The Wiki is a Community

Really.

Seriously.

That means that we all work together to turn it into something that we're proud of.

Together.

Just as this includes a few common sense rules like: "Don't be an asshat and edit people's UserPages out of spite", and "try to maintain a certain level of friendliness and decorum that reflects the entire community"; it also means that you shouldn't take it too personally when people fiddle with stuff. Just because you wrote something doesn't mean that it's sacrosanct. Someone probably will come in and change this page, and I encourage them to do so, in order to better reflect what the wiki as a whole wants! Hopefully they'll maintain the spirit of what this page is intended to reflect, as opposed to just writing over it and changing its meaning entirely, but the fact remains that what ends up here is not just because I wrote it. It's because I wrote it, and you didn't change it or alter it.

This page reflects the wiki as a whole, as a community.ALL of its pages do.By signing this, I agree with the above statement, in principle, if not in exact wording, and will attempt to hold myself to appropriate standards and behaviors. Because I care about the wiki as community.

Signatures

Comments

You never state what you want us to sign this for. -FifthI went ahead and added it. As I understand it. Scrollreader

That I can agree too. :) -Fifth

I am already a beneficiary, might as well sign. Thanks, CrownedSun -- TheT

While it wont stop people from doing it anyway, it's at least nice to show some community spirit and stuff. As long as our Wiki Color doesnt become Red, Black or Yellow. Seriously. No waving flags. - Telgar

Yes, yes, alright. I dislike signatory affirmations on some esoteric principle; explication of what should be implicit of this environment seperates those who haven't signed from those who have (albeit in a more-than-likely insubstanstial manner), or something like that. However, no reason not to encourage this, especially since it seems to have been deemed necessary. _Wohksworth

There is nothing mandatory about this. Moreover, if you don't like something about the paragraphs above it outlining the stuff, I've given you specific permission to do so. So, if you don't want to sign it, just take your name off and don't sign it. Go right ahead! -- CrownedSun

Showing some spirit, despite the risks. Wheee. - Ashande

Signing up, fixing some of the layout, and feeeling in agreeance with you folks. Stuff. Blaque

It's a big... group effort... sort of thing. I rather like that, personally. -- AntiVehicleRocket

A very noble sentiment. In case it means I support it any more than I do anyway, I've signed it...DeathBySurfeit

Signed and dotted. Well, not dotted. And right after I ran the maintainence out of my love for the wiki. ^_^ - Trithne

I'm signing it again, and you should, too. - David.

RAKSHA BOY SIGNS! -DarkheartOne

Signed. Yay for community spirit! - GoldenCat

Yay Communism... Er I mean Community! That's it Community... Don't judge me. - ArabianNinja

I think this is not just a "don't be a dick" page, by the way. I mean, you know, please don't be a dick. But more importantly, let's be a little more constructive, eh wot wot? If you're going to add a comment on someone's page, maybe it should be a useful comment. Saying, "I think this is really cool" is flattering (perhaps not as flattering as, "I want to have your babies", but you can't win 'em all), but it really doesn't help improve the product. Supportive statements are good! However, constructive criticism is better. Thorough reading and insightful commenting raises the bar on all the Wiki's content quite dramatically! - David.

I had some thoughts on community spirit that I feel are pertinent to this page. In particular, with regards to adding to another person's page. Now, this being a user-edited website, most every page on the Wiki is "community property", in a sense. But at the same time, someone made that page. The community did not make that page. I feel that it is important for Wikizens to approach one another, and the work of one another, with a degree of respect.

I'm not referring to simple verbal courtesy, as we all have varying opinions on what degree of that is appropriate and necessary, but I refer quite specifically to a respect for the work done by someone else, in particular, respecting the right of another user to post incomplete things that they will develop over time and recognizing that an incomplete work perhaps may not benefit from unsolicited comments. The Wiki has mechanisms for concealing additions to the website, mechanisms that only take effect when a user engages them directly. I think when a user invokes these mechanisms, the thus-articulated desire for privacy should be respected, if only in a sense of not butting in until the page is made public (that is to say, I by no means am proposing that we not even view the work of another until it is made public, merely that we not add to, subtract from, or interject upon that work until it is made public).

Major edits are prominently displayed and have this charming little "Summary" function. I believe these should be put to good use in solicitation of comments and noting that a page is open for comment, modification, and such. Likewise, there is a "minor edit" function that conceals the modification from the default user. A page tagged as a minor edit should, perhaps, be left alone for the time being, as the creating user has already taken the step to conceal it at least somewhat. - David.

Agreement. It seems awfully weird major-editing something to say, "this is not done please ignore" when minor-editing is expressly in existence simply to mark edits that are less important to other wiki users. It used to be that we all lived in "don't comment until the author puts up a Comments subheader" land, and it seems like the new school has left this happy country. I don't think this is so good for the community. I don't think I'm going to sign this again until I feel like the wiki is operating in a healthy manner again, and that means some people have to shape up. - willows

I think it's a bit odd to post something on a Wiki and then be offended by the very act of someone adding to the page. After all, the content was put up in a public forum designed for just that. I think those who wish not to receive commentary should explicitly say so, because otherwise the nature of the medium implies otherwise. If you want to record thoughts privately, why not use notepad, wordpad, word, or some other simple word-processing application and save it on your - assumed to be private - hard drive? - IanPrice

I believe you misunderstand my point. I refer specifically to content put up in a fashion clearly intended to temporarily conceal it from general view. Indeed, though, you are correct that putting something up on a public forum when it is intended to remain private is strange. However, the intent is not for the material to remain private, but for it to be concealed from the general forum until such time as the creator deems it suited for presentation. In other words, I'm talking about content that was not added to a public forum, but content that was added to the same location as the public forum with the intent of later making it public content. To shorten my gist further, I think the "minor edit" function exists for a reason, and that reason is to conceal edits that are not important to the community. Those edits could be a dramatic, multi-stage overhaul of the page's content, or as simple as correcting a few spelling errors, but in either case they are alterations to a page that the author wishes not to draw any attention to. I think we should respect someone's decision not to draw attention to the content they have added by not drawing attention to it before the author does. - David.

