Canon vs. Fanon & The Wiki...

[maksimsmelchak]

If you want to truly help out the Traveller Wiki, start removing all fanon from it and stop spamming it with more "content".

Star Trek's Memory Alpha and Memory Beta could be a guide for us here.

Memory Alpha limits itself to only what can be found on TV episodes, movies, and their scripts; i.e. "true" canon. Memory Beta then handles all the novels, games, RPGs, fanzines, blogs, and whatnot.

User Whipsnade has brought up an idea to bifurcate the Wiki into a canon OTU site and a non-canon IMTU "fanon site".

*** What do you think of that idea? ***

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[atpollard]

What about simple color coding?

Canon is in black at the top.

'Fannon' is in blue and comes below some dividing line.


This places all data in one location, while still making it VERY clear what is official and what is not.

If you don't like color, then a box identifying the author would also work to serve the same function. The important part is to make any proposed change easy on the people doing the work rather than doubling their work load.

 

[RandyB]

What about simple color coding?

Canon is in black at the top.

'Fannon' is in blue and comes below some dividing line.


This places all data in one location, while still making it VERY clear what is official and what is not.

I don't think that would be enough. Separation into distinct wikis has proven effective in other contexts (see the original thread for examples) and would gain much while losing little in this case.

 

[atpollard]

I don't think that would be enough. Separation into distinct wikis has proven effective in other contexts (see the original thread for examples) and would gain much while losing little in this case.

Is it relatively effortless to create an entire second Wiki (which is what the proposal sounds like)?

[I am not arguing, that is a question born out of my ignorance on the subject. I am just familiar with the saying "perfection is the enemy of good enough".]

 

[flykiller]

given the significant range of "otu" you might have to explain very clearly which is "otu" and which is "imtu". to avoid any confusion ....

 

[maksimsmelchak]

given the significant range of "otu" you might have to explain very clearly which is "otu" and which is "imtu". to avoid any confusion ....

Those terms were created precisely because of various Traveller schisms... LOL

Marc, of course, was the final arbiter, with Don as his hermeneutics specialist... LOL I seriously miss Don. RIP.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

What about simple color coding?

Canon is in black at the top.

'Fannon' is in blue and comes below some dividing line.

This places all data in one location, while still making it VERY clear what is official and what is not.

There are already library canon and non-canon articles, and I started separating materials into canon and non-canon bits with clear writing to that degree, but I can only do so much with well over 10k worth of articles. I plug away a couple at a time...

Great ideas!

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[flykiller]

Those terms were created precisely because of various Traveller schisms

actually the schisms appear to be entirely within "otu".

you'd have to divide "otu" into "old otu" and "new otu" at minimum.

Canon is in black at the top.

superseded canon in gray above that ....

 

[whulorigan]

I certainly think what is and is not canon should be clearly delineated, and having OTU and MTU "sub-sites" seems like it ought to work at first glance. Just have each OTU article at the end (before or after the references section) linked to the appropriate page(s) on the MTU site.

given the significant range of "otu" you might have to explain very clearly which is "otu" and which is "imtu". to avoid any confusion ....

This is the key issue. How broad or narrow do we define "OTU" in light of the different game-versions that have arisen over time? Sometimes articles on the Wiki are a harmonization of several earlier and differing "canon" sources. Additionally, the canon-Wiki forum seems to be the best hope for preserving the DGP material in light of the current state of its copyright and licensing issues.

Further, does there need to be a differentiation between various kinds of "Non-canon" as well? For example, does there need to be a clear distinction between pure "fanon", versus work by prior approved and published licensees which are no longer officially considered canon, such as old Paranoia Press material or, more significantly, the status of "Apocryphal" work like the Keith brothers under FASA or Gamelords?

 

[whartung]

Not really my bailiwick, but seems to be segregation shouldn't be too difficult.

First, a list of canonical sources needs to be created (this is likely already done by someone, somewhere, dunno if it's posted).

Then entries in the wiki MUST have references to said list.

I would ask though that articles that have a long life, and that have been "recanonized", i.e. changed over time from edition to edition, have notes as to what's canon in the version when they were introduced and what's canon currently.

 

[whulorigan]

I would ask though that articles that have a long life, and that have been "recanonized", i.e. changed over time from edition to edition, have notes as to what's canon in the version when they were introduced and what's canon currently.

For example, the nobility structure of the Imperium. T5 has definitely made changes to what was perceived to be the noble-structure in earlier rulesets.

 

[flykiller]

... and what's canon currently.

(laugh)

 

[whulorigan]

I would ask though that articles that have a long life, and that have been "recanonized", i.e. changed over time from edition to edition, have notes as to what's canon in the version when they were introduced and what's canon currently.

