Editting Wiki

[BRadmin]

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

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.

not being used yes, but is implemented at launch

General Writing Policy

Citations

Citations to an official source should be included where appropriate (especially for Lore) in the form of a link. Following the policy of preferring internal links, the link would ideally be to an internal page containing a complete transcription of the source, clearly identified as Source Text. This should also allow for easier verification and citation of sources.
For the BRWiki guidelines on providing citations, see BRWiki:Citation.

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

citations can of course be made to user(pages) too.

[geeman]

At 11:56 PM 7/6/2008, Sorontar wrote:

>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.

On the fansites I`ve seen the alterations tend to be on the order of
spelling, grammar, naming and other things that are relatively minor,
and that`s not the kind of thing that really changes
authorship--otherwise every novel would have the editor`s name listed
along with the writer`s.

If someone makes substantial changes to a fan contribution, though,
it would be appropriate to add a signature, or if they added sections
to a page that is already noted as fanfic then it`d be nice if their
work were noted. Probably the smarted and most respectful way of
going about major revisions would be to make them a subsection of the
existing header like this:

Rumors
+Tuarhievel in Flames! (Paragraphs of text describing the hook.)
--signed by Author 1
++Subsection/variation/whatever --signed by Author2

At least, that would stay organized, informative, and maintain the
original authorship of the piece.

>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.

It will take a long time. But there`s no time requirement for such
things. It`s all a work in progress, so as things move along folks
can do it as they like.

At 01:33 PM 7/7/2008, BRadmin wrote:

>citations can of course be made to user(pages) too.

As could signatures....

On a side note regarding the purpose of wikis and the function of
editing: it looks to me like a few folks are suggesting that the
point in putting material into this format on this kind of software
is that it makes it forever changeable. Well, that may be true, but
I think it`s missing the point. The idea is not to make the
information mercurial, its to make it _improvable_. That is, over
time people will make little additions and alterations and, we hope,
those things add up into an overall better product. Yes, wikis go
overboard in this ability, making the text very easily altered, but
that`s so editors can go one way or another in order to find the
middle ground, not to express the extreme. A good wiki page that
includes a lot of information need not necessarily be changed all
that much at any given point in terms of content. A good piece of
fan contributed text would be much the same, and can easily be
changed in ways that maintain the content and authorship of the contributor.

There are any number of ways one might describe, for example, one of
the awnsheghlien. However, once written are people really going to
change it dramatically in terms of content all that much? I think
folks are overstating the purpose of wikis by confusing it with the
far end functionality of the software. Sure, it`s possible for
anyone to edit the wiki so that the Vampire favors pink, frothy
drinks rather than the blood of scions, or write that the Gorgon
enjoys bodysurfing, but is that really going to happen? Would it
last long before someone changed it back? It seems much more
sensible to me to have a more realistic approach to how people are
actually going to use and read the wiki, and use standards that

Gary

[kgauck]

Why preserve authorship? What's the point? It clearly has its drawbacks in a collaborative project. Many of the elements of authorship, such a voice, point of view, are undesirable from the point of view of our project, which like many wikis, seeks to be more encyclopedic.

There are generally six kinds of wiki authorship. Single author, compilation, division of labor, collaboration, rotating authors, different authors on different pages. Each should read the same way.

We have had the capacity to have separate documents assembled on a web page as long as we've had either Birthright or web pages, and such Birthright pages with collected documents originally posted on the list of personal web sites still exist. But like the various projects based on the same model of distinct authorship, very little has been produced.

For all their vices, wikis have the capacity to be very productive in part by making use of many small contributions rather than relying only on the commitment and participation of a few experts.

When the wiki came on-line roughly 18 months ago, there was some useful discussion of how the difference in wiki methods might very well avoid some of the problems that ultimately left other BR projects unfinished. A productive author might be reluctant to contribute and to give up authorship, but that's what the user pages are for. I have five or six things up on the user pages either because I don't want it altered or because I don't think it would be generally accepted.

