No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{Forum post|Not good enough? Compared to what? Are there other online Forgotten Realms encyclopaedias out there? :) Well, compared to some other wikias (I use Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, and Wookiepedia as the high standards), FRW still needs a lot of clean-up, formatting, consistency, more information and extra features. But compared to some others, such as the Eberron Wiki, we're doing damn fine. :) |
{{Forum post|Not good enough? Compared to what? Are there other online Forgotten Realms encyclopaedias out there? :) Well, compared to some other wikias (I use Memory Alpha, Memory Beta, and Wookiepedia as the high standards), FRW still needs a lot of clean-up, formatting, consistency, more information and extra features. But compared to some others, such as the Eberron Wiki, we're doing damn fine. :) |
||
|[[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 01:01, October 5, 2012 (UTC)}} |
|[[User:BadCatMan|BadCatMan]] ([[User talk:BadCatMan|talk]]) 01:01, October 5, 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
| + | |||
| + | {{Forum post| |
||
| + | On the official recognition side of things, it's funny, but Wizards have not made any mention, as hash says. There was talk around the start of 4th edition that Wizards would be putting together their own wiki, which would have been community-driven and seen the (much wider) audience at the Wizards site contributing, but this never happened to my knowledge. |
||
| + | |||
| + | I have had a few dealings with a number of Wizards-related people, such as [[Erik Scott de Bie]] who was very nice and supportive of the wiki, and community members such as Markus Taylor who has kindly given us permission for all of his non-commissioned maps to be used here (they are technically fanon I suppose but still). |
||
| + | |||
| + | The issue of the community finding the wiki "not good enough" is subjective. The wiki will never be "good enough" unless we can fit in every piece of lore, fact-check and reference it all, which I think is somewhat far-fetched, given how much there is. |
||
| + | |||
| + | The main issue is that despite the sheer amount of content (11,000+ "proper" articles) it is not of high enough quality to be relied upon even slightly. This comes down to referencing, in my opinion. |
||
| + | |||
| + | For example, what classes and level is Drizzt? The correct answer is "it depends". The correct answer would be "let's list every canon source of Drizzt's classes and levels, reference each one, and state the differences (like 2e happened 100 years prior to 4e hence he's going to have changed a bit)". |
||
| + | |||
| + | If you come across even one instance of this, where you're not sure you can rely on a piece of information because (a) it doesn't refer to the source material and (b) anyone could have edited the page, you begin to doubt everything on here. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Example: take a look at [[Bane]]. Practically every piece of information in the article can be traced back to the source. There is no scope for argument about the information, and it also collates information from all editions into a single article, so the reader can either use the information as-is, or trace back to the relevant source(s) and continue from there. In my opinion that's exactly the point of the wiki. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Compare this to [[Kozah's Needle]]. I'm not singling out anyone who has contributed to this article by the way. It says "Kozah's Needle can unleash electricity" but how do I know that for sure? The only way to be sure is to read about it in the source material, and there is no way to find out where I should be reading. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Unfortunately the wiki is 90% this stuff, and 10% nicely referenced articles. The issue is that proper referencing is ''hard''. People (especially casual or one-time contributors) would prefer to just dump information on the wiki than to link it back to the sources. This is a shame. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Anyway, this is really long, so, in conclusion, in my opinion, the wiki has turned around its image in the community by solid referencing and nicely complete articles, but there is still a long way to go and there will always be a long way to go. However, every time we end up with a complete, referenced article, there is a little bit less distance to cover.| |
||
| + | [[User:Fw190a8]] 13:18, October 5, 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | }} |
||
Revision as of 13:18, 5 October 2012
Use the following template for a nicely presented post:
{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}
Just been kind of anxious lately about whether we were on good terms with them or if they would ever endorse what we are doing. How easily could they shut us down?
Lots of question, I know, but I don't think I've ever heard anything on the matter before.
Just my thoughts, not that I have any inside or expert knowledge. Wikia's been around a long while and has stacks of wikis related to a large number of franchises, and it's fairly well known. I'm sure few if any owners of those franchises are worried, else this wiki and many others wouldn't be here now. This is just another fan-site like Candlekeep and others and that compile lore. As long as we keep out copied material, it should all be good with WotC and so on.
Some of the big and well-maintained wikis are actually used by authors for their research, who even thank that wiki in their novels and so on. I think that would be a good status to aim for.
We've never had any contact from any Hasbro or WotC staff members, just freelancers who are or were under contract with WotC and/or Paizo Publishing (artists, writers, etc.) who wanted to tell us their stance on copyright issues or help them promote their work. I have in the past had very brief conversations with Ed Greenwood and Paul Kemp on social networks, sent a few messages to Brian James and I know someone talked with Todd Lockwood at some point.
As for recognition, according to our Google rankings, we're the no. 1 stop for Realms-related referencing and many of the smaller fansites thank us on their main pages, however the general consensus at Candlekeep is that we're not good enough.
On the official recognition side of things, it's funny, but Wizards have not made any mention, as hash says. There was talk around the start of 4th edition that Wizards would be putting together their own wiki, which would have been community-driven and seen the (much wider) audience at the Wizards site contributing, but this never happened to my knowledge.
I have had a few dealings with a number of Wizards-related people, such as Erik Scott de Bie who was very nice and supportive of the wiki, and community members such as Markus Taylor who has kindly given us permission for all of his non-commissioned maps to be used here (they are technically fanon I suppose but still).
The issue of the community finding the wiki "not good enough" is subjective. The wiki will never be "good enough" unless we can fit in every piece of lore, fact-check and reference it all, which I think is somewhat far-fetched, given how much there is.
The main issue is that despite the sheer amount of content (11,000+ "proper" articles) it is not of high enough quality to be relied upon even slightly. This comes down to referencing, in my opinion.
For example, what classes and level is Drizzt? The correct answer is "it depends". The correct answer would be "let's list every canon source of Drizzt's classes and levels, reference each one, and state the differences (like 2e happened 100 years prior to 4e hence he's going to have changed a bit)".
If you come across even one instance of this, where you're not sure you can rely on a piece of information because (a) it doesn't refer to the source material and (b) anyone could have edited the page, you begin to doubt everything on here.
Example: take a look at Bane. Practically every piece of information in the article can be traced back to the source. There is no scope for argument about the information, and it also collates information from all editions into a single article, so the reader can either use the information as-is, or trace back to the relevant source(s) and continue from there. In my opinion that's exactly the point of the wiki.
Compare this to Kozah's Needle. I'm not singling out anyone who has contributed to this article by the way. It says "Kozah's Needle can unleash electricity" but how do I know that for sure? The only way to be sure is to read about it in the source material, and there is no way to find out where I should be reading.
Unfortunately the wiki is 90% this stuff, and 10% nicely referenced articles. The issue is that proper referencing is hard. People (especially casual or one-time contributors) would prefer to just dump information on the wiki than to link it back to the sources. This is a shame.
Anyway, this is really long, so, in conclusion, in my opinion, the wiki has turned around its image in the community by solid referencing and nicely complete articles, but there is still a long way to go and there will always be a long way to go. However, every time we end up with a complete, referenced article, there is a little bit less distance to cover.User:Fw190a8 13:18, October 5, 2012 (UTC)