Canon lore or Fanfic

[Sorontar]

The wiki contains a lot of the start-up details for most major temple domains. May I suggest that you make use of the categories on the wiki. Start at Category:Religion (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Category:Religion), go from there to Category:Temple:Avani, Category:Temple:Sera etc and within each of them you will find Category:Domain:TEMPLENAME which will contain all pages relating to each particular domain.

I am afraid I can't tell you off the top of my head which domains have the most detail (except that I know that temples of Haelyn have lots on them).

Sorontar

[Cuchulainshound]

So, let's say you (which is to say, "I") felt creative, and wanted to expand with some fan-based creativity for one of the religions/faiths - what's the best way to present that? Here (for "general approval"), or under a specific faith, or in an appendix under the god/dess, or where?

Specifically, it would be an elaboration of the Saramite doctrine, or at least one possible direction someone might take that for a faith. Doesn't need to be tied to one particular faith, as it merely expands on the sadly narrow "Profit is good" dogma.

[Sorontar]

There are pages already for various doctrines, including ones that are shared between some temples. See [[doctrine]].

The way to do fan-based variations of d20 BRCS pages is to start a new page with an appropriate title. If it is your work and you want to keep it so, then call it [[User:Cuchulainshound/Doctrine_of_Saramie]] etc. If you don't mind others editting it, then just leave out the User bits. Copy anything from the original that you want to include and edit away. Mods like me will then create links in the BRCS or other restricted pages that will point to your page.

See [[Faiths_of_worship]] for how this was done for Haelyn-related material.

[Rey]

And include a Fan fiction header?

[AndrewTall]

And include a Fan fiction header?

Fan Fiction banners are only appropriate if the page takes an 'unusual' view - otherwise almost every page would wind up with one. It's a tough call, all of my pages seem reasonable to me for example (well, except the one on Prince Raesene), but generally I'd recommend fan fiction only if changing something canon (i.e. the name of a duke) mentioning an anachronism (bringing in magical versions of stuff), etc.

I'd suggest hitting a discussion tab if you aren't sure, if anyone meeps then slap the banner in, otherwise the page is kosher. Plus you get to show off your page in an inoffensive manner that way.

[Cuchulainshound]

I dunno - the last BR game I was in, I was playing a church of Sarimie, and someone addressed a letter to my Regent as "Sacred Broker". I took it as an intentional insult and slight until, OOC, they explained that they got it straight off this site (here (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Celestial_Jewel_of_Sarimie)). It's clear that not everyone's "creativity" is equally appreciated by all (nor is it reasonable to expect it to be).

That's actually a major problem I've experienced with this site (and heard echoed by others), that canon and fan-fic are shuffled indiscriminately, to the point of this site being nearly useless if canon-only is the desired goal.

I don't know what the official policy is, but wouldn't it be better to have anything that is not from published material labeled clearly as such? I mean, unless we're just rewriting it all... (which, in some cases... er, never mind.)

[Rey]

Well, in the end, all of the material should be considered optional, weather fan fic or canon (that is, domain sourcebooks). All the PS' have a disclaimer that says players should discuss with the DM which "facts" can be used in campaign, depending on the DM's vision of campaign. Your players should present you with all they've discovered and you have to confirm it or reject it.
Even official PS' are sometimes rejected by DMs, and I think the view of BR community is that a fair number of this PS fact stuff is subject for a serious discussion.

Btw., there is also a possibility for all of us to link our personal writings as our personal views on the matter.
Still, I think it should be somehow visible that something is not a part of what was officially printed. But then again, there are pages where you have to single out sentence by sentence of fan fic among official.

[Sorontar]

The problem is:

the canon publications are sometimes contradictory
they are sometimes not easily workable
they are also rather minimal on details

The community decided that part of the objective of the community and the wiki is to extend the setting. Part of this was to create the d20 BRCS which tried to fix some of the ruleset problems as well as express it in the d20 structure. The rest is to work in a wiki environment to produce more detail on the domains, people, places etc that make Birthright what it is to each of us. Even here there are contradictions, but when these are discovered, we try to talk them over.

Therefore, the wiki is pretty much all fan fiction and it is not really worth trying to pick out which bits come from canon and which don't except when debate arises.

Personally, I like to at least say were the bulk of the original data came from, even if I don't cite individual components. A good example of this is the [[Yikarian Empire]], which I have tried to map into the d20 BRCS, giving the regents/vassals more character in the process and making the holdings more competitive. But at the bottom of the page, I mention what it is based on.

Sorontar
ps. Awnsheghlien like [[Hoarfrost]] are classic examples of minimal canon data that I have tried to start extending. Need I really say what is canon when there is barely anything in the first place?

[Cuchulainshound]

The community decided that part of the objective of the community and the wiki is to extend the setting...

..Need I really say what is canon when there is barely anything in the first place?
Actually, S, according to how this Wiki is currently presented, yes, you should. Or make it clear, on every such page, that it's just not reliably canon.

The Wiki Main Page heavily implies that all this information is "correct" - and fan-fic, in this context, is neither correct nor incorrect, it simply is.

Main Page
So why a Birthright wiki? As you're going through looking for information, if you see something that's incorrect, you can correct it. If you see any information that's missing, you can add it. This way, the information here should be as up to date as possible, instead of having to wait for a small group of people to update the information...So if I add that "The Gorgon prefers blondes" - then, okay, now suddenly that's "correct" (because I've just corrected it!). Really?..

There is at the bottom of that very first paragraph what looks like it might be a caution/disclaimer (altho' that appears targeted more at editors than readers) - if followed, that text only reinforces the implication of "canon"...

However, this is not Wikipedia, and we have slightly different ways of doing things - for more info, see About BRWiki ->

BRWiki:About
The BR Wiki is a wiki containing articles relating to the Dungeons & Dragons Birthright Campaign Setting which is the property of Wizards of the Coast (WotC)...Well, if it's related to the WOTC D&D BRCS (as opposed to being related to the world in general), then it must be canon, right? Wrong...

It's not until half-way down that page that the reader, finally, is given the actual situation...

What the BR Wiki is clearly therefore not is 'canon', or 'right'. ...which, to me, directly contradicts that opening section that states that if something is not "correct" it will be corrected!

(Now, I'll tie in Rey's comments before continuing my own, but don't lose that thought...)


Your players should present you with all they've discovered and you have to confirm it or reject it.
The problem is that while your suggestions are valid for a table-top game, the BR Game I was referring to was an on-line, 40+ player game, which means the GMs get many hundreds of e-mails and scores of questions each day. There is no way that 1) they can realistically screen that many queries, b) that the GM's can then get all the players on the same page with what is "true" vs. "not true", and/or iii) that that many players can be relied upon to check their own understanding of the game with them each time (altho' an on-line wiki makes that easier to do). So "This game is canon, unless otherwise stated" is the usual fiat.

Now, unless someone owns all the books ever published, that understanding of "canon" is nigh unto impossible to achieve. So they turn to the internet - and invariably stumble upon this site (or it's simply recommended). And canon is immediately corrupted, but only those who read for content understand that (read "about 15%, if yer lucky.)