[Rey]

What you might think that would be generally accepted doesn't mean it will be and has to be. It's only your opinion. Whether it's done by a BRCS team or a single person, it's forcing your opinion on the rest of the community, especially if you put it along with the rest, especially if that other material is canon. And how can you tell the difference, unless you read it all (the canon books).

This is the purpose of marking it as a fan fic. Sure, someone can always open a discussion thread about an article, but it's kind of late then and not necessarily does everyone go browsing the wiki in search of something that is not in this or that book and wonder where it's from, let alone open a thread and ask. How about if he has the urge to change it or delete it. Discussion leads nowhere and content still stays there. Author has it just the way he wanted it, up on the wiki.

The editing policy for the wiki has to be modified. In truth, only grammar or links or misspelling should be edited. Everything else is a fan fic, unless the BR community agrees and accepts something new. Then it should be a part of the BR canon, therefor non-editable. Changing the canon affects the game. If you DM the game, you can reject it or add your own. These are house rules (one of the options presented by fans or your own), so accept the consequences which might arise if not proofed or playtested.

Let me make myself clear. Original books (or what is accepted as canon other than RoE) must present a solid base. These include rules, game mechs, NPC's, history, other, whatever. There could be minor changes that won't affect game play, but that is either house rule (hence, not important for wiki, as it's unimportant whether you play if Gorgon is 16 or 18 ft tall) or fan option or one the same. Major changes cannot be done by a single person or group without the consent of community and playtesting because it might affect whole wiki (its consistence) and unbalance the game. I don't need to vandalize wiki, I just might have a point of view and not realize that I'm changing the canon, it doesn't say it is one.

Sure, wiki is about community contributing, but contributing what and where?

Example, Science wiki: If there is a science field which abides by the laws of the physics, those laws cannot be changed, they are canon, they are what everybody is referencing to, using it and are unchangeable because if changed, they affect the results (or you just blow yourself up).
Every other contribution is some lab research or experiment, a scientists point of view, a scientific paper. The laws are not changed until someone has a dramatic turnaround that proves that the original laws have flaws. Then a whole community of scientists discusses, tests and approves what the improved laws are to be instead the old ones and continue their work and contribute their own lab research, points of view or scientific papers with the new laws or canons.

To conclude: There have to be non-editable pages - canons, with contributions marked as fan fic or personal pages, then discussions about flawed canons which will become the part of the new canon (or upgrade of old canons to another version) when discussed through and approved. You cannot change on your own the parts that are rules or game mechanics, because that's not just "I don't like this, I will change it into this". You don't know the consequences to the game, you didn't playtest it. If you did playtest it, the community may not know about it and it has to be presented to them so that they all can say "Ok, it's a go, change it. (This will be a new rule, new canon)".
If, for example, you write descriptions of provinces in Danigau, it's still your own view, mark it that way. I may not like that pine forest on border with Kvigmar and population of that province estimated at 56,834 people and I will write my own view: it's an oak forest and the province has 32,654 people. If you want to make your opinion the one that should be accepted as canon and unmarked as fan fic, give it a discussion, if community accepts, it's "official", my work stays as fan fic option to that or a house rule someone else adopts.
You may be the only contributor to the page and no one will object, but that's not a reason to keep doing it and not to ask for approval. Maybe you'll stumble across something that is sensitive. Who knows, maybe no one minds and you can have it that way, but we have to be careful and don't assume so in advance.

After all, the purpose of the wiki is to fill in all the gaps, not to write 22 versions of PS of Danigau (or RoE) written by 22 different persons and the only change is whether that town has 2 halflings and 23 virgins from Binsada or 6 giants and 7 hairy mutants from the lake. The purpose is to make it a whole and consistent, usable by all. Small options you can always include or decide not to. And the purpose is not to waste valuable time writing same thing over again, it's moving forward toward the end (or whatever the goal is).
This is actually all about personal views because canons are not a daily basis changes. And if they are not marked as fan fic and separated, you will write "this" in discussion as your argument, and I will say "that" as my argument and we may be both right. So, who wins? The one who writes a bigger post the other has no will to answer to? Like this one? Or maybe bigger?

