Canon vs. Fanon & The Wiki...

[DickNervous]

Just tossing out a quick thought here before going out to celebrate a friend's new job, so if it sounds half-baked it just might be...


Regarding the differences from version to version, wouldn't it be possible to simply note that on the Wiki page. The main info would be the default and then a color coded note with the version abbreviation would contain the over-riding info.

[THIS IS JUST A MADE UP EXAMPLE!]
For example, lets just say that Regina is the sector capital of the Spinward Marches, except that in GURPS and T20 it is only a sub-sector capital. So one the Regina page it would look like this:

Regina (SPIN 1910)
Third Imperium, Domain of Deneb
Sector Capital *[GURPS/T20: Subsector Capital]*
A788899-C

or something like that?

Also, I think that any page that is only OTU Canon could have a red border. A page that has mixed info can have a blue border and the OTU Canon and "fanon" be clearly marked.

That's my 2 cents, now off to celebrate!

 

[whartung]

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

Oh, I understand the issue for legacy material, I meant more for new material and incoming edits.

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"…

Well that makes the problem outright intractable, doesn't it?

I know for truth that canon is "whatever Marc happens to be saying at the time", and "past performance does not guarantee future results". Maybe we should rename canon to whimsy.

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.

Naturally. Your work is appreciated.

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

Note, I'm not complaining, I'm simply chiming in, uninformed. I rarely visit the wiki.

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…

Thank you.

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...

Better to be paid making new schisms, than fixing old schisms for free.

 

[flykiller]

Better to be paid making new schisms, than fixing old schisms for free.

this. besides, "fixing old schisms" involves stepping on quite a bit of existing game referee work, and they don't like that ....

 

[tjoneslo]

As the person who helped start the wiki and continue to work on it, I have a few comments on this issue.

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 loathe this idea. It is a violation of the original intent of the wiki: To be an in-game reference for the characters. More specifically, a version of Wikipedia from the future, as referenced by the characters during their adventures. The fact that we've thrown everything together in a big blender is the point.

This causes a few interesting discussions about which era to reference for the main article and how to differentiate between era's over time. This discussion has never been successfully completed.

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.

While the wiki could be a good index into canon, and we are working more toward that every day. I think if you (the generic, plural you) want a real canon index as part of the wiki (or a separate one) that is going to require some work.

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

If this wants to become a real proposal, I am more than willing to do the technical heavy lifting to make it happen. And there are several options:

1) do what we're currently doing and use footnotes on the existing articles to separate the canon and non-canon material. This requires finding articles and updating them.

2) Create a separate namespace in the existing wiki (say "Canon") to put all the canon text with explicit book/magazine references and the reconciliation discussions. This would allow creating links between the full articles and the canon sources for easy reference, plus a easy search space for the people who only want their canon unsullied.

3) Create a separate wiki just for the canon.

My preference is in the order listed above. As I said, I am willing to put the effort into the technical side (configuring things, creating templates, suggesting article layouts, etc) as long as I can be convinced by someone they are willing to put the time and effort into adding the content.

I have about a dozen nit-picking questions about what is / is not included and how to divide up the articles as the hurdle for getting this started.

 

[Whipsnade]

Seeing as it's my idea, here's how I see it working:

We copy Star Trek's twin-Wiki model. They use Alpha and Beta and we'll use OTU and MTU. So what's it either category?

The OTU Wiki is comprised of any physically published material meant for use in any version of the OTU. It's that simple. System, version, even what variety of the OTU doesn't matter. If it was physically published and was meant for any version of the OTU, it is in.

What else is in? The various webzines "published" by game companies. SJGames' JTAS, Signs & Portents, etc. Again, if the material was meant for use in any variety of the OTU, it's in.

What's out? Any physically published materials which have been specifically de-canonized like the old Judge's Guild materials or those portions of TCS and Striker.

What else is out? Everything else. Everything else goes into MTU.

Self-pubished zines, variants, alternate settings, de-canonized materials, fanon, all of what's left goes in MTU. MTU won't be a "ghetto" anymore than Trek's Beta is. After all, John M. Ford's The Final Reflection, perhaps the best Trek novel written, is in Beta.

There are a few other things which need to happen. First, the OTU Wiki gets locked down. Edits are only allowed by a certain few. The trouble with all wikis is that any boob with a browser can add his two cents. Wikipedia itself is still trying to clean up after an "editor" who made sixty thousand changes to pages which had anything to do with Arab agriculture. The Traveller Wiki's problem is similar if not as extensive.

Second, the OTU Wiki is limited to facts and quotes only. No commentary, no opinion, no inferences, no expansions, nothing that isn't already published. If you want to comment, opine, or expand on canonical data, you put it in MTU.

Whatever is done to the Wiki, there needs to be a moratorium on new pages. You can't start cleaning up the stables when more and more manure keeps flowing in.

Shut it down, fix it, and then reopen the doors.

 

[aramis]

Seeing as it's my idea, here's how I see it working:

We copy Star Trek's twin-Wiki model. They use Alpha and Beta and we'll use OTU and MTU. So what's it either category?

