Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: Editting Wiki

  1. #1
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7

    Editting Wiki

    At 12:45 PM 7/5/2008, kgauck wrote:

    >This sounds to me like an editorial policy designed to confuse
    >people and drive them to some other setting where they have their
    >act together. So I propose we not do that. Instead let us presume
    >that the wiki has hyperlinks and that we cannot predict what
    >navigation paths readers will take, requiring consistency in all of
    >the realms of what is supposed to be happening right now.

    Like anything it depends on implementation, but there`s nothing in
    particular about the wiki`s ability to include original materials
    that`ll lead people astray or away from the original setting
    material. In fact, one could apply that same argument just as easily
    against several of the 3e conversions, most of the discussions people
    have had on the boards/list, and materials being included on the wiki
    by editors that is of their own invention.

    In this case, a heading "Player`s Secrets of X" or just "Secrets of
    X" where the Player`s Secrets materials would be enough to clue folks
    in that the optional materials from the original texts had a similar
    status on the wiki.

    Gary

  2. #2
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Your reply seems to state in general terms what I offered in specific terms. Such elements can be described in the rumors and plots section and in character description pages. They may even include links to adventure pages if there is enough material.

    Are you suggesting something different, or just responding to the part of my post that described the problem while ignoring the rest?

  3. #3
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 02:24 PM 7/5/2008, kgauck wrote:

    >Your reply seems to state in general terms what I offered in
    >specific terms. Such elements can be described in the rumors and
    >plots section and in character description pages. They may even
    >include links to adventure pages if there is enough material.

    To be even more specific (the suggestion that PS material be included
    under its own heading strikes me as fairly specific, but c`est la
    vie) the "rumors and plots" section is usually a chapter of the PS
    texts, so they should go under a "Secrets" heading or whatever
    generalized term one wants to use for such expansion text. That way
    the PS material can be kept in more or less its original form and
    people will be able to recognize it for what it is.

    >Are you suggesting something different, or just responding to the
    >part of my post that described the problem while ignoring the rest?

    Well, OK, since you ask, I was doing both. Wikis are made for
    organizing such material, so the idea that including such PS text is
    an "editorial policy designed to confuse people and drive them to
    some other setting where they have their act together" strikes me as
    missing how simple it would be to implement such stuff, how easily a
    wiki could handle it, and assuming that people actually read wiki
    text in a demonstrably different way from how they read any other
    text. So, the answer to both your assessment and the issue with
    including PS material at all and how it might be done is to have it
    located in the page with appropriate headers. If someone really felt
    the need to keep PS materials separate for organization (or size)
    reasons then a second page might be warranted, but that aside it
    should be pretty easy to note what is what.

    Gary

  4. #4
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I strongly get the impression you don't much look at the wiki. Or follow the discussions about how we are organizing the wiki. Well, c`est la vie. But the strength of a wiki is integrating material. Keeping it separate would not only defeat the virtues of hyperlinking texts together, but would act to discourage contributions. As these two principles have been at the core of the wiki, what you're suggesting really comes out of left field.

    Even if we put banners up around PS material, and put categories linking them together, and indicated what text to go to next if one wants to read the text in the order presented in the PS, the mere existence of hyperlinks will mean that many if not nearly all readers will follow links intuitively rather than follow the guideposts. As if the guideposts had value to anyone without nostalgia for the PS', because I don't see any other value to such a directed reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by geeman View Post
    assuming that people actually read wiki text in a demonstrably different way from how they read any other text.
    This has to be trolling, since you cannot be unaware that people read hyperlinked texts differently than they read other kinds of texts. This is not a secret. Industries and companies are rising and falling because it. Its one of the few statements about computers made in the 90's that didn't turn out to be hyperbole.

    The PS's aren't going anywhere. The wiki police will not come by to collect them. They are available for the price of a beer on-line as PDF's. If you want them they are out there.

    The strengths and therefore the best use of the BR wiki is not to just put paper game materials into a digital format. Not just because its been done, but because the wiki offers us a much larger potential to flesh out the game world by drawing on player content, integrating it, having others cross over it and edit, modify, and improve it, and spark inspiration to develop still more content. This is the promise of a wiki.

  5. #5
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 05:31 PM 7/5/2008, you wrote:

    >I strongly get the impression you don`t much look at the wiki. Or
    >follow the discussions about how we are organizing the wiki. Well,
    >c`est la vie. But the strength of a wiki is integrating material.
    >Keeping it separate would not only defeat the virtues of
    >hyperlinking texts together, but would act to discourage
    >contributions. As these two principles have been at the core of the
    >wiki, what you`re suggesting really comes out of left field.

    Whew, the hyperbole is getting pretty thick.... First including PS
    text is a purposefully editorial attempt to confuse people and drive
    them to some other setting, and now including the materials from the
    setting is going to discourage contributions and even defeat the
    virtues of hyperlink texts? Frankly, it just won`t do that. Like
    any other material it just has to be organized properly to show it
    for what it is.

    I don`t think I`ve been suggesting that such material be separate,
    just properly organized with headers that indicate what it is. Text
    with headers. That`s all. That`s not such a wild suggestion, really, is it?

    >Even if we put banners up around PS material, and put categories
    >linking them together, and indicated what text to go to next if one
    >wants to read the text in the order presented in the PS, the mere
    >existence of hyperlinks will mean that many if not nearly all
    >readers will follow links intuitively rather than follow the
    >guideposts. As if the guideposts had value to anyone without
    >nostalgia for the PS`, because I don`t see any other value to such a
    >directed reading.

