Editting Wiki

[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

[Sorontar]

I'm sorry Gary but as far as I care, if it is on a wiki, then it can be editted (except when established protocols say otherwise). If someone puts up some idea that "The Gorgon goes outside three times a day" etc etc and signs it, but I want to change it to "sunbathes three times a day", then I can and I will. Otherwise, it shouldn't be a wiki.

That said, if I signed something as "my work" and someone came and changed it, I would not feel that it was my work anymore and would no longer want my name to it.

So I see it as very bad practice for a wiki like this to add a ~~~~ signature on a page as it is possessive and pointless. If you want to "own" it, stick it on a user page, because otherwise, it probably won't be your work in 6 months time. If you want to acknowledge the origin of the content (e.g. forum letters, a PS) then I prefer the following at the end of the enitre page: "This article was originally based on emails from birthright.net, author unknown." (cf Skyewood) or something like "Originally posted on br.net by Even Sørgjerd a.k.a. Heretic a.k.a. Don E" (House_Rules_Province_Growth).

That said, I like the reference idea though the one idea can appear in many places on the wiki at the same time, and the wiki is now huge. It will extremely hard work to go and add references in to existing pages. I suspect this will have have to be a "recommendation", not a requirement, because otherwise, we will be seeing "faulty" pages for a long time.

Sorontar.

[Rey]

It's complicated. Without the original content, fan-fic on the medium like wiki would sometimes seem like it's misplaced and references would be missing. So, you sometimes have to include the canon. And if all the people here think that wiki is editable and go right to changing the canon, you'd have a problem.

What would stop me from going to "War of the Shadow" page and start editing something I think is not like I had it in mind. Haelyn would be Pancakes, and oh boy, I have to rewrite that entry on good old Pancakes, this here is not right. His symbol is not a 'Silver sword over a golden sunburst', it's a stainless steel frying pan with a smelted butter.
In the end, you'd have to clean someone's mess instead of concentrating on your work.

There is a problem that there are numerous pages already written and re-written and you can't just say: "Separate." This takes a lot of work and from this point on, you can enforce it. As for what's already there, it will have to be done later, by those who know what's what (presumably authors) and have the time to do it.

[Wilenburg]

Since Tuarhivel been turned into a edit this, edit that type of arguement here is a place for the if it is on the wiki to be editted on the wiki. Here is my opion on the editting of wikis, I think any information that is going to be put on it is allowed to be editted buy anyone, as long as it is kept in the true spirit of what has been written.

If anyone can do a move of post to here from the tuarhivel with the debate of the wiki here please do.

[kgauck]

The problems with citation are two fold. First it established authorial authority. People are less likely to edit a document that seems like its a chunk of text written by a person. People are more likely to edit a document of unknown provenance. Even this tendency is weak, it is not good for the wiki to inhibit editing.

Most edits are adjustments to existing text, not additions of supplemental text. By that I mean its not the case that contributors have written three paragraphs on a subject that fits nicely at the beginning or end of an existing text. Instead, a document is written, and then edited again and again, with additions, deletions, and adjustments throughout.

The wiki encourages all users to contribute to the constant improvement of BRWiki's content. This means that in a very short period of time, there is no such thing as a single author. What I write is edited very quickly, and I edit what gets posted. I know that I feel those who edit my work improve it, and I hope those whose work I edit feel the same way. Letting go of authorship is essential in a wiki. A wiki is fundamentally a collaborative project, not one where authors stake out their pages and try to maintain authorial control. Or where the next guy fears that someone will do that, because a text is cited.

That said, we do have means to cite sources, and there are rare, special cases, when that is useful. But its best suited to a document that should not be easily edited. Suppose someone writes an article on Mebhaighl and tags it as an observation. Or writes an analysis of how the Book of Magecraft approaches Mebhaighl, but specifically notes that other sources lead to different conclusions, that should not be edited as easily. But these are special because they are intended from the start as drawn from a limited body of source material. Most articles come from every imaginable source, and should neither be cited, nor signed.

[kgauck]

What you are describing is vandalism, which is not an argument about canon.

Canon is up for revision. It is editable. And the solution is that there are many editors. If one editor makes a change that you don't like. Mention it on discussion. There are procedures to resolve disagreements with voting and so forth.

So, as an example, I have changed Haelyn's symbol. Its a golden sunburst on a field of red, full stop. The sword made it too difficult to difference. So the sword appears as a difference on the Western Imperial Temple, because of clear associations in the PS of Tournen. For every temple of Haelyn (see Category:Temple:Haelyn), I vary the image slightly. This makes each domain individually recognizable. A problem I don't think they originally anticipated. Four of these have been up for over a year.

So this was a good example, because it is an example of changed canon. But its not an example of vandalism. The spirit of canon was adhered to, but not strictly applied, because of the need to create nine images for different domains, and sub units within a domain. If one looks at Categoryomain:Militant Order of Cuiraécen you see arms for the Spears of Cuiraécen, and the Fearless Brothers. Again, variations on a theme.

One cannot get too hung up on any single piece of canon. Sources need to be harmonized with other canon sources. Sources need to be applied to a whole continent of domains, not one single example.

The moto of wikis is to edit boldly. Rely on the community to edit material that's too far out in left field. That's not a license to vandalize, its a license to make changes, boldly.