Editting Wiki

[geeman]

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

[kgauck]

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?

[Rey]

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.

[geeman]

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

[kgauck]

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.

[kgauck]

It would be nice to clarify which is PS material and which is fan-work option.

Its apparent we need to have a policy page that explains why we have decided certain things about the wiki. Notably, why we have chosen not to do this.

[Sorontar]

Umm, guys, just a reminder that the key thing about wikis is that they generally exist to be editted. What is stuff from a WOTC Player's Secret publication one minute can very quickly change to fan-work. The idea of segregating the two is nice to talk about, but hard to enforce. Just getting the BRCS all protected on the wiki has been a slow enough process since we have to make sure it hasn't been editted inadvertently.

And I, as a moderator, would have no idea what is and isn't in any of the PS.

Sorontar.

[Wilenburg]

In general it is impossible to say which is a player made source to an actual source, since if editted and taken time it can be of the same quality of writing as an actual sources, and with the basic 5 books it is the only true consitent source in BR since ps advanced timeline from the basic books.

[kgauck]

Wilenburg, this is a very long sentence, so its hard to figure out which clause is the heart of the question. It looks like the last two parts are conditional clauses, so I'll answer this question and hope that addresses yours too:

Is it impossible to say which is a player made source and which is a published source?

Consider it this way, if anyone can edit the wiki, not just a small team of experts, is it reasonable to expect that every contributor will know what they can change and what they cannot?

It would require policing every change, which is a considerable manpower commitment, and makes the prospect of having many contributors require many moderators just to watch all the changes.

Could we protect the pages that are the same as the PS, but why do that? If our purpose was to simply provide the PS in another format, a wiki is a particularly bad choice. Especially since as pdf's they are already digital.

Further, our agreement with wizards is that we don't simply upload their product, they still sell it after all, and our agreement specifically states that it is BR.net's job to create new content for the Birthright Campaign Setting.

So, our mission really is to build on existing material, to create new material, and the wiki nicely allows us to integrate this new and expanded material into the old material. But attempting to protect the old material, especially if we are too successful, just puts us in the position of giving away PS's, which will not make Wizards happy.

Even so, couldn't we organize the pages in such a way that it was clear what was published and what was posted? Sure, but that would make for some jarring reading. Many edits add just a word or two, such as adding a location or a date. Its not like someone wants to tack on a paragraph of unrelated material. Most things are developments of things already in the official text. So if a regent is said to have spent their youth in Mhoried, and someone wants to add some detail to that, does it get integrated in the biographical information, or put elsewhere like a footnote. Do you enjoy reading footnotes? Will people contribute as fully if they just get to add comments and footnotes to a pristine entry?

And who is this canon preservation for? If you have a copy of the PS, why do you need it preserved on the wiki? And if you don't, why care whether it was once in a paper booklet or written a week ago? I don't know who the presumed audience is for this canon-only description of realms. It seems to satisfy only nostalgia. My favorite realm is just so, untouched or altered. But our mission is to develop existing material and create new material, not to carefully preserve the already well preserved original materials.

[geeman]

At 02:58 PM 7/6/2008, you wrote:

>There is no point in such a discussion.

OK, then let`s move on. Here`s what I`d suggest that might solve
both issues with what is PS material or original text and what is
fanfic and at the same time, and using both these things are
standards of wiki use.

First, the citation/reference function. Wikis have a nice built-in
citation system that allows editors to add information about where
their material comes from. So far, it looks like none of this is
being used in the Birthright wiki. A few strategic notations would
clue in those who want to find the source of the materials being
discussed. In the long run, such citations not only help the
articles themselves, but also prevent future editors from changing
things based on a mistaken impression. A standard citation system
would alleviate the need to break up the material into separate
categories, use fonts, text boxes or even just headers (which was my
suggestion.)

It would help if this material was organized in large chunks from one
source or another to cut down on the amount of footnotes, but that
looks to be the case anyway, so a few strategic notations should do
the trick. Those who don`t know the specific references can put in
the perennial "citation needed" notes with which wiki readers are so familiar.

Second, the signature function can be used to note fanfic on a page
that also contains canon. Rather than something like the big "This
is an Observation" box that the fanfic uses a few little signatures
would do the trick. It`s pretty easy to make a little signature for
a wiki, and one can use HTML if one feels ambitious. Those who
include whole paragraphs of fanfic, adventure hooks, etc. could note
their inclusions by signing it--which is generally considered
standard wiki behavior in the first place Admittedly, sigs are not
usually used for the body of articles, but we`re talking about more
than a typical, encyclopedic reference here.

Signing at the end of something like a "Rumor" would be appropriate,
simple and relatively subtle. And anonymous contributions can be
noted as anon should someone want to remain anonymous or should a
later fanfic contribution be found by some later editor.

A combination of those two things would help organize the wiki, keep
it its content referenceable, and help readers understand from what
sources the material is derived. Plus, it`d give a little
recognition to those who contribute fanfic.

Gary