[Vicente]

Why preserve authorship? What's the point? It clearly has its drawbacks in a collaborative project. Many of the elements of authorship, such a voice, point of view, are undesirable from the point of view of our project, which like many wikis, seeks to be more encyclopedic.

While I agree that authorship is not desirable in a wiki, there are other clear examples of collaborative projects (Open Source Software) where authorship is stated and welcomed (most code files have the Author on their headers).

Either way, getting back to the wiki, why not make any "canon" page on the wiki have a link at the end to the "fanfic" version?

Example: we have the page for Aerenwe, with the information of the RoE and whatever has been sanctioned by the community. And in the end it has a link to the fanfic page for Aerenwe, where there's the not yet sanctioned work from the community and links to personal pages on the subjet (if they exist).

So, a reader can go to the canon page and read what Aerenwe was in the official materials, then if she is interested she can go the fanfic page to see how Aerenwe is being developed by the community and take part of that process and if she is further interested, she can go to personal pages of Aerenwe in the search of more ideas and things like that.

[kgauck]

Either way, getting back to the wiki, why not make any "canon" page on the wiki have a link at the end to the "fanfic" version?

We discussed this when we started the wiki. Where would we draw the line between canon (no need for quotes, its a standard English word used in its conventional sense) and fan fiction. Our default position eighteen months ago was that canon was material published by TSR, and that fan fiction would be everything else. We nearly instantly discovered that the whole wiki would be labled as fan fiction. Not absolutely all of it, just so much that the preponderance would be overwhelming.

Take your example of Aerenwe. There are about 750 words in the section on Aerenwe in Ruins of Empire. About a hundred and thirty of them relate to the Queen, another hundred refer to the Erbannien Forest. So, if we keep all the canon material together, rather than give the Queen her own page, and the forest its own page, you have 750 words. The material we have found (let alone created) that describe Aerenwe already dwarfs that.

We could dwarf it with utterly non-controversial sections on the weather that can be expected given the landforms and nearby bodies of water; but might well be useful to a DM. Last night I wrote 400 words on the Northbyrn river, all of which I think is pretty non-conraversial (one should take a look and not speculate about the nature of what I wrote). I could easily write a similar 400 words on the Berendor River.

With a page for Aerenwe, seven pages for seven provinces, a page for Liliene, Cole, a page for Cale, a page for the count of each of the seven provinces, pages for royal officials, and them similar duplication for the Eastern Temple of Nesirie, a main page, a page for locations, important people, historical figures, and then let's do it all again for the guilds.

The whole thing ends up being labeled as a fan-fiction. So we changed how we used canon and fan fiction. Basically our approach is that pages that experience heavy editing seem to contain fan fiction, and pages where editing is infrequent or is limited to additions and proofreading is not. Because doing as you suggest, and labeling 750 words as canon and labeling the 75 pages I have already mentioned as fan fiction, just seemed silly.

For the purist, I would prefer you regard the whole wiki as a fan fiction if you must, because we are not fond of the idea of treating those 750 words as having an importance greater than the 75 pages which will represent a well developed, but by no means finished (why ever finish?) Kingdom of Aerenwe.

Another, more proscriptive definition of fan fiction is that it is a work that either goes forward in time (in my campaign we did this that and the other thing) or intentionally deviates from the setting (In my campaign we have x, y, and z, which are not extentions or derivations from BR material, they are homebrew additions).

[Vicente]

Ok, the problem using canon and fan fiction seems to be that:

- most of the work in the wiki is fan fiction.
- canon sounds cooler than fan fiction.

Given that most work in the wiki is fan fiction, we could say that like I play "Vicente version of Birthright", the wiki is "Birthright.net community version of Birthright". We could then go from there and instead of canon and fan fiction use:

- Sanctioned: most TSR stuff and what the community agrees.
- Non-sanctioned: any work the community has not agreed over yet.

By default most TSR stuff would be Sanctioned, although we have examples when that doesn't happen or there's a heated debate over it (the wood wall, Savane,...).

