@Kyronix - A wiki by definition is a collaborative effort of the users - be they internal users (meaning staff of an entity) and/or external users (meaning end consumers or community outside of an entity).
Perhaps changing the name from "Player Wiki" - as it implies
published submissions* from anyone who plays - to "Official Guides" or something of that nature. That will justify the reasoning behind people applying (be it with or without advertisement of such) to be an editor of the official guides on the UO.com site.
You can run wiki-esque software, but just don't call it that. Professionally, I've helped other companies with their wiki setups, but most of them are not for collaboration and such are titled differently. Encyclopedia, Atlas, Guide, Glossary, Handbook, etc. Anything but wiki. Just because you are using wiki-software doesn't mean you need to call it that.
Is all about semantics - you know how ppl are.
I like the thought of veteran players being vetted by Broadsword to be part-time staff as editors. Having the general player-base submit to their site would be rather... cumbersome - even more so than a "Stratics Wiki" imo. The official guides
should be general, encouraging player exploration and discovery of the game whereas more detailed stuff would be produced by the player-base (as already is) on fan-sties. So yeah, I think you guys are moving in the right direction, just need to change that wiki title to something more in line with what you guys are doing/.
I strongly do encourage the use of screenies, please. Like others mentioned, the first things I look for are 1) Game play screenshots and 2) Video of game play (first by the game publisher, then by players). Cannot say how important that stuff is to a video game today. Even console games have at least screen shots. I'm sure the devs there take screenies of your activities.
Back in the day, it was the availability of screenies on Stratics that kept me coming back here.
*edited for clarification