And while I'm not stating that this site "should be canon", I will state three things which I think are self-evident:


1) If canon were clearly separated from fan-fic, this site would be much more useful.
2) If canon is not to be separated, then that should be MUCH more clearly stated and emphasized, as the first thing seen by the new visitor (and on every page, for those arriving to a sub-page via a Search Engine).
3) Fan-fic cannot be expected to please everyone, nor even close.

I include that last because, while any GM is, of course, perfectly capable of changing canon details, most simply don't - they state at the outset of a game "The game will be canon", and call it good until something specific catches their attention. However, most also know the material from the books, not this site - and once this site enters the picture, as presented the info here muddies the waters unnecessarily - which, I believe, is exactly the opposite of one of the stated goals of this site, in'it?

My point is that separating fan-fic from canon is something that would be a "good thing". However, if the community decides it's not desirable (or simply not practical at this point), that state really should be far more strongly advertised/emphasized on the Main Page and on any page where fan-fic exists (which may be every one at this point).

Because as it stands, for the average reader (much less the average non-Native English reader), it seems that coming to this site does less and less to help them with BirthRight, but more and more to help them with Sor's & Rey's & Andrew's & Cuch's world.

[Cuchulainshound]

Cross post - read the above.


In practical terms a 'canon' only site would be almost useless amounting to a download of the pdf's only - which would probably breach copyright in any case.
(The only one who has suggested "canon only" is you, afaict. Not sure why you're even mentioning this.)

[AndrewTall]

Cross post - read the above.


(The only one who has suggested "canon only" is you, afaict. Not sure why you're even mentioning this.)

Because splitting the site in two would create a canon only site which would breach copyright. Hmm, lost my edit and the original post when you posted, wierd.

[Cuchulainshound]

? - I never suggested "splitting the site in two", I originally suggested "clearly labeling fan-fic" for what it was (in the post you replied to), and then (in the cross post) suggested making the situation clearer for what it is. There are many ways of doing either one without creating two sites.

(And, please, unless you are a copyright lawyer (and even then), let's not get into a discussion of what is/is not/might be copyright infringement. Copyright is so complex that even specialty lawyers disagree on what is/is not/might be the case.

This site was given permission (afaik) to post the BR content - that's good to go, and that content existed here before the fan-fic was added. That's all we need to worry about.)

[AndrewTall]

The Wiki Main Page heavily implies that all this information is "correct" - and fan-fic, in this context, is neither correct nor incorrect, it simply is.

Not so. Where text expands in a coherent manner that respects the setting, medieval world, etc then it is 'good', where is contradicts without clear (preferably stated) reason, etc then it is bad. Unless you are going to say 'canon=right', 'oher=wrong', which is not in my view a sustainable or useful argument, then any text requires judgement over whether it fits in a campaign.



So if I add that "The Gorgon prefers blondes" - then, okay, now suddenly that's "correct" (because I've just corrected it!). Really?..

No. But it isn't necessarily wrong, fairly pointless in my view unless expanded to give game hooks, but that's all. It doesn't contradict anything that I'm aware of so it isn't wrong.



The BR Wiki is a wiki containing articles relating to the Dungeons & Dragons Birthright Campaign Setting which is the property of Wizards of the Coast (WotC)..

Well, if it's related to the WOTC D&D BRCS (as opposed to being related to the world in general), then it must be canon, right? Wrong...

I don't follow your logic, the pages do relate to the campaign setting, i.e. the world in general, they are not, and do not claim to be, a cut 'n' paste copy of the original text - which would be breach of copyright. We can have a look at clarifying the text if its confusing though.



It's not until half-way down that page that the reader, finally, is given the actual situation...

What the BR Wiki is clearly therefore not is 'canon', or 'right'. ...which, to me, directly contradicts that opening section that states that if something is not "correct" it will be corrected!

Again I struggle to follow your logic. If someone writes something that is clearly wrong (i.e. the Gorgon is a were-bunny) then point it out and we'll fix it, or fix it yourself. That is the strength of a wiki, expansions which are of low quality should get weeded out over time while better ones will themselves be expanded upon, thus it should in general be 'right' and not 'wrong'.



Now, unless someone owns all the books ever published, that understanding of "canon" is nigh unto impossible to achieve. So they turn to the internet - and invariably stumble upon this site (or it's simply recommended). And canon is immediately corrupted, but only those who read for content understand that (read "about 15%, if yer lucky.)

The assumption that everyone has all/most of the books is out of date (sadly), but I reject the suggestion that canon is corruped - unless you are referring to corruption in a religious sense.

The DM sets what is / is not canon, given that canon is mainly silent on points needed in the game, often obsolete or contradictory they will have to make such rulings regardless - if there is something in the wiki that is 'dangerous' to a game by opposing underlying concepts, major facts, etc, then it should be tagged as such already - any ubiqitous tag would lose any effect.



And while I'm not stating that this site "should be canon", I will state three things which I think are self-evident:


1) If canon were clearly separated from fan-fic, this site would be much more useful.
2) If canon is not to be separated, then that should be MUCH more clearly stated and emphasized, as the first thing seen by the new visitor (and on every page, for those arriving to a sub-page via a Search Engine).
3) Fan-fic cannot be expected to please everyone, nor even close.

1. We'd have to delete the canon section immediately as breach of copyright. If people want canon the only legal source is 2nd hand or a download site.

2. A tweak to the skin might be possible - something along the lines of 'fan based expansion' or suchlike. I don't see the point but if people are confused then there is little harm.

3. Nor can canon. Fan-fic should however be able to please most people most of the time which is all that can be said about any writing of any source. As the wiki is modifable it should over time be more likely to please than the original unchanging text.



I include that last because, while any GM is, of course, perfectly capable of changing canon details, most simply don't - they state at the outset of a game "The game will be canon", and call it good until something specific catches their attention. However, most also know the material from the books, not this site - and once this site enters the picture, as presented the info here muddies the waters unnecessarily - which, I believe, is exactly the opposite of one of the stated goals of this site, in'it?

I'm not sure what 'be canon' could mean in that context - 99% of the game will always be non-canon and DM-inspired as even the largest realms only get a few pages written about them in canon which is inadequate for a game. When you tie in the actions of other players and passage of turns the canon will inevitably be fluid.



Because as it stands, for the average reader (much less the average non-Native English reader), it seems that coming to this site does less and less to help them with BirthRight, but more and more to help them with Sor's & Rey's & Andrew's & Cuch's world.

Their world, not just ours, that is why it's a wiki not a series of downloadable pdf's. If someone reads something that they disagree with they can edit, post an alternate view, hit the discussion tab, etc - and so aid anyone who follows and the original author. Hopefully the world that continues to be created is a fusion that follows fairly closely to the spirit and flavour of the original, if so then that's all that can really be asked for.