We could then add the "Sanctioned links Non Sanctioned links Personal" structure. Work done by wiki contributors will start in the Non Sanctioned pages and move little by little to the Sanctioned ones. So, when a new visitor comes she gets the following options:

- First we tell her that this is not exactly like the original TSR Birthright as we have changed things. She can buy the PDFs if she wants exactly TSR Birthright, that's what they are for.

- Second: she can see the sanctioned pages, the work where the community has agreed (so it will be pretty solid around). If she is really interested in a given subject she can move to the non sanctioned pages and so on.

This allows new people to digest the setting more easily (we get a core group of pages that aren't going to change much probably), focuses the talks (as subjects open to debate are clearly differentiated from agreed material) and focuses the work (as we can see what has not been sanctioned yet and try to work to sanction it).

Of course someone could question in the future why something was sanctioned or even move a sanctioned work to non sanctioned status, but that case should be really strange so I don't see any problem with it (it can be handled indiviually).

[kgauck]

Sanctions and non-sanctioned are concepts that are just not of use to a wiki.

Everything is assumed to be "sanctioned" because everyone has the opportunity to edit something. But the very idea only means belongs in the general part of the wiki, vs going on someone's personal pages, or getting an observation banner.

We are not doing the wiki to make one perfect, unchangeable, all-agreed-upon version of Birthright. People have tried to do this in the past. The process was so arduous and time consuming that ultimately, they produced very little and even less was sanctioned.

The raison d'etre of the wiki was to actually get stuff done, and not to worry about its quality. The central problem being that the old methods were too labor intensive, too slow, and projects didn't get completed.

There were several reasons for this, not one magic bullet, but in going forward with the wiki project, several were addressed at once. These include (but are not limited to) putting quantity before quality and making it possible for everyone to participate. We didn't want the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Because most people can't make a fabulous, complete Players' Secrets with everything wonderful detailed out, nothing gets done, at least not for the BR community. Instead, its OK to do a very little at a time, to add just bits and pieces, and to contribute something rather than nothing. The assumption here is that tens of minutes a few times a week add up significantly over time. Add up so much if you have even just a few dozen people participating, that the long tail grows larger than the head. So that the problems of a closed group of workers, even very skilled, regarded, and available workers, which can derail a project are avoided.

Wikis are designed for mass participation of something far less than a finished product. The barriers to entry are much, much lower. The goal is to get more total work done, and in the end, at a higher quality, one hopes.

So we won't be attempting to sanction pages and seal them off from further editing.

[AndrewTall]

What you might think that would be generally accepted doesn't mean it will be and has to be. It's only your opinion. Whether it's done by a BRCS team or a single person, it's forcing your opinion on the rest of the community, especially if you put it along with the rest, especially if that other material is canon. And how can you tell the difference, unless you read it all (the canon books).

There is no forcing - I doubt that anyone will read my take on the temples of Kreisha in Danigau and think 'Andy said it, I must obey, henceforth my temples are also nominally temples of Sera secretly subverted by the white hand'. On the other hand I would hope that anyone who wanted to put up their own version that was radically different would take the approach I did with Aduria - drop my and the versions into subpages with a simple explanatory page on top.

As for telling the difference, the old hands have certainly read it all - probably several times. Any realm write up over 2 pages is fanfic, any character write up over a page is fanfic, etc - the level of detail will inevitably denote canon or fanfic regardless of banner.

The wiki does rely on the users being mature and supportive of each other - where someone did decide to delete anything they didn't like if the page was missed it ould be restored by a moderator - and if it wasn't missed then its value would probably be low.

This is the purpose of marking it as a fan fic.

No. Fanfic banners, as described in the wiki etiquette, denote only significant shifts that will throw someone - not honest attempts to extrapolate. As noted by Kenneth any other policy leaves 99% of the wiki labelled fanfic and makes the banner worthless - a canon banner would be better. We are (well, Sorontar is) currently locking the various BRCS pages - as mostly fanfic everything else should be opent o challenge and thus editing.

Discussion leads nowhere and content still stays there. Author has it just the way he wanted it, up on the wiki.

