Secrets on the Wiki -- Contributor Group
Justin Wood (Callek)
Hehe, just thought of one more thing.
I feel it might be best to create a seperate contributors group, just
for people who don't mind, or would like to discuss things dealing
with Secrets on the wiki. This way everyone on the group for Secrets
can talk freely about any secret in the game, when it comes to
discussing the wiki. This will allow people to be on the main
contributors group, without ever needing to hear a spoiler.
Thoughts?
~Justin Wood (Callek)
Naeya
~Naeya
Farman
The conversations here are threaded. So if you don't want to hear
about secrets, don't read the threads that deal with it. Just like
how secrets will be segregated on the wiki itself.
I have to say, this discussion group is a good idea, but I am
concerned that we are setting up additional layers of exclusivity that
feel contrary to the spirit of open collaboration central to the
concept of wikis.
I also find it somewhat cumbersome having to check a bunch of
discussion groups as well as the wiki itself. This opens up a larger
question, as well: at what point does this discussion group take the
place of talk pages on the wiki entirely? I don't think it should.
This discussion group is fine for meta-issues dealing with the wiki
but when it comes to the nitty gritty of article writing and subject
matters, I think that should be on the talk pages.
Naeya
it is currently serving. That is to handle the discussion of policies
and guidelines in an environment where those who want to can chime in,
can. Those who don't... don't. Anyone can join/view the threads
here. After policies are set, this will be used for policy tweaking
discussion and updates of the technical nature. All other such
discussions regarding wiki articles will remain on the appropriate
talk pages.
This list is by no means attempting to "close" the wiki.
Thinking on it now, a separate group might be extraneous. Perhaps
threads dealing with Secrets policies need just be labeled as such in
the subject.
/shrug
Just my 2 copper.
~Naeya
Farman
about the scope of this group as well.
I must've come across a lot stronger than I intended in my last post.
I do not believe, nor had I any intention of implying, that anyone is
trying to close things down.
My intention was to express that I feel that making multiple
contributor groups might have the unintended effect of discouraging
participation since it adds hoops (and time) to the process of being
an editor. As someone with a passion for DR who also has a full-time
job, I personally have to put strict limits on how much time I spend
on my internet hobbies ;)
I agree that content-specific matters are best conducted on the talk
pages. If this group is for discussions of policy and other general
matters, then there shouldn't be much secrets content here anyway.
Justin Wood (Callek)
General Discussions regarding sweeping changes of
mechanics/guidelines/loose rules/and official Policies, as it relates
to the wiki.
Basically things that are ill-served on individual page talk pages,
and which benefit (heavily) from threaded discussion, individual
article chit-chat, corrections, etc. need not (ever) touch the list.
As far as the secrets list, with GMail for example, snippets of the
contents of the mail are always visible on the main (first) page of
the inbox, subjects of a message (imo) should be detailed with a
concise summary of the issue.
To use an example, if Barbarians ever even having Roars was a secret
itself, and say there was a Roar called "Bubba", a subject of
"Organization of Bubba and other Barbarian Roars" could be a valid
subject, when it comes to someone confused, or a main editor curious
for input on how best to lay out the secret pages regarding it, if
they were secret, would prevent the ease of separation.
But in the end, I can concede the point on "lets just keep one group,
if it becomes an issue _then_ we can split it"
~Justin Wood (Callek)