What about having something similar to a "metadata" page (call it a "prior canon" page) associated with articles that have had "canon-change" over the rulesets? Current canon (and canon from earlier rulesets that is harmonizable with it) goes on the main page, while earlier (and contradictory) "canon" from earlier rulesets goes on the associated "prior canon" page.

EDIT: Note that the above would also make a place to put "Proto-Traveller" material.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

Hi Whartung,

Not really my bailiwick, but seems to be segregation shouldn't be too difficult.

Actually, it's tremendously difficult largely for many of the reasons you've specified and a few you have not.

First, a list of canonical sources needs to be created (this is likely already done by someone, somewhere, dunno if it's posted).

Well, there is a list of published sources... But, to my knowledge, Don was the only one who worked with Marc directly regarding canon... And no particular system other than the hermeneutic was ever established for it.

In other words, there really is not some kind of established list of canon. List of published products, sure. Canon, not so much. It's pretty piecemeal and it's not even constant within its piecemeal nature. Some products for instance from the GURPS line have been de-canonized. While others are. And many of the Mongoose products are considered "canon" by many, but have diverged from the T5 "canon" OTU setting... Same with the "Loren-verse"...

And much of "canon", or at least "published", is contra-indicating other sources... Like the Star Wars Expanded Universe with drunk lemmings...

I might also point out that there are not "committees" for much of Traveller like there are for the Star Trek or Star Wars wikis... That's probably a blessing... There is one person in charge and that person makes decisions... And I have sympathy for that guy, because I get the impression he doesn't always get clear direction. It's not a big operation with a paid staff.

Then entries in the wiki MUST have references to said list.

It's nice to write new entries with references, but there are many old ones that need references inserted. For instance, when I do not know a reference, I ask around and try to get answers. I look through my stack of books, but I do not have them all, yet alone know the piecemeal status of canonicity for every product, which is near-random in nature.

And this is a hobby I do for fun.

More people complain about it than help fix it and make it viable.

As one of the better known wiki volunteers, I am aware of the reference problem and can tell you that it is being worked one one article at a time, out of thousands...

I would ask though that articles that have a long life, and that have been "recanonized", i.e. changed over time from edition to edition, have notes as to what's canon in the version when they were introduced and what's canon currently.

And that's an additional complication, canon evolves over time...

The Star Wars wiki, for instance, has several levels of canonicity...

If I were Marc Miller, I'd prefer to write new novels and enjoy the setting rather than try to make peace amongst the fan schisms...

=====
Those are my few cents, on a very complicated subject.

Thanks for sharing your ideas. They are appreciated.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

What about having something similar to a "metadata" page (call it a "prior canon" page) associated with articles that have had "canon-change" over the rulesets? Current canon (and canon from earlier rulesets that is harmonizable with it) goes on the main page, while earlier (and contradictory) "canon" from earlier rulesets goes on the associated "prior canon" page.

Cool idea. I'll help you make it happen.

I love what you are doing with the stellar data. It really builds in a cool way on what Thomas and I created to categorize binaries, trinaries, etc.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[flykiller]

More people complain about it than help fix it and make it viable.

there's a reason for that.

star trek, star wars, d&d et al had huge bodies of core visualization behind them, upon which "canon" could be established and upon which could be hung any amount of fan work, and both coherently. traveller has no such core visualization, in fact it seems to consist mostly of "imtu" - further, note closely, of "otu" a la carted to the point of "imtu".

at this point coherence in traveller is impossible. it's more productive to argue about it, so people argue.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

there's a reason for that.

star trek, star wars, d&d et al had huge bodies of core visualization behind them, upon which "canon" could be established and upon which could be hung any amount of fan work, and both coherently. traveller has no such core visualization, in fact it seems to consist mostly of "imtu" - further, note closely, of "otu" a la carted to the point of "imtu".

at this point coherence in traveller is impossible. it's more productive to argue about it, so people argue.

Good point.

Can I explain myself by saying I am a benevolent optimist... LOL

Always hopeful... And willing to do more than talk about it....

Thanks for your good points.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[robject]

It does seem that the Wiki's purpose "these days" is more as a canonical resource, and less as a forum for fan material.

I suppose that, therefore, it could be something like an index into canon.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

It does seem that the Wiki's purpose "these days" is more as a canonical resource, and less as a forum for fan material.

Robject and gang,

*** What could be done to make the reference section better? Love the ideas on canon... How about ideas about making references and citations better? ***

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[flykiller]

perhaps leave canon to what is marketed and purchased, and leave wiki to fan entries of any nature.