If the page is read and accepted, then it is usable as is. If it is read and disputed it will be fixed by someone. If it isn't read it doesn't matter. like Ozymandius, your name may live forever in the ether (if we keep paying subs) but only the beetles (web spiders) notice.

The editing policy for the wiki has to be modified. In truth, only grammar or links or misspelling should be edited. Everything else is a fan fic, unless the BR community agrees and accepts something new. Then it should be a part of the BR canon, therefor non-editable. Changing the canon affects the game. If you DM the game, you can reject it or add your own. These are house rules (one of the options presented by fans or your own), so accept the consequences which might arise if not proofed or playtested.

This assumes godlike perfection is attained first time. A lot of wiki editing is to expand what is there - more rumours, more plots, more minor players in a great game - and every addition can be casually taken on or ignored by a GM and so enriches the whole.

Let me make myself clear. Original books (or what is accepted as canon other than RoE) must present a solid base. These include rules, game mechs, NPC's, history, other, whatever. There could be minor changes that won't affect game play, but that is either house rule (hence, not important for wiki, as it's unimportant whether you play if Gorgon is 16 or 18 ft tall) or fan option or one the same. Major changes cannot be done by a single person or group without the consent of community and playtesting because it might affect whole wiki (its consistence) and unbalance the game. I don't need to vandalize wiki, I just might have a point of view and not realize that I'm changing the canon, it doesn't say it is one.

This is not a wiki, it is the existing br.net discussion board and piazo's download shop. The whole point of the wiki is to make it easy for people to post their dreams and to share them with everyone else. In ten years br.net had a series of downloads tucked away, archived files accessible only to arjan, etc - now it is all on the wiki (or will be when someone looks at it and is interested enough to post it) and can be readily accessed by all.

We will get consensus - we do not consensus. BR is played as a game of social climbing, PBEM, low level gritty roleplay, high level epic fantasy where the PC's build empires and become gods - we do not want the same things, we will therefore not agree on what the game should be - but we can put the different versions on the wiki so that those who share our vision can see it without forcing everyone else to accept that we were the ones who were right or leave to discuss their own version on another board.

Sure, wiki is about community contributing, but contributing what and where?

Example, Science wiki: If there is a science field which abides by the laws of the physics, those laws cannot be changed, they are canon, they are what everybody is referencing to, using it and are unchangeable because if changed, they affect the results (or you just blow yourself up).
Every other contribution is some lab research or experiment, a scientists point of view, a scientific paper. The laws are not changed until someone has a dramatic turnaround that proves that the original laws have flaws. Then a whole community of scientists discusses, tests and approves what the improved laws are to be instead the old ones and continue their work and contribute their own lab research, points of view or scientific papers with the new laws or canons.

I can prove any number of physical properties of the universe using science that is what science is and does - I cannot prove that Darian Avan had 1, 2, 3, etc children and nor can anyone else. You are comparing apples and skateboards.

Science progresses in a linear fashion - an artistic project such as BR is a more celtic progression, endless spirals and cycles that may lead in an entirely unexpected direction. There is little point applying methods used for one on the other.

To conclude: There have to be non-editable pages - canons, with contributions marked as fan fic or personal pages, then discussions about flawed canons which will become the part of the new canon (or upgrade of old canons to another version) when discussed through and approved. You cannot change on your own the parts that are rules or game mechanics, because that's not just "I don't like this, I will change it into this". You don't know the consequences to the game, you didn't playtest it. If you did playtest it, the community may not know about it and it has to be presented to them so that they all can say "Ok, it's a go, change it. (This will be a new rule, new canon)".

I refuse to accept that someone who may not even be on the boards yet, is incapable of adding to our enjoyment of the game. I came along to br.net years after most other people - should I be frozen out and ignored because it has all been discussed and agreed - that way lies the failing of the brcs conversion which drove away so many contributors.

[AndrewTall]

If, for example, you write descriptions of provinces in Danigau, it's still your own view, mark it that way.