    I`m not suggesting banners. Just a few header that`ll show people
    where stuff came from by referencing the original materials....

    That said, I listed a few of the virtues of such a method in these
    posts. It`ll show people what stuff they can use in their actual
    campaigns during play because it comes from the PS texts and is,
    therefore, meant to be part of adventure/PC interaction.

    >>assuming that people actually read wiki text in a demonstrably
    >>different way from how they read any other text.
    >
    >This has to be trolling, since you cannot be unaware that people
    >read hyperlinked texts differently than they read other kinds of
    >texts. This is not a secret. Industries and companies are rising and
    >falling because it. Its one of the few statements about computers
    >made in the 90`s that didn`t turn out to be hyperbole.

    It`s not trolling, and for the sake of clarity you really shouldn`t
    edit sentences to change the full meaning of the post and then
    respond to that truncated sentence as if it were the whole idea. The
    full sentence was that "Wikis are made for organizing such material,
    so the idea that including such PS text is an `editorial policy
    designed to confuse people and drive them to some other setting where
    they have their act together` strikes me as missing how simple it
    would be to implement such stuff, how easily a wiki could handle it,
    and assuming that people actually read wiki text in a demonstrably
    different way from how they read any other text."

    So, if that whole sentence wasn`t clear again, let me rephrase: Yes,
    wikis have hyperlinks, but that doesn`t demonstrably change the
    understanding people get from reading text, nor does it change
    substantially how they read it. There are hyperlinks that they can
    click on, but those links go to electronic pages and are like
    flipping pages in a book, and people do that all the time. Including
    PS material (or any material) that contains links and then linking
    materials to other pages doesn`t change the nature of prose
    mystically, leading to GREATER confusion as you seem to
    suggest. Hyperlinks make reading wikis easier, quicker and more
    useful. They don`t lead to some automatic confusion, and they don`t
    change how people read gaming material. That is, they`ll still go
    through it looking for things to employ in their campaigns the same
    way they go through any other text--hardcopy or electronic.

    >The PS`s aren`t going anywhere. The wiki police will not come by to
    >collect them. They are available for the price of a beer on-line as
    >PDF`s. If you want them they are out there.
    >
    >The strengths and therefore the best use of the BR wiki is not to
    >just put paper game materials into a digital format. Not just
    >because its been done, but because the wiki offers us a much larger
    >potential to flesh out the game world by drawing on player content,
    >integrating it, having others cross over it and edit, modify, and
    >improve it, and spark inspiration to develop still more content.
    >This is the promise of a wiki.

    Given that such material will be included in the future, shouldn`t
    there be some discussion of how to include that material? Isn`t what
    you`re describing the very process we`re going through?

    Gary

  6. #6
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by geeman View Post
    Whew, the hyperbole is getting pretty thick.... First including PS
    text is a purposefully editorial attempt to confuse people and drive them to some other setting, and now including the materials from the setting is going to discourage contributions and even defeat the virtues of hyperlink texts?
    That's absolutely not what I said, and so erant, I am quite confident you are simply making trouble for your amusement.

  7. #7
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 10:41 PM 7/5/2008, kgauck wrote:

    >That`s absolutely not what I said, and so erant, I am quite
    >confident you are simply making trouble for your amusement.

    So can we assume that means you don`t want to clarify how it`s wrong?

    Gary

  8. #8
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    419
    Downloads
    25
    Uploads
    0
    Well, geeman is right in something.

    It would be nice to clarify which is PS material and which is fan-work option. Those parts of PS we agree is not rubbish and sanctioned by community should be marked not to confuse the people that it's free for editing. After all, it's just a follow up on a canon, a valuable piece of information someone has written for wiki and a canon's tentacle that says: "That is mine".

    From that point onward, wiki is open for all suggestions, options, editing, hyperlinking, etc. That is what we actually do in a way, but to make things clear if someone gets carried away. Sounds reasonable to me and it doesn't make a lot of work. At least it shouldn't.
    Rey M. - court wizard of Tuarhievel

  9. #9
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 03:23 AM 7/6/2008, Rey wrote:

    >It would be nice to clarify which is PS material and which is
    >fan-work option. Those parts of PS we agree is not rubbish and
    >sanctioned by community should be marked not to confuse the people
    >that it`s free for editing. After all, it`s just a follow up on a
    >canon, a valuable piece of information someone has written for wiki
    >and a canon`s tentacle that says: "That is mine".

    There are history pages, of course, in wikis for showing who did
    what, but ultimately I think it would be good not only for the
    fan-work to be delineated in some way so that readers could note what
    is what, but also so that the authors of that fan-work can be
    credited for their efforts.... Doing a lot of that on the actual
    article page itself, however, might be a level of complexity that`s
    just too much. That is, one couldn`t have every contribution and
    change footnoted without things looking like a muddle. Marking the
    difference between the core material and fan created stuff would, at
    least, acknowledge those efforts in some way, though.

    Gary

  10. #10
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by geeman View Post
    So can we assume that means you don`t want to clarify how it`s wrong?
    Not as long as you're lying about what I've said and misrepresenting the wiki.

    There is no point in such a discussion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Wiki 101 - a guide to preparing a wiki document
    By AndrewTall in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 10:17 PM
  2. May I translate BR.wiki?
    By BadMiddle in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 06:13 PM
  3. Wiki malfunction
    By Thelandrin in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 08:04 PM
  4. Language of Wiki
    By Thelandrin in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 10:32 AM
  5. Birthright Wiki
    By Birthright-L in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2002, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.