| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Calrond
Learned Scribe
USA
118 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Nov 2006 : 20:14:50
|
There's a Forgotten Realms Wiki that could use the help of a few wise sages to really flesh it out. I've done a little work on it, mostly concerning the Chosen of Mystra, but anyone with a knowledge of Realmslore, especially the more obscure, hard-to-find lore, can help make this Wiki more complete. Any and all help is appreciated.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Calrond
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2006 : 20:23:40
|
| We've tried in the past, and then it got changed back from what canon/official lore states. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 22 Nov 2006 20:26:01 |
 |
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2006 : 20:48:19
|
This is a different one, not Wikipedia. I fear you'll still have to reassure us that changes we make won't, as often happens with wikis, be reverted by a self-imposed clique.
Here's some help with this month's Article for Improvement:
The Realms is not primarily 'a campaign setting for Advanced Dungeon & Dragons': it's a secondary world in its own right that happens to have been published in conjunction with AD&D, also with 3E D&D and as systemless fiction. It wasn't originally created as a private gaming world but for short stories.
Faerűn isn't a supercontinent.
Misleading to say Kara-Tur et al. have been discontinued: they simply don't currently have their own product line.
Why mention 'many real world influences and similarities' but not the differences? Even then, it's misleading to focus on the similarities, especially as many of the perhaps apparent ones are influences from fiction, not history.
Kara-Tur: The Eastern Realms is a boxed set, not a sourcebook (one word).
It's tendentious to call the AD&D planar structure by the Planescape neologism of 'Great Wheel' which was never (or very rarely) used in Realms sources. It's imprecise to talk about editions of the Realms.
The campaign settings are still linked: the gates etc. connecting them are still part of the current lore.
There have only been three editions of AD&D (revised editions aren't counted when numbering RPG editions), if you count (as Wizards do) the current game as part of the AD&D line of descent.
The 1993 box has 'XX Monstrous Compendium sheets', not 'a Monster Compendium'.
The text 'Template:Col-begin Template:Col-2' and 'Template:Col-2' displays on my machine.
The listing of novels (why all of Bob's?) is arbitrary and misleading. |
Edited by - Faraer on 22 Nov 2006 20:58:26 |
|
|
|
turox
Learned Scribe
USA
145 Posts |
Posted - 22 Nov 2006 : 21:58:04
|
| I just checked this site out it looks pretty good, however with what was said here I went ahead and clicked on the edit option it offers and it looks like anyone that want's to change something can. It didn't ask me to sign in or anything. Just thought I would let you all know. |
Turox Antas Dragonslayer -
"People will believe anything they want to believe, or fear to believe."
Wizard's First Rule: Chapter 36, Page #397, US Hard Cover (revealed by Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander).
Explanation by Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander: "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2006 : 00:20:41
|
Indeed. Faraer, myself, and a number of other scribes were discussing the state of the FR Wiki itself this earlier in the year.
While the premise is a sound one, the concept of an FR Wiki is fraught with problems of inaccuracy and poorly researched references tainted by fan-bias. And the fact that corrected entries, such as some of us have attempted to do in the past, can be changed back to their original inaccurate form only further adds to the irrevelant nature of the FR Wiki itself. And this alternate version looks like it may still suffer from these same problems.
'Tis why I never refer any Realms fan interested in actual canon details to the Wiki. If you want canon facts, take them from the sourcebooks themselves, or from the game designers here at Candlekeep.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 23 Nov 2006 00:22:41 |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2006 : 05:30:29
|
| a rather simple way to keep blockheads out of it is to make it needed to be registered there ... and an extended history log which the known members swiftly can change back to if beforementioned blockhead change it to nonsence |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2006 : 23:43:06
|
| I'll echo what some other people are saying and agree that it's not the best idea to trust Wikis, or FR wikipedia entries. I've seen quite a lot of inaccurate information there, not to mention articles that aren't exactly neutral. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2006 : 23:55:32
|
Indeed.
It's difficult to see the FR Wiki as an "objective source of canon Realmslore" when you have entries that argue why Drizzt is so much better than Elminster. 
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Afetbinttuzani
Senior Scribe
Canada
434 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2008 : 19:04:55
|
I don't know much about how Wikis are administered. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. If the FR Wiki tends to be tendentious and unreliable and, therefore, treated with disdain, it has become irrelevant. This is a shame, of course, because it's potential to be a helpful resource is significant; if only to refer DMs and players back to the relevant sourcebooks. If I were the administrator, and perhaps there is no central administrator, I would find this irrelevance distressing. Is there no precedent for allowing only registered users (who can be disciplined and expelled if need be) edit articles?
Afet |
Afet bint Tuzaní
"As the good Archmage often admonishes me, I ought not to let my mind wander, as it's too small to go off by itself."
- Danilo Thann in Elfsong by Elaine Cunningham |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 01:26:22
|
There are a few dedicated individuals who strive to keep the entries valid and consistent with officially published Realmslore. And if you can locate those particular entries, then the FR Wiki can be a convenient source for the lore -- especially for those without access to certain tomes and/or FR resources. But for every one or two of those type of Wiki-ists, there are also those who wish to abuse such a potentially useful site in order to promote their own either poorly researched or nonsense opinions on various aspects of the Realmslore. Unfortunately, it is the second group, who often spoil it for everyone else.