I did, and I see no reason to do so - if you think that describing Danigau as cold, forests as pines, etc change it or argue with me - if you have a convincing viewpoint I'll change to improve my simulation and game, if not I'll explain my position and edit back. If we can't agree I'll split the page to offer both views. Why must one view dominate? :confused:

I may not like that pine forest on border with Kvigmar and population of that province estimated at 56,834 people and I will write my own view: it's an oak forest and the province has 32,654 people.

Oak will not survive that far north - it is a deciduous tree. That is why you get evergreens in most of the Highlands and Vosgaard. As for the number of people I used taxpayers to let people decide for themselves what it should be - taxpayers is a very elastic number! The one point made is a basic extrapolation from RL data that can be confirmed easily, the other is left vague to avoid the issue you note - as long as similar etiquette is followed by others, what is the issue?

If you want to make your opinion the one that should be accepted as canon and unmarked as fan fic

Please god no - you seem to be determined to create a 'bible' - a dead document that tells everyone who might come to visit hand's off, your creative efforts are considered meaningless by the superior beings who passed before you. The whole point of the wiki is to permit evolution in an emergent fashion and divergent views. Let a thousand flowers bloom and bother me not with your talk of weeds, should they shun the sun they will dwindle in time through no effort of thine or mine.

You may be the only contributor to the page and no one will object, but that's not a reason to keep doing it and not to ask for approval. Maybe you'll stumble across something that is sensitive. Who knows, maybe no one minds and you can have it that way, but we have to be careful and don't assume so in advance.

ok,we have 2-3,000 pages that need approval... While you are thinking about those for the next 10-15 years we'll make 20-30,000 more... If everything must be considered, approved, and edited to perfection then nothing will get done and the casual contributors will turn away in boredom before adding a page or two, worse, we will lose the emergent process and be stuck with whatever was decided at the start with no hope of utilising the creativity of those who come afterwards. Give me the player who thinks 'I have a neat idea on Diemed' and plunks it up and asks what people aferwards think over the player who thinks 'should I write about Rhuannoch' for a year and forgets their great idea while it is chewed to death on the boards or dies forgotten.

After all, the purpose of the wiki is to fill in all the gaps, not to write 22 versions of PS of Danigau (or RoE) written by 22 different persons and the only change is whether that town has 2 halflings and 23 virgins from Binsada or 6 giants and 7 hairy mutants from the lake. The purpose is to make it a whole and consistent, usable by all. Small options you can always include or decide not to. And the purpose is not to waste valuable time writing same thing over again, it's moving forward toward the end (or whatever the goal is).

And if the end is 22 versions of Danigau? If Danigau is so popular should we not show many alternatives? Consistent means many things - we need to agree certain base standards of behaviour (people die in wars, make babies, argue, strive to improve themselves, etc) but most fluff (the bulk of wiki posting) can vary without any external impact. So fanfic the 'Gorgon is a stone statue that moves only once a century' as he is a key figure who impacts across the board, but not 'I call Danigau's daughter Avril not Brigit', both are valid daughters who can be used easily depending on the need, if I use Avril, the Brigit write up and plots then refer to a niece or suchlike and still add to my campaign.

This is actually all about personal views because canons are not a daily basis changes. And if they are not marked as fan fic and separated, you will write "this" in discussion as your argument, and I will say "that" as my argument and we may be both right. So, who wins? The one who writes a bigger post the other has no will to answer to? Like this one? Or maybe bigger?

We both win if either of us gains an idea from the other, or a deeper understanding of our own view by consideration and challenge. This is a role-playing game, not a zero-sum game. The only way we can lose is if people are so vitriolic and unpleasant in their arguments that we or others turn away from the game in disgust at the bitchiness and stupidity.

So, for example, I'm currently slowly posting stuff on Dhoesone, to explain the very low population along the river I have a plague, a giant invasion, and a revival in nomadic ways - people may disagree with some /all of these, but as long as I make the events relatively self contained (certainly within the dhoesone pages) why shouldn't I put them up? If the ideas are usable other people will add to them, if not they will be ignored and more usable pages made. Thus the wiki will slowly evolve towards perfection in an emergent fashion without any need for us to try and steer it one way or the other.