Someone has a major misconception idea of how the ST Wikis work....

The wikis both are restricted to canon. BOTH. Both delete anything non-canon. Or, at least, as of several years ago (when I signed up on Memory Beta), it specified only canonical materials were allowed - just a wider range of canon materials than Alpha, which only includes the on-screen stuff.

Memory Alpha restricts to the TV shows and movies.
Memory Beta restricts to all the "extended universe" - only those items licensed by CBS/Paramount/Viacom/Desilu (depending upon era) are supposed to be included.
The fanon stuff isn't supposed to be entered in either. ADB's SFU is explicitly excluded, too.

That would be, for Traveller, restricting Alpha to GDW, IG, and FFE materials
Beta would include only materials licensed by FFE or GDW - including GT, MGT, T20, all the stuff on the apochrypha disks.
Gamma would be for all the unlicensed stuff, including Dragon articles, campaigns, etc.

The model Memory Alpha and Memory Beta Use SUCKS!!!
It results frequently in needing to search two wikis to find what you're looking for, much duplication, and a lot of frustration. The only real use is for determining what is CBS canon and what's Licensee stuff.

Hell, it's often better to google search than to seach either MA or MB... because that way, you get both in the results, as well as a lot of the 3rd party sources.

THe dual pages mode is far better. A perfect example of this is http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page - Known as Wookiepedia. The canon pages are one tab on each subject, the non-canon on a second tab, and talk on a third.

Traveller could use that model - with a "OTU" - "LTU" - "3rd Party" - "Fan Contributions" and "Talk" tab.

 

[mike wightman]

Just tossing out a quick thought here before going out to celebrate a friend's new job, so if it sounds half-baked it just might be...


Regarding the differences from version to version, wouldn't it be possible to simply note that on the Wiki page. The main info would be the default and then a color coded note with the version abbreviation would contain the over-riding info.

For example, lets just say that Regina is the sector capital of the Spinward Marches, except that in GURPS and T20 it is only a sub-sector capital. So one the Regina page it would look like this:

Regina (SPIN 1910)
Third Imperium, Domain of Deneb
Sector Capital *[GURPS/T20: Subsector Capital]*
A788899-C

or something like that?

Also, I think that any page that is only OTU Canon could have a red border. A page that has mixed info can have a blue border and the OTU Canon and "fanon" be clearly marked.

That's my 2 cents, now off to celebrate!

Did you get your Regina data from the wiki? :devil: Because Regina is not the sector capital of the Spinward marches during the golden age era 1105-1112.

This is how errors spread...

I hope this doesn't come across as snarky because it is the serious point I want to make - once errors creep in to the wiki it is very difficult to track them down without someone with extensive knowledge of canon to correct these mistakes.

If someone posts something like this in good faith - which I believe to be the case - then others may quote it and compound the error.

 

[Whipsnade]

Someone has a major misconception idea of how the ST Wikis work....

Fair enough. My suggestion still stands however.

Physically published stuff, plus selected other materials, under the OTU heading, tab, or label and everything else under the MTU heading, tab, or label.

It's long past time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[DickNervous]

Did you get your Regina data from the wiki? :devil: Because Regina is not the sector capital of the Spinward marches during the golden age era 1105-1112.

This is how errors spread...

That was just a made up example of how conflicts between versions could be represented. It was the first thing that popped into my head and maybe it was a bad one, sorry.

I edited the post and pointed that out in BOLD letters.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

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?

Wayne,

I love your insightful posts. Thank you for sharing them. Great ideas.

Probably the biggest hurdle would be for someone to design a logical canon system and get Marc to sign off on it. Don used to be that handler. RIP. Miss him.

The Hermeneutic reads, more or less, as you have written.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

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

Thanks for your response, AT Pollard.

Wikis are not to hard to create, but they require money to host (...unless one wants Wiki to own all of the content).

They take a lot of work to develop, as in creating content.

Positive vibes to you!

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

Just tossing out a quick thought here before going out to celebrate a friend's new job, so if it sounds half-baked it just might be...


Regarding the differences from version to version, wouldn't it be possible to simply note that on the Wiki page. The main info would be the default and then a color coded note with the version abbreviation would contain the over-riding info.

[THIS IS JUST A MADE UP EXAMPLE!]
For example, lets just say that Regina is the sector capital of the Spinward Marches, except that in GURPS and T20 it is only a sub-sector capital. So one the Regina page it would look like this:

Regina (SPIN 1910)
Third Imperium, Domain of Deneb
Sector Capital *[GURPS/T20: Subsector Capital]*
A788899-C

or something like that?

Also, I think that any page that is only OTU Canon could have a red border. A page that has mixed info can have a blue border and the OTU Canon and "fanon" be clearly marked.

That's my 2 cents, now off to celebrate!

Dick,

Great idea. Right now, that sort of data is noted on meta or discussion pages. Some newer users have even been adding UWP listing to worlds. It's pretty nifty. I worked on a few world articles for the new magazine and wrote canon histories for them.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

Hi Thomas,

As the person who helped start the wiki and continue to work on it, I have a few comments on this issue.