[AndrewTall]

? - I never suggested "splitting the site in two", I originally suggested "clearly labeling fan-fic" for what it was (in the post you replied to), and then (in the cross post) suggested making the situation clearer for what it is. There are many ways of doing either one without creating two sites.

(And, please, unless you are a copyright lawyer (and even then), let's not get into a discussion of what is/is not/might be copyright infringement. Copyright is so complex that even specialty lawyers disagree on what is/is not/might be the case.

This site was given permission (afaik) to post the BR content - that's good to go, and that content existed here before the fan-fic was added. That's all we need to worry about.)

We have a limited permission - we can create content or modify stuff and post it up, but we can't simply copy. And yes copyright is a nightmare and we would really rather not go into it by giving them something obvious to hit us with like a section of the site marked 'canon, this is the original stuff'. :(

In practice there isn't anything which should be a direct copy beyond names and numbers, I can see some benefit, but since I think that WOTC stopped the pdf's being sold I think we are stuck with posting our own stuff up only.

I'm not trying to be negative, but beyond a few core concepts (which different people probably would disagree over) I'm not sure how in practice we could do more than we have. If we aren't modding enough then point us to the lower quality stuff - I'm not that active any more but I'll do what I can to fix obvious trips into wierdsville.

[Birthright-L]

I think there should be some effort made to note that certain things
are fanfic and others are canon. I`ve used a set of endnotes to act
as references for canon material or stuff directly inspired by
canon. I don`t know if something like that would be at all practical
for the wiki but it works pretty well for PDFs.

Gary

[Arjan]

We have a limited permission - we can create content or modify stuff and post it up, but we can't simply copy. And yes copyright is a nightmare and we would really rather not go into it by giving them something obvious to hit us with like a section of the site marked 'canon, this is the original stuff'. :(

In practice there isn't anything which should be a direct copy beyond names and numbers, I can see some benefit, but since I think that WOTC stopped the pdf's being sold I think we are stuck with posting our own stuff up only.

I'm not trying to be negative, but beyond a few core concepts (which different people probably would disagree over) I'm not sure how in practice we could do more than we have. If we aren't modding enough then point us to the lower quality stuff - I'm not that active any more but I'll do what I can to fix obvious trips into wierdsville.

I must disagree with you here.. we CAN copy all that is written in the BR books, as long as we give the appropriate credits.

another part of the licence is that we as community SHOULD provide NEW material.. meaning fan created!
and if for some reason content is "unlogical" or completely doesnt fit in BR.. we have discussion tabs to discuss it. (which arent redirecting to the forum right now, but thats another problem)

If you as author dont want any discussions but still want to share your point of view, you can either post it on your user page or use the FanFic tag

if it just were for canon stuff.. the wiki would be very empty...


I think there should be some effort made to note that certain things
are fanfic and others are canon. I`ve used a set of endnotes to act
as references for canon material or stuff directly inspired by
canon. I don`t know if something like that would be at all practical
for the wiki but it works pretty well for PDFs.

Gary

just what i wrote above, i do feel you should add your stuff to the wiki as well gary...

[AndrewTall]

I think there should be some effort made to note that certain things
are fanfic and others are canon. I`ve used a set of endnotes to act
as references for canon material or stuff directly inspired by
canon. I don`t know if something like that would be at all practical
for the wiki but it works pretty well for PDFs.

Gary

We could have a go. The trouble is that one person's 'slavish copy' is another persons 'distortion'. I think we'd get back to existing issue that if its 'reasonable' then it doesn't get labelled, but that we don't agree on what is reasonable.

I'm off on holiday soon, when I'm back (assuming someone else doesn't fix it) I'll have a go at re-writing the intro page that Cuchulainshound noted as potentially confusing, and have a think about whether some other up-front flag/etc could be added that would reduce the problem noted.

[Cuchulainshound]

(almost a multiple crosspost -

@ moderator - Good call on changing thread name. Sorry for derailing original "Temple" topic, but that seemed to have been resolved.

@ Arjan - your interpretation of the agreement this site has with WOTC makes much more sense. I can't see how this site could possibly have started with the BR content + fanfic. The CopyRight issue is a non-issue - first, it was settled long ago, and second no one (except Andrew) has suggested pure BR text.

@ AT - The "solution" (assuming one agrees that there is a problem, which I won't assume) would be one (or both) of two basic approaches -

1)Clearly state on the Main and other Pages (universal header?) that this site has fan-fic mixed in, and is not a (reliable) canon-reference site. Done.

2) In any article, the fan-fic and canon material should be kept distinct from each other - this can be done with colors, with different sections, with fonts - but it would require HELLUVA work to go back and fix at this point. But something some might be interested in...
)

@ AT's post, above:

I'm going to start with the very last, because that seems central to the issue.


Their world, not just ours
Exactly - and that's different from the published material.

From the Player's/GM's point of view, the advantage of published material is twofold - first that you don't have to create everything from wholecloth, but more is that it is a common starting point for players. You and I sit down and say "Let's play BirthRight!", and we both and all our friends know exactly what we're talking about, or at least where to go if we have a doubt or question.

With fanfic thrown into the mix, we don't, not unless we say "Let's play the BRWiki version of BirthRight!" And even then, if one of us reads something new and the other doesn't, we're back to playing two different worlds.

And the central problem is that there is no clear distinction between the two here, certainly not that the casual reader/user is made aware of.


Not so. ... Unless you are going to say 'canon=right', 'oher=wrong'
Andrew - please read what I've posted, don't skim it. Respond to what I'm saying, rather than what you're thinking. This is a personal request, as having people respond to things I never said simply drives me crazy. It's just a waste of everyone's time. Please.

No one was talking about "right/wrong" re the content - at least, no one other than you. The Wiki is talking about "correct". Once that word is used (not my word, the Wiki's), then there is some "authority" that determines correct/incorrect - here, in the context of the published BirthRight material*, it is only reasonable to assume that "correct" is determined by that published material, and nothing else. And I, for one, do not count random, anonymous fanfiction on a wiki as "authoritative" in that context.

(* If, as you imply below, it's in the context of "any fanfic material related to the BR world in general", then in/correct is absolutely meaningless, as anything that a fan posts becomes "related", and thus acceptable if it's not directly contradictory or rejected by the population of editors.)

... the pages do relate to the campaign setting, i.e. the world in general,
Of course they do. But the campaign setting in general terms is not the same as the WOTC-owned BirthRight Campaign Setting - which is specifically what is referred to.

And by "relate to", the reader (given the context) might reasonably assume that is used to mean "can be related to a specific reference", rather than "claims some vague creative inspiration from".


Again I struggle to follow your logic. If someone writes something that is clearly wrong...
Well, Respect for your perseverance in the face of adversity. My "logic" is simple - that with fan-fic there is no right/wrong, because there is no authority to judge it against. Thus, fan-fic cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

"The Gorgon is afraid of snakes". Is that "wrong"? Can't be - it's out of canon, so there is no judgement we can make on it re "right/wrong". (It doesn't contradict canon, so you might judge it as "not-wrong", and thus no need to correct it on that count.) Is it important? Could well be! Is it "good/bad"? Meh, subjective question, as many opinions as readers. (The Gorgon is sacrosanct to many, so any change, no matter how minor, may well induce a kneejerk against it. Dealer's choice.)