There are obvious and multiple reasons to use the wiki to store unfinished work. Working from several different computers is an example. I know that the culture of you upstarts is very up and into the "my two cents" philosophy, but to me it also seems like you have lost the "try and contribute in a positive way" philosophy, which also happens to involve knowing when contribution isn't welcomed, and backing off.

This has to do with the wiki's history as a repository for the large projects of people - see WillowsInfernal, IkselamInfernal which inspired it, Ikselam's vast collection of Hearthstones, the Charms people made for their own games, and so on. David.'s grand martial arts, too, or Quendalon's mangificent kung fu. After some time we began to use wiki-posted work in our own games, and that is where the original culture of discussion arose - as a way to make wiki material into something compatible with more games. It was directly productive and play-oriented.

With the passing of time, this productive and play-oriented culture waned, with the arising of (by our poor judgement) such things as CrunchRelay and WhirlwindBrushMethod and ATaxonomyOfMadness. As these aged, you can see the decline of sheer output and the increase of crufty comment. It's sort of an upsetting thing to see - a place that used to be where my creative allies congregated and offered one another creative support has become a shouting match, and a hegemony of the fastest typist. - willows

If something isn't ready for comments, why not just put a note somewhere that says "not ready for comments"? Doing that is more productive than using the minor edit function, which is there to reduce clutter on RecentChanges. Using it as a tool for privacy doesn't work, as it doesn't provide privacy. I don't see how attacking people for commenting on something put on a public forum, one that's explicitly an open group effort, is helpful. - Stanoje

I think arguing whether the minor edit function is to be used to reduce clutter versus whether it's useable as a tool for concealing a project not ready for comment is futile. I see no reason to believe that either of these stances is false, because the minor edit function does provide privacy - or, at least, as much privacy as can be had on a Wiki. You're right, someone commenting on something placed in public view should not be attacked. I did apologize for overstepping there, but I stand by my opinion on the matter. But someone placing under what obfuscation can be had on the given medium just might be concealing it for a reason, and commenting on material not ready for comment is also unhelpful.

To change tones for a moment, because trying to be diplomatic seems to only make me unclear and wordy, it is becoming clear that I cannot trust other Wikizens to recognize that maybe-just-maybe I'm using the minor edit function for a reason - that is, because I want it not to show up on the default RecentChanges list - I guess I will have to concede to your suggestion and just add big block letters at head and foot of pages to note that material is not ready for comment. - David.

Nothing to apologize for, it's not like my comment was a cure for cancer or anything. I just genuinely believe that it's better to be explicit when you don't want comments. If you rely on others to act according to your preferences without stating them where people can see them, someone is bound to do something counter to them. Not out of malice or disregard for you, but just because they can't know better. All this leads to is high blood pressure for everyone :-) - Stanoje

I know that I often use Minor Edit because I don't want to bother the Wiki, rather than not wanting comments. Might I suggest just noting in the edit summary if you don't want comments yet? That should do the trick for most folks. - FrivYeti

Well, that's certainly a component of the Minor Edit function, yes. I think that's close to the gist of my point regarding that function, though - when someone uses it, it has been used for a reason. The simplest form of that reason is, basically, "this is an edit that I do not wish to draw attention to". That said, the point is taken about obviously tagging something as unfit for comment. Subtle courtesy is dead on the internet, and the Wiki is no exception. To change gears: IanPrice, I don't think there was really any need for the snark in your reply to a question directed at your UserPage. Many of us read minor edits, using the function to prevent reading simply cannot work. I just think that we should take note when something has the (edit) tag and recognize that the author is using what concealment is available for whatever reason, which I believe to be almost-invariably to note that "I don't think these changes need attention drawn to them". - David. removed Stanoje's note about the comment-attribution, in the interests of reducing clutter. No offense intended, hopefully none was taken. :)

You have done me a great injury, and we shall duel to the death over it, sir! - Stanoje, who's just kidding

Have at you! - David., who is not kidding

David. - I apologize for my snark. I was in the middle of reeling from being snarked at. Doesn't make me right, just explaining why. - IanPrice

I can't help but feel personally attacked by the tone of your comment. Yet, lest this devolve into a shouting match, I think I will simply drop the subject and go back to creating things that are fun and useful for playing Exalted. - IanPrice

Back to? -w

willows, that tone is uncalled for. On a page for the wiki as a community, sniping at people is just plain... um, rude. And contrary to what this page is about. So please, play nice. And as for the discussion, I do agree with willows and David - until one invites comments, or major edits something, that page should well be left alone. If one wishes to say something to the extent of liking at least the idea, there is the person's main page, after all. There are alot of personal projects here, and those for just few circles of friends, and it is pretty clear most of the time which are which. ~GoldenCat

You're right, Col, I shouldn't have said "back to" in that manner. Nonetheless, that is an honest description of my feelings on the matter, and in cases of how this place runs, because it was a place that I got a lot out of (and, I hope, gave back to), I care more about being honest than hurting the feelings of text on a page. - willows

TheWikiIsACommunity

The Wiki is a Community

Signatures

Comments

Navigation menu

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Tools