the general consensus of traders, depending on its quantity, age, likelihood of returning, and its appearance. The general consensus would often change depending on the public's opinion of an item. For example, if fewer players have an interest in a particular item, its value would decrease, as it is not demand, even if it is a hard-to-find item. If people like an item that actually has a larger supply than other item that is harder to find but still cool, that item in with the larger quantity is more likely to be traded for, leading to its value to increase. A lot of items that are small in quantity but deemed not desirable are usually only sought after by niche collectors, who hope to gain a monopoly or larger portion of the supply in order to increase its value. In short, they're investing. This trends change over time depending on who's playing and trading actively. These values were fluid, and changed often.

When value encyclopedias appear, though they are recording the public's general consensus on an item, the "de facto", it actually reinforces the consensus as the item's "de jure" value. For example, let's say that a player is looking to trade for a party hat from the 2012 New Year's events. They'll express interest to their friends and the public, and will consult them on what the general consensus' agreement is on the value. However, like a lot of prudent players, they'll research the current value and base their offer on it. When they see the encyclopedia, the player acknowledges that, "Oh, this must be the general consensus. Therefore, its value will be X, and players will probably only accept my trade if its greater than or equal to that value." The problem is, once many people view the encyclopedia, they all believe that that IS the only value threshold (greater than or equal to) that will merit a successful trade. This means that people will only accept what is deemed the "X", the seen value, and only accept what is greater because it benefits them. Players trading for that item will not want to invest because they'll see it as an overtrade and a waste when no one else will give them items of similar value when they trade it away. In short, the values are reinforced to a degree that the previous fluidity enjoyed is disrupted. Look at how rigid the values have become after about 2015-16. Some of the values listed here are the same, or even exactly the same, as when I played a couple years ago.

Compounded with the fact that many players are aging out of the game naturally, these static values lead to a decrease in interest in trading. Some players will think, "Why bother? The values never change here, and it's hard to move up the ladder when people will only accept this rigid value." Though the Wiki can't be entirely "to blame" for a person quitting the game per se, it can be a contributing factor. These factors are already showing up in other places, too.

It's appearing in games that haven't even been RELEASED yet. Take Feral, for example: many people have already created a Wiki to log the values of that game there. This means that those who join the Wiki first and have editing influence have the power change what the values are on their Wiki, which will be seen by the public. In short, the few will have the ability to have nearly all of the say in what the "true consensus" on items are, and that's dangerous. That means that other people without similar influence / abilities will have their voices quashed. They will no longer be able to express or debate the value of an item based on the factors discussed previously: its quantity, age, likelihood of returning, and its appearance.

Therefore, the creation of an encyclopedia such as this is dangerous, especially when considered to be the "standard" and can influence how other games operate. What does the forum think? 