But is it canon? Hell no! So, while it is certainly unsupported and thus "incorrect" vs. strict canon, it's also never going to be "corrected" by your position on this wiki, because as fan-fic it's not "clearly wrong", which can only happen if it contradicts canon.

And what is "wrong" with that? Okay, I'll now use that term. What's wrong is that a Player in my game may read that, and proceed based on the commonly known "fact" that "The Gorgon is afraid of snakes", and that only creates headaches. And while you may be able to create arguments against this one specific theoretical example, this Wiki is full of non-theoretical examples that do that very thing to games every day. Really.


The assumption that everyone has all/most of the books is out of date (sadly), but I reject the suggestion that canon is corruped - unless you are referring to corruption in a religious sense.
Heh, well, we'll leave that to a higher judgement.

First, the assumption that every fan of BR has even most of the books is flawed - there are many who are attracted to BR from the 3.0 BRCS .pdf download alone - I was one for several years before stumbling upon a... (ahem) source for the bulk of the material.

The canon is corrupted in this wiki because no one who does not have all the published material memorized can reliably tell what is authoritative, published material and what has been "added on" - and the add-on is not canon. Thus, since any but the most rabid (and gifted) fan cannot tell the diff on this wiki - it's mixed up, it's muddied, it's muddled - in a word, it's corrupted.

The title of the Regent of the Celestial Jewel of Sarimie is "The Sacred Broker" - This wiki presents that as fact, side by side with the name Temias Coumain and all the rest. Is that canon or not? If the material as presented does not distinguish between canon and fan-fic (and nowhere on that page does it), then they become one. "Which one?" is the problem. While this is a minor hiccup, there are others with far more potential for disaster or disagreement - as a Player or a GM, do you want to re-read all your books proving a negative, that a stated bit of fan-fiction is not canon? Do you want to toss a coin each time that comes up? Each GM is different, but I'd rather not have to do either.


The DM sets what is / is not canon
Depending how you're using the word "canon", no. They set what is acceptable in their game, not in the Published Setting. ("Canon" usually refers to a fixed, authoritative source - and a GM, relying upon the BRCS to begin with, is an intermediary authority/interpreter, not the highest authority, which is the source of canon. Meh, symantics.)


... given that canon is mainly silent on points needed in the game, often obsolete or contradictory they will have to make such rulings regardless

Absolutely, but where do most GM's want to start? From published material.

If, then and only then, they want to refer to suggestions and solutions by other players (rather than reinvent the wheel themselves, as much as GM's tend to love that particular exercise), having that fan-material is great - but having it shuffled in with canon is a questionable improvement, a mixed blessing. Being able to discern the one from the other would solve both needs.

Let's say that a GM uses this Wiki as a reference, and then (as you suggest) deletes a rule or fact they don't like that they found on these boards - are they then returning closer to canon, or moving further from it? If you can't say, if they can't say - the starting point of published canon is unclear, hence my suggestion that it has been "corrupted".


1. We'd have to delete the canon section immediately as breach of copyright. If people want canon the only legal source is 2nd hand or a download site.
That is your legal opinion? (Is it illegal to practice law in England without a license? It is in the states... just wondering)

Drop the CR discussion. Really. No one is suggestion copying/pasting the BR material except you. Stick to the topic, which is the question of mixing unlabeled fan-fic with canon material.


I'm not sure what 'be canon' could mean in that context
Really? It means that the history and setup will be from published material, rather than fan-fic. Canon does not predict how a game will proceed, only how it starts, the premises that build the foundation of the world (which takes us back up to the "last" part, which I placed at the top of this). (Anyone else have trouble with this one?)

Worse, as this wiki is dynamic, what is read one day might change the next - that's hardly attractive to a GM. So most start with canon, the fixed, published material, and add from there. If someone reads something here they want to add, great - but unless they know the diff, they don't know to ask.

[Sorontar]

Just a quick comment on the history of this group in order to put the BRwiki in perspective.

Originally there was a mailing list. This then became an online forum which was mirrored in the mailing list. The community developed the D&D 3.0 draft (a pdf file) which was playtested. "Corrections" and "updates" were made to ch 1 and 2 in light of the playtests and the release of D&D 3.5. Work started within the community on the BRCS Atlas which aimed to expand the Player's Secrets etc about the people, places, domains and things. However, the Atlas didn't get very far and was never "released".

The option of switching to a wiki was proposed. Permission was sought and sort of granted from WotC. BRwiki was born as a development tool. This way, we could all develop the Atlas together, rather than having to rely on a select few respected people from the community who would tend to only publish the final product or their component of that. With the BRwiki, we would get the dirty, incomplete stuff as well as the polished stuff. It was up to us to choose what we wanted to use.

The only "official" bit in all this is the d20 BRCS but even that still needs revision and full updating to D&D 3.5 (hence the BRCS: Errata). Anything else in the wiki can be modified. The wiki "corrections" often are because one bit of the wiki doesn't agree with another, or doesn't match the ruleset.

Sorontar
ps. I guess the d20 SRD copy is also "official" but it may be out-of-date. Think of it as an aid, rather than a ruleset.

[Arjan]

The option of switching to a wiki was proposed. Permission was sought and sort of granted from WotC. BRwiki was born as a development tool. This way, we could all develop the Atlas together, rather than having to rely on a select few respected people from the community who would tend to only publish the final product or their component of that. With the BRwiki, we would get the dirty, incomplete stuff as well as the polished stuff. It was up to us to choose what we wanted to use.

Sorontar

yep this all what the wiki is about (thnx michael)

i really like to see more people contribute things to the wiki..

..and when things are really over the top, people will start a discussion.. and thats why we have wiki moderators..
err sorry HAD wiki moderators (now called Site Moderators since they do things with threads too ;) )
anyway, they will step in and add a fanfic banner if needed.

Gorgon afraid for snakes? yeah why not, tell me more
Gorgon is really elminister - yeah why not, but very unlikely, and since we are not to able to change major characters or kill them its gotta be fanfic

[Arjan]

ps. I guess the d20 SRD copy is also "official" but it may be out-of-date. Think of it as an aid, rather than a ruleset.

yes the main purpose was it to be reference (easy linking from BR pages) and to lure more people to the site as they do get indexed by search engine.. although i dont think it had any effects :)

[Rey]

This issue seems complicated, but actually it should not be.

My point of view is that canon should be something that's common for all of our campaigns. It's not written in stone but it's a base for a campaign. To me, canon is, for example, 2nd edition ruleset for designing characters and also the BR adjustments. Also, to me, canon is the game mechanics written in RoE, how the world functions, actions, domains, gods, etc. Depending on a campaign, you can use a campaign expansion, Rjurik Highlands for Rjurik, if your game is based there. That's about three books your players should/could read/skim if they are total D&D newbies. Or you explain it to them, like I've explained to 8 of my players on our forum. The best thing for them, at the beginning, is if they don't know anything.