If this wants to become a real proposal, I am more than willing to do the technical heavy lifting to make it happen.

You sure do the heavy lifting. I have noticed and I really appreciate your hard work, and ingenuity. Thank you. It makes a huge difference.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

Seeing as it's my idea, here's how I see it working:

We copy Star Trek's twin-Wiki model. They use Alpha and Beta and we'll use OTU and MTU. So what's it either category?

Whipsnade,

I quoted you from the other thread and I don't really care who gets attribution for the idea, but there are a number of us who have worked on wiki canon for a long time, including Don. May he rest in peace. I have actively been working on Wiki canon for nearly two years now. Others have too who deserve as much or more credit.

I would refer you the previous thread by Aramis as to the viability of the Star Trek model. It works, but is sometimes awkward as he points out. I think his idea may have a better working premise.

Whatever is done to the Wiki, there needs to be a moratorium on new pages. You can't start cleaning up the stables when more and more manure keeps flowing in.

Shut it down, fix it, and then reopen the doors.

I am absolutely against any moratorium on the wiki. I like working on it. There must be a better way. A moratorium would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water...

I also really dislike referring to other human beings as boobs or everything they write as crap (manure). That's really negative and only creates more discord rather than create good will and help people to come together. I don't think you mean it that harshly since I've begun to be acquainted with you, Whipsnade, but your language sometimes comes across quite harshly.

Also, the wiki is not broken, it's a work in progress. It does not need to be fixed. It needs to edited and developed. There is a world of difference in those words.

Yes, some writers have more or less talent than others, but anyone contributing to the cause is good in my book. It takes all kinds, and even the absolute green beginners have something worth sharing. That's my world view.

Positive vibes to all.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[maksimsmelchak]

Did you get your Regina data from the wiki? :devil: Because Regina is not the sector capital of the Spinward marches during the golden age era 1105-1112.

This is how errors spread...

Hi Mike,

He probably got it from the Traveller Map or a published source... Which in turn came from T5SS data... And Josh Bell's hard work collecting and inputting data. Which in turn came from previously published materials, which...

The wiki isn't the source of the errors... It only perpetuates what is already out there in the community... Which is inconsistent. Not the wiki's fault that it isn't perfect and can't yet coordinate tons of canon disputes and inconsistencies. Which haven't even been ruled on, in many cases, by the people in charge.

Really love your Traveller work. You are very talented.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[mike wightman]

That was just a made up example of how conflicts between versions could be represented. It was the first thing that popped into my head and maybe it was a bad one, sorry.

I edited the post and pointed that out in BOLD letters.

Fair enough, I posted in haste and so didn't get to finish my post - now edited also. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't replied so hastily
I don't want to come across as snarky as I latterly explained, but say an example like this was included then a significant error could be spread...

 

[mike wightman]

I think the idea of a wiki is a great idea, and I really like the idea of differentiating somehow between the canon and fanon.
I commend all those who have contributed to the herculean task of trying to keep it up to date and relevant.

As to fan created content ever becoming canon that is the sole purview of MWM, unless he can be persuaded to allow a group consensus.
Then the task becomes organising a group of unbiased reviewers of proposed content who can be trusted to fact check etc. without personal bias as to edition or personality of original author.

 

[Whipsnade]

I quoted you from the other thread and I don't really care who gets attribution for the idea...

I don't care about attribution. Such things mean nothing to me and I've turned down enough play test credits over the years. I spoke up because it was my post which started this whole mess and I wanted my initial suggestion understood.

I think his idea may have a better working premise.

Whether it's separate pages, tabs, or labels the two types of information need to be differentiated.

I am absolutely against any moratorium on the wiki.

A moratorium on new entries, not on changes. The idea is to give you and the other real editors some breathing room. Think of it as like a training or safety stand down.

 

[atpollard]

Given the nature of Traveller canon, I think that attempting to define a definitive canon is folly.

The Lorenverse will clearly have a different canon than MgT 2ed which will be different than T5.

I would suggest that the real issue is to differentiate data from published commercial sources from fan inspired non-commercial sources. Within the published data, clearly identifying where it comes from will allow each person using the Wiki to decide what is 'canon' or not for their particular needs.

Playing Gurps Traveller has a different priority for data than playing T5. Nothing will change that reality ... or the reality of the different eras.

 

[flykiller]

Given the nature of Traveller canon, I think that attempting to define a definitive canon is folly.

so do what microsoft does. start over. ditch/ignore/deprecate/suppress/overwrite the old stuff, and just put out one single brand-new upgraded better-than-ever version. and do what starwars/startrek do - publish an overarching visualization/demo/world to go with it.

notice how almost all serious star wars action takes place in only a few planets and locales, with others being little more than scenery. follow that lead. the Cipango/Jewell region would make an excellent location for the definitive and introductory traveller setting - two major powers, lots of lightly-inhabited worlds subject to intrigue and proxy-conflict, "special mind powers", lots of fun.