Editting Wiki

[geeman]

At 06:45 PM 7/7/2008, kgauck wrote:

>Why preserve authorship? What`s the point?

Well, first off, contributions could still be made anonymously, so
it`s not really about preserving authorship per se. It`s about
noting sources so readers can have that information too. That said,
this is a two step idea, so bear with me for a moment.

This particular issue started because one of the things that has been
lacking in the existing wiki is the original authorship. As in, BR
source text. Citations aren`t that difficult for a wiki, and in many
wikis they are standard operating procedure. So, given that, we have
had several discussions in the BR community about different levels of
canon. BR material that contradicts other BR material should be
resolved in what order of precedence? There`s a general consensus on
that particular issue--which is something of a rarity around here,
but nice all the same.

You yourself have made several comments about the quality of the PS
texts. Wouldn`t it be useful to have it noted that something came
from such a source? Rather then present all the wiki material as if
it were of one source, in the interest of clarity and utility it`s a
good idea to cite sources. Along those same lines, preserving
authorship has the same function. If one is going to cite sources at
all then one needs to cite authorshop of fan contributions so that
people don`t confuse it with some core material and so that those who
don`t need such material can glance at it, see what it is, and then move on.

It should also be noted that if one mixes fan contributions with
original materials without attributing the sources of the original
materials then we`re running pretty close to the textbook definitions
of copyright infringement and plagiarism. If that doesn`t bother
anyone then fine, I`m not the keeper of patents or anything, but it`s
a good idea to set at least a 11th grade high school level of
academic standards when writing something meant to be a sort of
polished product.

Gary

[Rey]

Oh, God, this has gone so contradictory we are spinning in circles. I spent too much time trying to present a view and I feel I'm not getting anywhere. I can't answer to every single post explaining over and over again the same thing, mainly because there is always a perfectly good counter-reason for every sentence I write. We have different points of view and that's all. Thank you all for your explanations and time.

The winner is the one who has more time for this.
See you on the wiki.

(Gary, good luck.)

[kgauck]

so that people don`t confuse it with some core material

To be perfectly blunt, that's actually the point. To integrate the new and the old, so you cannot tell where one begins and the other ends. Its not a bug, its a feature.

It should also be noted that if one mixes fan contributions with original materials without attributing the sources of the original materials then we`re running pretty close to the textbook definitions of copyright infringement and plagiarism.

We have a license to use the materials with a specific mandate to fill in the gaps and the one thing they don't want us doing is undermining the viability of the old product by providing it as it is unchanged and too easily accessible as such. Besides, whatever we produce, they own in part. Its part of the agreement.

It`s a good idea to set at least a 11th grade high school level of academic standards when writing something meant to be a sort of polished product.

Also specifically not meant to be a sort of polished product. Instead, it is a perpetual work in progress. The focus for the wiki is quantity over quality. The emphasis is on getting work done, not polishing it up and perfecting it.

[Vicente]

I got lost here:

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

We are (well, Sorontar is) currently locking the various BRCS pages - as mostly fanfic everything else should be opent o challenge and thus editing.

Why the BRCS is locked then?

Edit: the quantity over quality argument is not right. You need at least a little of both to have a useful resource. It wouldn't help the wiki to have 10000 pages badly written, contradicting themselves and that changed every 12 hours.

[Sorontar]

The BRCS pdf is Birthright D20 developed by this community so far. It is considered "sanctioned" because it has required a commitee to write it and the BR.net community to discuss what would go into it. On a few points, there have even been polls to decide which options were the most popular. This development took a long time and a lot of effort and is not yet finished.

The BR wiki contains some pages that represent the content of the BRCS as is. These are not the "official" BRCS. The pdf is, but we would like to have them "unchanged" on the wiki like they are unchanged in the pdf. If the pdf is updated, then so will the wiki pages relating to it.

Ultimately, all the BRCS pages will be titled "BRCS: whatever...." and be part of the Category:BRCS. However, some pages have been inadvertedly editted so we (namely me most of the time) have to check them against the pdf. Once checked, the page can be renamed and categorised.

In order to prevent the editting happening again, only the BR moderators can edit the BRCS pages. If you see a mistake that is on the wiki, but not in the pdf, then tell us about it and we will try and fix it. If the error is also in the pdf, then that is not the BR mod's problem. It is the BRCS comittee's problem. We won't fix them until they fix the BRCS pdf.