OK, besides that, everything a player encounters on his way through the internet or elsewhere is subject to a discussion with DM. Full stop. No discussion.
All the books, posts, threads, pdfs are optional, whether published by TSR or my mother.

Whenever I see something, anywhere, I ask my DM how about it. He reads it, says go, or no I don't like it and we play on.
Some of my forum players are not disciplined, so when an elf in my campaigns blurts out about Hanner Sidhe, I have to interject and say hold your horses, let's rewind that one 'cause I don't approve that concept.

If multiple DM's run a 40 player forum game, they should do this and agree on any changes to campaign, ie, accept or reject an option no matter what source it comes from. Establish a baseline and you won't have surprises.

If you like to contribute to wiki with your knowledge, please do so. Expect it to be subject to changes as other people see things differently, but I think we can all agree to something, especially if there seems to be only one person that contributes to wiki on that matter. I'm speaking mostly about Atlas, people, places, events.

If you have an idea and you don't want it to be subject to changes, write it on your user page and link it appropriately.

From time to time, when most of the people agree on something, it should be locked for editing and accepted as "finished" (talking about content we have solely created on our own with minimal influence of published material), so we can have at least the ground point for that area and others can give their personal point of view as a variant, linked to that article. Something like that is already happening and some of you guys worked on that long time ago so you know how it goes.

I really don't know how to throw in the material for Melyy in Vosgaard and to mark what is in books and what's my imagination. Three pages in the book, the other twenty or thirty from my head mix in perfect harmony (my ass) and sentence by sentence I need to say this one is from the books, and this is mine, and this one is from the books, and this one is Andrew's and that one is Kenneth's, but it's a variant of what is in the book. In the end it all boils down to just a content that you can use in a campaign and your player will think that this part with a big black giant terrorizing the hood is just plain stupid, like there is this gigantic wooden wall in Rjurik that defends the humans against all evil and no one can penetrate it, ever. But it's in the book, it most be right!

[Cuchulainshound]

BRwiki was born as a development tool. This way, we could all develop the Atlas together, rather than having to rely on a select few respected people from the community who would tend to only publish the final product or their component of that. With the BRwiki, we would get the dirty, incomplete stuff as well as the polished stuff. It was up to us to choose what we wanted to use.
Okay, if that's the case, then no distinction need be made* between "canon" and "fan-fic", because this site doesn't care about the diff - it's all for the advancement of the setting.

(* I still think it's a shame, because the material is already here and this site could serve both purposes with relative ease, but not my call.)However, if/since that's the call, that needs to be made MUCH clearer, at least on the Main Wiki Page. This is not the BRCS Wiki, this is the BR+fan Wiki, an entirely different animal.


This issue seems complicated, but actually it should not be.
It's not complicated, it's just misleading as currently presented.

You're right about canon - as the term is commonly used, it's not "the GM's chosen setting", it's "the official, published setting". And by "published", that doesn't include "something that someone wrote and published on some site on the internet" - and the BRWiki is just that and nothing more, because it certainly is not sticking to the published material.

(And the whole "errors in rules articles slavishly mirror the errors in the pdf, but world/setting articles are completely malleable" approach is a bit schizophrenic. That diff should be made clear, also - at least the wiki can be used for those "canon" rules, even if not the canon world behind them.)


From time to time, when most of the people agree on something, it should be locked for editing and accepted as "finished"
Hmmm, imo yes and no. At some point the main aspects could be deemed "finalized" and the content more or less frozen and guarded, as the Main Page content is in most community wikis (not locked, but carefully watched by all), but as a Wiki any article should at least be subject to improvement in writing, formatting, linking and even graphics - there are several articles I've slogged through that are crying to be made more readable, imo. After so many diff editorial tweaks, a single hand is sometimes useful to tie everything together in one unified style (and not every creative mind comes with a coherent writer attached).


I really don't know how to throw in the material for Melyy in Vosgaard and to mark what is in books and what's my imagination. Three pages in the book, the other twenty or thirty from my head mix...
The easiest way to do things like that are to have the canon at the top, and then the additional material below in a new section that re-presents all of it including the rewritten original material.

But unless the aim of this entire wiki (well, the half that deals with the setting, rather than the rules) is re-interpreted, that just ain't gonna happen.

[Thelandrin]

While I could see the appeal of having canon and non-canon sections, how do you decide what is canon? Some of the stuff in PS: Tuarhievel is useful and interesting and other stuff is some of the worst stuff ever rushed out and called canon. In other places, the canon is confusing or simply contradictory and in many, many places, missing altogether.

[AndrewTall]

From the Player's/GM's point of view, the advantage of published material is twofold - first that you don't have to create everything from wholecloth, but more is that it is a common starting point for players. You and I sit down and say "Let's play BirthRight!", and we both and all our friends know exactly what we're talking about, or at least where to go if we have a doubt or question.

With fanfic thrown into the mix, we don't, not unless we say "Let's play the BRWiki version of BirthRight!" And even then, if one of us reads something new and the other doesn't, we're back to playing two different worlds.

No, a game starts with each player having their own understanding of what the setting 'means' because everyone interprets and expands canon and particular its gaps and assumptions differently - the published text is simply insufficient as a starting point.

The common ground has to be broader issues such as reverence of priests, attitudes towards higher/lower nobility/etc and their respective rights, importance of sub-domain vassals, etc - the rest is just dressing and the fixed domain rule-set. A player who thinks being a noble means being a god-king with the right to cry treason and execute anyone spending a single RP against their whim is far more likely to cause problems with their differing view of nobles rights to another player who thinks of them as 'first amongst equals' atop a vassal-pyramid, than is a player who thinks that the wiki saying that there is a pub called 'the nag's head' in a rival domain's city means that this fact must be accepted by the rival domain because the pub was on the wiki.

To one player I know writing to his Duke with merely 'your grace' could be taken as a gross insult by the character - a lesser noble should be saying 'your imperial grace, by the divine grace of most Holy Haelyn, Archuke of...' and trotting out half a dozen titles at least, probably repeating such comments in the text between various medieval grovellings - to other players that sort of medieval demand would be unthinkable. Any game will need to have a certain amount of goodwill, etc between players to iron out such issues, and quibbling over whether player No.14 took their lieutenant's name from a published document, the wiki, or their kid sisters manga comic is frankly trivial in the context of those wider disputes.


And the central problem is that there is no clear distinction between the two here, certainly not that the casual reader/user is made aware of.

That is not the problem. The problem is that people are looking for something that cannot be provided - the pure canon - and then failing to evaluate what they read critically - as they should evaluate anything from any source. I can't see any difference between someone deciding that their title is 'X' because they like the sound or because it is in the wiki - anything fluff in content relating to a players realm tends to be for them to adjust. Making assumptions about other players/domains is always going to be fraught with issues, regardless of whether that assumption is based in deep historical knowledge, a flick through the wiki, or a direct line to L Richard Baker III.


