New TheoryTopics Wiki

[John Kim]

Hi,

So I thought I would mention that there is a "Theory Topics" section at Doyce's RandomWiki site which is gathering momentum.  It is at:

http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/HomePage

It's got a pretty fair set of definitions, which can be updated by anyone and includes many links into the appropriate threads.  It was discussed a week or two ago in the Site Discussion threads http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13712">Forge Wiki? and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13748">Forge Wiki, Part 2 - Questions of Use.  Of course, if anyone has any questions or suggestions or discussions, that's what this thread should be for.  

I might even be so bold as to suggest that there should be a sticky for it here in the RPG Theory forum.

[Marco]

Is there a guide to Wiki ettequite somewhere? I wanted to edit the Balance entry to discuss a common and useful meaning wherein, for point based games, Balance can apply directly to the cost:effectiveness ratio of two like abilites (Martial Arts/Boxing)--and more globally to the effectivness economy of character generation choices, as opposed, for example, to characters.

But I didn't want to hack up the writing that was there and I didn't have a second bullet point ... and basically I wasn't sure I really wanted to edit anything--just provide like a footnote or an aside or whatever.

So is there a guide somewhere on what to do with someone else's text when  you want to mostly leave it but have, like, a comment?

-Marco

[clehrich]

There is usually a Wiki Etiquette or Good Wiki Style thing somewhere in the toolbar.

For what you're describing, just go to the bottom of the page and type 6 hyphens -- this creates a horizontal line.  Then skip a line and type your comments, making sure that your signature is attached to what you add.

Personally, I much prefer this to actual rewriting of wiki pages, in most cases.

[inky]

Then skip a line and type your comments, making sure that your signature is attached to what you add.

Personally, I much prefer this to actual rewriting of wiki pages, in most cases.

Really? There's already a link to get the change history of the page if you're really concerned about who wrote what bit, or need to recover some text from an earlier version. It seems to me the whole benefit of the wiki is someone going there for the first time can read the page and get the summarized version of the discussion; if the page text is only appended to, the wiki is no more useful than a messageboard.

[clehrich]

Really? There's already a link to get the change history of the page if you're really concerned about who wrote what bit, or need to recover some text from an earlier version. It seems to me the whole benefit of the wiki is someone going there for the first time can read the page and get the summarized version of the discussion; if the page text is only appended to, the wiki is no more useful than a messageboard.

I overstated somewhat.

What I mean is that some pages are simply information, and they should include, as you say, a summarized version of whatever discussion has gone on.  Comments and whatnot get in the way.

But sometimes you have a page where actually there's been quite a lot of meaningful discussion -- disagreements, differences of perspective, etc. -- and there the reader ought to be able to see the base page and then, clearly demarcated, all that discussion.

As I set up the Shadows in the Fog wiki, which is already getting very large, I would much rather see a base page written and then discussion.  Eventually all that can be condensed to a summarized page plus a link to discussion and differences of opinion.  But I quite like to be able to read the different views.

Take the WikiPedia, which I love.  Now there's a page up for Cornelius Agrippa, on whom I with all modesty can say I'm one of the world's leading experts (that's not much to say -- there are only four of us).  The WikiPedia page is not great, and I need to revise it.  But as soon as I make a revision, I announce, "Here is the right answer -- this is what's true, and previous versions are outdated."  I don't like that.  I'd rather have both versions stand side by side, except that any actual errors of fact (and not of interpretation) should be fixed.

I tend to think that something halfway between a wiki and a BBS is an ideal system, but it doesn't appear to exist.  Oh well.

Anyway, hope that clarifies my view.  I was just saying that for Marco's particular concern, drawing a horizontal line and expressing a particular personal view would be best.

[John Kim]

What I mean is that some pages are simply information, and they should include, as you say, a summarized version of whatever discussion has gone on.  Comments and whatnot get in the way.

But sometimes you have a page where actually there's been quite a lot of meaningful discussion -- disagreements, differences of perspective, etc. -- and there the reader ought to be able to see the base page and then, clearly demarcated, all that discussion.

I tend to think that something halfway between a wiki and a BBS is an ideal system, but it doesn't appear to exist.  Oh well.

OK, I've added an entry to the wiki on http://random.average-bear.com/TheoryTopics/RandomWikiEtiquette">RandomWikiEtiquette, based on Doyce's thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13748">Forge Wiki, Part 2 - Questions of Use.  

The short answer here is -- have the discussion on the Forge, and edit the wiki page to have a summary and a pointer to the discussion.  The wiki is not the place to have back-and-forth discussion.  Back-and-forth discussion goes here.  Summaries and reference lists go on the wiki.