Lexicon: Pregame Discussion

[sparkletwist]

The forum makes the whole thing a little more disorganized, because it'll end up as a series of posts, rather than the intended encyclopedia. It also means citations, cross-links, etc., are not automatic.

Is there a good reason to do it on the forum?

[limetom]

The basic idea is that each player takes on the role of a scholar, from before scholarly pursuits became professionalized (or possibly after they ceased to be). You are cranky, opinionated, prejudiced and eccentric. You are also collaborating with a number of your peers -- the other players -- on the construction of an encyclopedia describing some historical period (possibly of a fantastic world).

Lol, I don't even have to try on this one. :3

[Mason]

If all the entries are supposed to have been penned by the same character, how do we ensure a consistent style of writing? Or consistent bias regarding the things in the world for that matter? It might be easier and more fun for us if the lexicon was a patchwork of collected articles from various authors.

I'd encourage you to, like the thing suggested, to run it on the wiki, rather than as a thread.

I'm not sure how much I can participate in the actual thing but I'd be happy to help out with some of the wiki issues to keep the thing running smoothly.

  My plan sparkletwist was to do this thing on the forums for a few reasons.

ONE: new members would see we are quite active and might even GASP join in the community. This project would provide a quick way for some new members to jump right in and get a general feel for the community.

TWO: There is no sense in starting a bunch of wiki pages for a project that ultimately dies out after a month (save someone some work somewhere). My intention is to see this thing thru, and then port it over to the CBG wiki.

THREE: Many of us are more comfortable with the relatively basic coding on the threads and would find it easier/more casual to pop in an entry on the threads rather than the wiki.

  But if your up for helping us move entries over to the wiki after it is all said and done that would be most helpful.

 

 

[Lmns Crn]

ONE: new members would see we are quite active and might even GASP join in the community. This project would provide a quick way for some new members to jump right in and get a general feel for the community.

TWO: There is no sense in starting a bunch of wiki pages for a project that ultimately dies out after a month[/quote]My intention is to see this thing thru, and then port it over to the CBG wiki.[/quote]THREE: Many of us are more comfortable with the relatively basic coding on the threads and would find it easier/more casual to pop in an entry on the threads rather than the wiki.[/quote]The whole exercise would be an excellent excuse for people to finally get familiar with the wiki. Syntax there is no more difficult than markup in a forum post, and in fact, many things (such as freely interlinking between a large number of interrelated articles, which is apparently a pretty important part of Lexicon), are so much easier to do on a wiki that it boggles the mind.

[TheMeanestGuest]

But the wiki just feels so far away.

[Ghostman]

Not to mention less interactive. It's not so immediately apparent over there who posted what content, any comments will be hidden in the "discussion" pages, and finding new additions through the "recent changes" interface is far less user friendly than checking the latest posts on the forum.

Not to mention that *I* for one only rarely visit the wiki, but read the forum pretty much daily. Can't help the feeling that content restricted to the wiki would end up having far less of an audience.

[Weave]

I've never used the wiki, but I'd be interested to get my feet wet, so to speak. Forum or wiki, I'll do either.

[Lmns Crn]

This is all getting pretty circular.

I have two CBG bookmarks: the main page, and the wiki's Recent Changes page. When I want to check the site, I visit both. (Yay, tabbed browsing!) It's not as if the Recent Changes page on the wiki is somehow less informative than the Latest Forum Posts window on the main page.

Recent Changes makes it immediately plain who posts what (and in the rare, rare event that multiple users are both editing a single page, and they're not signing their edits deliberately, you can still very easily check and see who has contributed every individual comma. Not hard to do.)

Recent Changes shows discussion pages along with all other
edits, and they're automatically much more seamlessly integrated with normal content than our pretty common practice of "discussion threads" vs. "setting threads" on the forums.

I have no idea what you mean by the wiki being "less interactive." In no way is that even the case.

Anyplace on the internet "feels far away" if you never go there. A lot of people seem to have a pretty self-defeating "I never check the wiki, because I never check the wiki" thing going on, and I feel that this prevailing attitude is unfortunate because of the way a key resource on this site is getting underused.

Look, we've got a platform easily available to all of us which is explicitly designed to facilitate multiple people working collaboratively on large projects (the wiki). We've got a really cool project (Lexicon) that requires multiple people working collaboratively, and which is explicitly designed to be done on a wiki. The wiki is pretty much ideally suited to the task at hand; I honestly don't see why "wiki or forums?" is even a topic for discussion in this case.

It's like, "I've got this drinking straw in one hand, and this pair of chopsticks in the other hand... now, what's the best way for me to consume this delicious milkshake?"

Ed: Look, I'm not trying to harp on anybody, really I'm not.

Honestly, I feel like a lot more people would use the wiki if they had more familiarity with it. A lot of the blocks to more regular wiki usage mentioned in this thread (people not being in the habit of checking it, people not being comfortable with navigating it, people not being comfortable with the wiki markup language) would disappear if more people used the wiki.

I think a group project like this would be a great way to gently introduce a lot of people to the wiki for the first time, and once they've got their feet wet, as Weave so eloquently puts it, they'd be a lot less adverse to doing more stuff on the wiki in the future. Lexicon is a great wiki icebreaker, and I'd be sort of bummed to see this project lose that potential to energize the wiki as a whole by hosting it on the forums instead.

[Steerpike]

Here's my suggestion.  We use the wiki to actually make the project.  We also have a thread on the forum to discuss the project, bounce ideas off one another, and bridge the gap to those who don't check the wiki frequently.  The wiki is the "in character" part of the project and the forum is the "out of character" part.  We'd informally exchange concepts for Lexicon on the forum, but actually play the game on the wiki.

Does that sound good to everyone?

[Lmns Crn]

That'd be precisely my ideal setup, personally.

[Mason]

Yeah I can agree with that Steerpike. Well said Luminous.

  Ghostman, I totally get the 'faraway' feeling from the wiki...I've looked at it only a handful of times. But this project might get us more involved over with it.
   Edit:  
Ive placed the forums/wiki issue in the first post of this thread on the Resolved Issue section. I hope this is cool with everyone...

[Weave]

Great! I'm looking forward to seeing what we can come up with.

[Steerpike]

Personally I'd go with a 1/week time frame.  It would then take us 6 months or so to get through the entire alphabet.

[Mason]

Some philosophies of this world to ponder...

   Ascension: Breakdown in relatively 'good' society and unleashing of teh 'bad' powers on the world. The archivists of the Lexicon offer up varying reasons for the ultimate fall and eventual Ascension of the evil. The society is reflected in the naming convention...they call it the Ascension instead of the Fall...they lean towards a positive or even inevitable/unchangeable outlook on things. I.e. it is what it is. Fate?

  Duality: Mortals are dual creatures. The physical and the spiritual/mystical.

  Life is hard. Death is worse. When you die thats it. No salvation or eternal glory. You pretty much suck mud and eat dirt.

  Thoughts?

[Steerpike]

I like the idea of a universe that's been colonized by the force of darkness, and the citizens have to just sort of shrug and move on.  Maybe domination by malevolent, indomitable powers has its unexpected perks as well as its obvious downsides?