Andrew - please read what I've posted, don't skim it. Respond to what I'm saying, rather than what you're thinking. This is a personal request, as having people respond to things I never said simply drives me crazy. It's just a waste of everyone's time. Please.

I did, and could make a similar request if so inclined. Thus the danger of preconceptions and experience based extrapolations of 'common understanding' is perhaps highlighted.




(* If, as you imply below, it's in the context of "any fanfic material related to the BR world in general", then in/correct is absolutely meaningless, as anything that a fan posts becomes "related", and thus acceptable if it's not directly contradictory or rejected by the population of editors.)

Only if no critical thought is applied which appears to be the core of this particular perspective gap. The whole point of the wiki tags for fanfic, interpretations and so on is to split out the 'correct/whatever positive term you wish' text from the 'incorrect/bad/etc' text , there is no attempt to split 'correct/etc' from 'canon' because there would be no 'canon' tags making the split impossible.


My "logic" is simple - that with fan-fic there is no right/wrong, because there is no authority to judge it against. Thus, fan-fic cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

Which is where critical thought comes in. I assume some reasoning ability on the part of players, some willingness to review statements in light of D&D/fantasy standards, campaign flavour, understanding of the medieval world, human psychology, economics, etc.

If a reader refuses to judge what they read by what they know, statements from their DM on the sort of campaign to be played, comments by other players on what they think, etc then yes, the player becomes unable to judge good/right/correct/helpful etc and must thus rely purely on 'written by the original authors' as the sole acceptable message.

Given however that most players are reasoning beings I would expect them to analyse anything they read - regardless of source - and decide what 'sounds reasonable' and doesn't, and, although here I make a wild leap into forlorn and oft-disproven hope, that in a game players will wish to play with the other players in the game and thus deal with honest misunderstandings in a mature fashion - i.e your example of one player deciding that the right title was 'A' and the other 'B' without any published document to guide either being resolved by discussion on why the title was used.


"The Gorgon is afraid of snakes". Is that "wrong"? Can't be - it's out of canon, so there is no judgement we can make on it re "right/wrong".

Of course we can judge it. Does it seem reasonable that a 'man' who personally fought a dragon and smashed it into submission is afraid of a small crunchy smear under his hooves because it has scales / wriggles ? Does it seem likely that a being of significant intelligence who has lived for thousands of years and counts gods as personal enemies is easily prone to irrational fears? Judgement is not difficult in this, or many other statements, and can be applied to any other issues that might arise from the wiki. Thus fanfic, interpretation, etc tags are applied for the pages which directly counter expectations, original canon, historical understanding, etc but not to those which appear innocuous to the writer and any subsequent readers.


But is it canon? Hell no! So, while it is unsupported and thus "incorrect" vs. strict canon, it's also never going to be "corrected" by your position on this wiki, because as fan-fic it's not "clearly wrong", which can only happen if it contradicts canon.

On the contrary if someone points out some text which is not reasonable, contradicts another page, is counter-productive to a good game, etc a correction will be made, hopefully after discussion, possibly by presentation of counter-views on the same page, possibly by some form of elimination. Thus 'errors' will be corrected as written in the page in question. The fact that an error - such as Stjordvik's great oak wall - was written by a TSR author or was written by a fan is irrelevant in the context of the statement questioned, what is relevant is whether the text is deemed 'right' by those readers sufficiently concerned by any potential issue to consider the matter and comment.


And while you may be able to create arguments against this one specific theoretical example, this Wiki is full of non-theoretical examples that do that very thing to games every day. Really.

So is published canon, so are the many assumptions about how medieval people would respond to social rank, magic, monsters, the meaning of alignment, etc, etc. The wiki merely offers some more suggestions, it does not create the problem you highlight, or materially add to it given the existing scope for dispute.


That is your legal opinion? (Is it illegal to practice law in England without a license? It is in the states... just wondering)

That depends on what you mean by practice, anyone can spout an opinion in a bar (and many do), advocating for a client in front of the supreme court is by contrast an extremely closed shop. I have the right to give certain legal advice in certain situations, and come across some UK aspects of copyright as a result - do I claim to be an expert on every international aspect of copyright? Heck no. But as a rule of thumb if someone copyrights some text, comercially exploits it, and person B grabs great swathes of it and plonk it unchanged on thier own free-to-access site then B is going to risk legal trouble in one or more of the jurisdictions from which the site can be read.

Copyright often lets people use some copyrighted stuff in specified manners, but the one of the core points you've been pushing - great swathes of 'canon' in the wiki marked up to let people see it and distinguish it from 'fan expansion' is a risk even where the commercial use of the text appears to have ceased. Given that the site owes much to TSR, now WOTC, etc giving significant respect to their rights seems only proper.


Drop the CR discussion. Really. No one is suggestion copying/pasting the BR material except you. Stick to the topic, which is the question of mixing unlabeled fan-fic with canon material.

Your point of separating the two to create a pure source, for example the original documents neatly divided into clearly marked sections on various navigable pages, is a CR discussion - and you are the one who has raised separating out 'canon', indeed you have done so repeatedly. All the published texts - and likely the unpublished works like PS Muden - were copyrighted by TSR. As such the only way practical way to 'split out canon' would be to remove everything we weren't given specific permission to use.

Ignoring copyright as you suggest is best left to personal websites and home campaigns, a site like this must - and morally should - respect it. I'd personally love it if WOTC came over all cuddly and said we could post up all their original stuff - I'd be knocking up a locked series of pages lovingly bannered 'original text' directly, but that isn't going to happen. The wiki and site will therefore have to remain, as should be expected by any reader, fan generated material inspired by and intended to enhance the setting while respecting its roots. I hope we succeed most of the time, if you see something that jars, nail it yourself, or hit the discussion tab if you aren't sure.

[Cuchulainshound]

AT -

Time and again I've refered to "the casual reader" - and for them, "critical thinking" is not expected. They expect to be spoon fed just "the facts".

I'm glad you exercise critical thinking in examining a setting - so do I - but I don't expect every one of my players to. This is an RPG, not a college curriculum. Moreover, even if that were defendable, it would be patently absurd for any GM to do so, as any individual's final product will differ from another - and we're back to not having a common ground to start from, hence pointless (at least not without long hours of discussion and consensus - which is not usually the point, altho' I've met GM's who would stand as refutation to that).

As for the rest, we're clearly too far apart to continue this discussion. You keep ignoring my points and addressing other ones that you are inventing, or redefining terms to suit your mood. Have fun with that. kkbb.


While I could see the appeal of having canon and non-canon sections, how do you decide what is canon?
Easy. Canon is, for better or worse, whatever is published by the authority. Doesn't matter if it sucks or it's genius, if it got published, that is the canon, the pure canon - everything that was published (or accepted) by the authority*, and nothing else. That's the definition and limitation of canon.