And yes, you will find mistakes that occur in both. I found a few typos today.

On that point, can we have an errata page on the wiki so people know what typos etc have been reported.

Sorontar.

[Rey]

Cute.
Canon is to be integrated so you don't know the difference between it and fan fiction, but BRCS which partly originates from the TSR canon is protected and locked. TSR also had a development team (their small community of contributors) that agreed what goes in and set the core for Birthright. Without it, there would never be any BRCS or this site.
You complain about PS' as totally not part of original idea, with flaws and garbage written in a hurry. Meanwhile, every person integrates his ideas freely on the wiki (and should do it without delay for quantity sake) so that you make for the time lost by arguing. Now, what is wrong with this picture?

[Thelandrin]

That is because the BRCS contains the actual rules, as sponsored by the community. You can't have someone randomly deciding that laws actually generate 1 GB per level and editing the wiki to show this. That is why the rules pages are being locked.

[Rey]

Well, canons also include the rules as sponsored by TSR's BR "community" of authors.
And here, single persons have already decided for the rest and did this change on the wiki and I've never seen any adoption and approval of certain rules or (to be precise) community member's opinions. If someone reads this, he may think it's derived from the canon, while actually is not.

[Vicente]

That is because the BRCS contains the actual rules, as sponsored by the community. You can't have someone randomly deciding that laws actually generate 1 GB per level and editing the wiki to show this. That is why the rules pages are being locked.

Doesn't that go totally against the wiki objectives?

I really don't share the argument to have different ways of working on the wiki depending if it is a rules page or a setting page (and it seems pretty arbitrary).

Edit: wasn't the BRCS work done by a small closed group of people?

[kgauck]

I got lost here:

Obviously. Certainly no one who thinks that criticizing treating the BRCS differently from the Atlas thinks they're being clever? As Andrew said in another context: apples and skateboards. Being able to discriminate one thing from another is the thing that comes before the beginning of wisdom.

Why the BRCS is locked then?

Because it was made the old way. A long time ago. And then abandoned. The problems in producing this document (as well as the Atlas project) constitute the unhappy experience that something different was needed in the first place? Does no one possess the sense that 1) the tools available to us when 3.0 came out were different and may have imposed limits on our efforts that cease to exist today. If not, newsflash, technology changes.
2) This project took freaking forever, and still never got finished, and its only 187 pages from cover art to the last index entry. And it was never completed because the people working on it wandered off to their real lives.
3) Despite having only 4 chapters sanctioned, the thing is much more of a finished product than the Atlas is, or other projects that were envisioned but never seriously started, like the Book of Guildcraft.

So, given two projects, one nearly completed, and one just begun, one completed by a small team that no longer even gathers here, and one who is actively participating and has open membership, one that is eighteen months old and one closer to a decade since its inception, you can't tell the apple from the skateboard?

The BRCS, for all of its many flaws, is as respected a document as we are likely to have. So, we can either preserve that until we decide not to, or we can just start editing it tomorrow. If you ask me, I think it needs a whole lot of editing and would be happy to see it open for editing. Of course, I don't use it for my game. But I can tell the difference between the BRCS and everything else that never got done or even started. I can also learn from the problems of the BRCS team and not want to repeat a pace of one chapter a year. The BRCS is a different project, which operated according to different rules at a different time. Treating it differently is reasonable. And I say this preferring to have it open for editing.

I look forward to see what a 4e conversion looks like able to use the wiki. I think that the next conversion, able to avail itself of new tools, and at least having the opportunity to learn from mistakes of the past, can make a conversion in much less time. We shall see.

the quantity over quality argument is not right. You need at least a little of both to have a useful resource. It wouldn't help the wiki to have 10000 pages badly written, contradicting themselves and that changed every 12 hours.

This is a straw man argument, Vicente. No one said that there are two binary states of quality and quantity. Obviously one needs both. Certainly you cannot imagine that this was an insight lost one anyone. Have you even seen the wiki? Does ten thousand badly written pages constitute your view of the work already done? Shifting the emphasis from quality to quantity can mean many things, it might going from 80% quality/ 20% quantity to 60% quantity, and 40% quality. It does not have to mean going from 100% quality to 100% quantity. You sometimes state the obvious as if its news (rather than say, establishing a point of reference), and I wondered whether this was the hasty nature of a forum posting or whether you actual imagine that your reader is a clueless idiot. I am beginning to suspect the later.