(* To suggest that the GM is that "authority" could be valid, but would be to redefine these terms outside the context we're using.)

Thus canon cannot be "missing" - it can be silent on an important or expected aspect of the material, but it is what it is, a meta-informational constant. (In Christian canon, what Jesus did between birth and, say, his scene in the Temple where he kicked ass on the money-lenders is (afair) silent - not "missing". There simply is no (catholic) canon on this section of his life, so christians have what they have, and are stuck with that.)

If two canon sources are mutually-contradictory (and there's no official errata/interpretation to resolve it), then canon is unclear on that point. Many religious canon suffer from this, and wars have been fought over such. But otherwise, you refer to the authority - which never (in this context) is fan-fic, nor personal interpretation or expansion - just what's been written, nothing more nor less.

Thus, if a GM or player is looking for "canon" information, they are looking for the unadulterated published facts on the topic, nothing added nor removed.

[Thelandrin]

Then people who want the pure, unvarnished canon (and nothing else) should pick up a source-book and look in there. We can't be in the business of just ripping text from the manuals and sticking them up online as free electronic books.

[Cuchulainshound]

Actually, wrong, "we" can be - there are many pages here that do exactly that, and (from everything that's been said that makes any sense) WOTC is cool with that, having turned over content that they have zero interest in. (What's more, it's intuitively obvious that this site had to start out exactly like that, purely and unvarnishedly 100% from canon, before anyone was even able put their own mark on that material.) But this community has specifically and intentionally chosen not to be that - and that's fine.

The problem is that that's not made clear to the casual user, and in fact the opposite is implied. If someone hunts throughout this site, or takes the time to "critically examine" it all, or has the canon memorized, then that's clear - but that's not the "casual user", who drops in from a Google link and reads info on X topic, which is presented as if it is, indeed, all straight out of canon material, and not out of your and my and their imaginations.

[Sorontar]

A few quick points....

Cuchulainshound said:

it's intuitively obvious that this site had to start out exactly like that, purely and unvarnishedly 100% from canon, before anyone was even able put their own mark on that material.

The site did not start like that. As I pointed out, the community started as a mailing list. From that the D&D 3.0 BRCS was developed as well as the forum at br.net. The D20 BRCS was well under development by the time the forum was born. The wiki is only a very recent addition.

Of course, I may be misreading your statement. Either way, the early comments were discussions of how the canon didn't work, how it was expanded and how others (like Travis Doom) redesigned it. Yes, the original published works (what is canon) were seen as a starting point, but they weren't always treated as the absolute truth.

Now, I have seen many sites for PBEMs and PNP Birthright-related games. In just about every case they have stipulated what ruleset they are using. It would often be the canon boxset or the d20 BRCS, but it would also have houserules which had new rules or exceptions to the rules. At no time was a player expected to come to br.net for rules. I would say that this site is targetting DMs, not players.

Indeed, in my BR campaign, the DM stipulated that we should not read br.net (or at least his emails here) and if we did read anything on this site, we should never expect it to be true in his campaign. I was the exception because, though I was a player, I was already an active member of br.net. And we had a good level of trust.

I admit that this wiki is a bit different to other ones. It contains a copy of the updated ruleset, but also lots of other information. A distinction between these is clearly made (the BRCS: headings and BRCS category). However the other stuff is not part of the ruleset. It is background information for a possible use of the ruleset.

The canon issue with most of the pages is not as much an issue within this community because
1) the canon stuff needs corrections in order to be workable
2) the canon stuff is incomplete
3) the canon stuff does not always work in the updated ruleset.

Now, grant you that point 3 is not always true and not all pages need to relate to any ruleset, but much of the NPCs etc have been written with the updated ruleset in mind. Therefore the canon NPC stuff isn't what we want. Just because the canon says Bruce of Wollomaloo is a thief, doesn't mean that he is will be labelled as such on the wiki. He may be a rogue in the new ruleset or he may be better as a bard or a guilder... or maybe a barbarian.

Okay, the wiki text may not be clear about this, but the existing community here understands the aims of the wiki. We have big arguments sometimes about its contents sometimes. The wiki sometimes is confusing, e.g. the Governor on Albiele Island versus the Governor of Mieres. But as I previously said, it is a development platform, and I would say that it is targetting DMs, not players. The canon stuff will always be treated as a starting point for us, but is open to reinterpretation, expansion and correction. We have managed to create much more than TSR ever produced and it will always need a bit of finessing so that it sensibly works together.

[AndrewTall]

Thanks to those who have re-written the 'about br wiki' page, hopefully it is now clearer.

In terms of a banner, both the forum and wiki have a common title strip. Arjan, would it be possible to run a line under the connect / welcome / notification buttons?

Something like: "Welcome to br.net. A fansite dedicated to discussing and expanding upon the Birthright campaign setting"

That should give the casual viewers without our shared history or concerns about CR a clue that they are not going to be reading a copy of the original published (in hard/soft copy) texts.

[Birthright-L]

At 03:26 PM 10/21/2010, Arjan wrote:

>>I think there should be some effort made to note that certain
>>things are fanfic and others are canon. I`ve used a set of
>>endnotes to act as references for canon material or stuff directly
>>inspired by canon. I don`t know if something like that would be at
>>all practical for the wiki but it works pretty well for PDFs.
>
>just what i wrote above, i do feel you should add your stuff to the
>wiki as well gary...

I appreciate the suggestion, but in all honestly, I`m leery of
participating in the wiki. I have concerns much like those expressed
by Cuchulainshound in this thread. I`m 100% in favor of folks in the
BR community posting their contributions, but I`m just not
comfortable participating in the wiki since the design philosophy
that has been presented to me in the past was to take the fan
materials and mix it with canon without attribution. In fact,
attribution seems to be antagonistic to the project itself, and that
just doesn`t jibe well with how I like to do things. (I believe
things like the wiki should be free and open... but carefully and
respectfully sourced for the sake of the originators, to give credit
to the contributors, and to aid the readers.)

So, I`d rather just put things up as PDFs and let folks deal with
them as they like--under the condition they don`t try to sell
anything derivative of that work or pass it off as their own, which
is why I put that little license notation in the title page of the
more recent ones.

Gary

[Cuchulainshound]

Gar -

I'm going to add stuff, but as separate pages with a big FANFIC banner at top, as suggested (somehwere earlier). This can also be found in the "how to create a wiki page" .doc for this site.


In just about every case they have stipulated what ruleset they are using... At no time was a player expected to come to br.net for rules. I would say that this site is targetting DMs, not players.
It's not the rules that are the problem, it's the setting. This site has gone to great pains to lock the 3.0 pdf rules (or so) as-is - but when a player does a web-search for info on "Endier" or "the Chimaera" or "History of Avanil", they're likely to find articles on this site - and that's when the problems arise.

Most games also, if only out of pure laziness, use the canon history of Anuire - and this site throws that to the wolves without warning or comment.

And if this site is "targeting" GM's (few "dungeons" or dungeoncrawls in BirthRight in my experience), it regularly finds an audience well outside it's target. While the majority of regular readers and contributors may be GM's (or at least players with GM-quality understanding of the setting), I question whether the majority of casual readers are, those (players or GM's) who drop in rarely for a quick answer to an on-line question, and then go back to their game somewhere believing they have "the official answer".


Indeed, in my BR campaign, the DM stipulated that we should not read br.net
Wise.

Again - my main concern is not this site's target audience (my minor concern is that, and that's been echoed by a few voices, but that's a separate issue). My main concern is that the fact of this site's policy and purpose is not made clear to those folk who do stumble on to a site called "BirthRight Wiki".

Most any other wiki dedicated to a particular work that includes canon material is either faithful to that material or draws the distinction clearly. This site seems to take pride in muddying those waters for any reader. That's fine as a goal, but it's highly problematic for the first-time readers themselves (and casual repeat readers who never figure that out.)


Okay, the wiki text may not be clear about this, but the existing community here understands the aims of the wiki.
I'm sure they do - but isn't that rather self-serving, literally? Isn't that very close to simply saying "We know what we're doing"... and so we don't care about anyone else? Is that the policy desired by the community? If so, if that's what this wiki community is happy with, I'll just shut the hell up because clearly I'm in the minority, and with apologies for the trouble. But if that's not the case, then the potential confusion needs to be addressed.


But as I previously said, it is a development platform, and I would say that it is targetting DMs, not players.
That's a valid distinction and a valid approach - but should the players who do find this site (like me early on, like many) and see the name BirthRight and don't see any qualifiers or warnings, should they be left to wander in the same minefields of canon vs. fan-fic again and again until they figure it out for themselves?

Even if the few who support a clear distinction are in the vocal minority (and I often see double-digits of "guests" viewing these threads, but see only a few posting), a clear warning or accurate explanation emphasizing that approach and purpose, at least on the Main Page, solves (what I see as) the central problem.

[Rey]

People are used to the original concept of wikipedia, quoting and citing the facts from the books, researches, documents, etc., so when they get here they take it for granted.
Although wikipedia itself has problems with its own concept and give misleading data (and I've found them myself), because there are people who have multiple sources and different points of view. But in the end, we take it as written in stone ("I've read/found it on wiki").

There's also one difference with original wiki here. It cites the sources.

I'm not in favor of splitting the original published content from fan fiction, for the sake of the flow of document and not scrolling up and down to compare the data, but I do, partially, support the concept of alerting the reader (doesn't have to be a big green flashing banner) that the content may be mixed, completely fan fiction or original published material. Also, names of the contributors may be visible in the document, without seeing the history. But this last bit is subject to discussion, a lot of things need to be set in order. In any case, we need to give credit to those that take their time and contribute for the community. And that's what I've seen when a fan pdf is put together for download.

But I do, however, stress the need for every DM to point out to his players what content he/she can use, what to avoid and to give him insight on sources they do use. You may plan a nice adventure for your team for a few hours of gaming session, just to discover that a PC priest uses a particularly handsome spell from some neat book of divine magic that you didn't know about and solves the mystery in a matter of minutes. That's an example of not holding the reigns of campaign in your hands, because DM never said anything about not using alternative sources.

A priest in my campaign said he'd like to use a spell from a book other than PHB, so I've looked to it, read it, approved.

[AndrewTall]

... but I`m just not comfortable participating in the wiki since the design philosophy that has been presented to me in the past was to take the fan materials and mix it with canon without attribution. In fact,
attribution seems to be antagonistic to the project itself, and that
just doesn`t jibe well with how I like to do things...

Gary

The philosophy arose more by default than by design, the original problem was that if the page wasn't locked, then it could rapidly be edited by someone else - who might not update the attribution - you'd then have 'written by Gary' being applied to stuff you hadn't written and might vehemently disagree with.

The creation of userpages reduced the problem, but the only thing stopping them from being edited is people reading the 'about br wiki' page and then restraining themselves which seems to have worked so far (at least I've heard no complaints) but is far from perfect.

If it's a problem to have your stuff edited by others - and I can see when it would be - then we (well Arjan) should be able to come up with some way of locking the page in the same way that the BRCS conversion pages are locked - only mods would then have access, but I'd hope that we could restrain ourselves barring contra-policy text. You'd need to be a mod to change the page yourself once it was locked, but could do so indirectly by mailing the update to a mod.

'Fanfic' or 'observation' pages should be safer from adjustment generally since they will be more likely to be seen as 'deliberately other' so 'mistakes' identified by a viewer will hopefully be taken as part of the design not as a flaw to be fixed. If I ever get around to wiki'ing the TNG stuff I wrote I'd hope that the fanfic banner would indicate to readers that the Gorgon's ascent to godhood was not the normal view but even then I can see someone going on an edit frenzy to fix the errors :rolleyes:

[Birthright-L]

At 01:39 AM 10/25/2010, Rey wrote:

>I`m not in favor of splitting the original published content from
>fan fiction, for the sake of the flow of document and not scrolling
>up and down to compare the data...

Agreed. Maybe someday we`ll have enough content to warrant two
wikis... but I just don`t think we`re there yet.
Honestly, I would be satisfied if the wiki materials that have a
source in the original, published materials just had a footnote
referencing the source. The same sort of standard that one can find
in any number of wikis....

>...but I do, partially, support the concept of alerting the reader
>(doesn`t have to be a big green flashing banner) that the content
>may be mixed, completely fan fiction or original published material.
>Also, names of the contributors may be visible in the document,
>without seeing the history. But this last bit is subject to
>discussion, a lot of things need to be set in order. In any case, we
>need to give credit to those that take their time and contribute for
>the community. And that`s what I`ve seen when a fan pdf is put
>together for download.

All fanfic need not necessarily have something labelling it, but the
more significant things--like whole pages created by a particular
user--should be duly noted. It needn`t be pathologically observed or
anything. Just to the standard of any other wiki. Facts stated in
the wiki that have sources should just list those sources.

One of the objections folks have raised in the past is that because
wikis can be altered there`s going to be no way to keep track of who
is TRULY the author of some particular piece of user contributed
material. Well, that`s true as far as the standard editing and
addition materials are concerned. But that doesn`t mean we shouldn`t
still have a standard of acknowledging the original source and duly
noting that person not only for their original contribution but also
to denote to readers the source. Anyone who comes along and corrects
some spelling, adds a reference or three, or does any of the standard
editing procedures for which wikis were designed doesn`t then get to
take credit for the whole page. They needn`t even sign or note that
they`ve made the changes (that`s what the history page does) but if
someone contributed a whole bunch more material they could sign it,
or otherwise acknowledge their contribution. I think that kind of
thing is perfectly reasonable.

I don`t think we need to go crazy with things like different fonts or
sidebars or inserts to denote authorship. The kinds of things done
in the average high school senior/college freshman level of writing
to note sources, however, would be a good comparison.

Gary

[Rey]

Gary. Agreed! :)
There are always ways to find compromises and evolve.