Also, there is a lock/edit function for parts of the FR Wiki, as I recall. Certain entries can be locked and/or barred from being edited by unregistered Wiki users. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Afetbinttuzani
Senior Scribe
Canada
434 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 02:16:24
|
In light that lamentable reality, perhaps the best way to ensure that people are able to access to accurate canon Realms lore is for scribes to participate in developing the FR Wiki not as a direct source of reliable information but rather as a searchable index for where to find info in the Realms sourcebooks.
Of course, this would be far less directly informative than writing properly referenced full articles, and it wouldn't help people without access to the sourcebooks. But it is a way to turn the FR Wiki into a useful tool for helping people to access Realms lore.
If we were to take this approach, answers to queries on the Candlekeep Forum could be easily turned into referenced stubs on the FR Wiki. There are already Cite book templates for a great number of the Sourcebooks and novels. So the referenced stubs would be fairly simple to produce.
|
Afet bint Tuzaní
"As the good Archmage often admonishes me, I ought not to let my mind wander, as it's too small to go off by itself."
- Danilo Thann in Elfsong by Elaine Cunningham |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 02:38:47
|
I think Candlekeep already fills that role pretty convincingly. We usually get several queries a week regarding Realmslore tidbits that certain scribes either may not have access to, or have just forgotten. Plus, Candlekeep provides the advantage of "insider-knowledge," especially when designers and/or authors participate in lore-related discussions and post their own thoughts/snippets on a specific piece of Realmslore.
The FR Wiki would work best as a site wholly devoted to the storage of well-researched and well-written FR articles based on officially published Realms material. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Afetbinttuzani
Senior Scribe
Canada
434 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 03:03:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I think Candlekeep already fills that role pretty convincingly. We usually get several queries a week regarding Realmslore tidbits that certain scribes either may not have access to, or have just forgotten.
Well, yes and no. I think the Candlekeep and its scribes are indeed a fantastic resource, but its searchability is quite weak; unless I'm going about it wrong.
I recently asked about gold coins in Cormyr, for example. Let's pretend I'm someone else a year from now looking for that information. I use the Candlekeep's search function and input "gold coins cormyr" or "golden lion" the result is 2 pages of topics in which the the search terms are used. Now, I happen to have used a clear topic title: "how much does a Cormyrian gold piece weigh?" But if I hadn't and someone were searching for that tidbit of information, they could be at it for quite some time before finding it.
The FR Wiki has better functionality in that regard. I summarized the responses to Golden Lion query into an FR stub:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Golden_lion_%28coin%29 |
Afet bint Tuzaní
"As the good Archmage often admonishes me, I ought not to let my mind wander, as it's too small to go off by itself."
- Danilo Thann in Elfsong by Elaine Cunningham |
Edited by - Afetbinttuzani on 19 Apr 2008 03:14:50 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 03:40:00
|
| Yes, but your assuming a scribe will just automatically use the 'Search Function.' Usually, most scribes will post a query first, and then either receive an answer from another scribe, or be directed to previous scrolls that may deal directly with the query the first scribe originally made. In fact, most scribes do tend to find the 'Search Function' here at Candlekeep a particularly useful resource -- especially when it's directed to search in a specific section of Candlekeep and it is looking for accurate information. Granted, vaguely typed search parameters can often generate pages and pages of archived scrolls to look through in order to find the information a scribe may be looking for. But that's also why the posting of a query is often a better option. It's likely some scribe or another has dealt with the same, or similar, topic in the past, and can easily refer the scribe with the query to the appropriate scroll or published source. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 04:19:26
|
| Err search, unless upgraded will only point to threads that contain "gold" "coins" and "Cormyr" which clearly will include two and I suspect many more (I have not the time to test right now, the hits or if cion would be included in search)) |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Karzak
Learned Scribe
196 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 04:22:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Yes, but your assuming a scribe will just automatically use the 'Search Function.' Usually, most scribes will post a query first, and then either receive an answer from another scribe, or be directed to previous scrolls that may deal directly with the query the first scribe originally made. In fact, most scribes do tend to find the 'Search Function' here at Candlekeep a particularly useful resource -- especially when it's directed to search in a specific section of Candlekeep and it is looking for accurate information. Granted, vaguely typed search parameters can often generate pages and pages of archived scrolls to look through in order to find the information a scribe may be looking for. But that's also why the posting of a query is often a better option. It's likely some scribe or another has dealt with the same, or similar, topic in the past, and can easily refer the scribe with the query to the appropriate scroll or published source.
The search function here doesn't offer as many options as most people would expect from your average board software. You can't specify that search results should show up as individual posts, not the whole threads. So suppose your keyword appears in two posts in one thread. This thread has eighty pages. Want to locate those keywords? Tough, given the board software, you'll have to look through every single page. Yes, all eighty.
I've not brought this up before because, hell, the site's free and run out of the kindness of the webmasters, so it's not like we're entitled to anything. But to say that people can't get results because they enter in "vaguely typed parameters" suggests you don't quite understand why Afetbinttuzani thinks the search function is weak. Compare Snitz Forum's search to that of VBAdvanced and Simple Machines (yes, these two are - like Snitz - free software) and you'll see what I'm getting at. |
|
|
|
Afetbinttuzani
Senior Scribe
Canada
434 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 04:36:03
|
| Okay, okay, I'll drop it. Please don't misunderstand. I love the Candlekeep. The strength of the Candlekeep is the personal knowledge of its scribes, its community; and I deeply appreciate the breadth and depth of their knowledge. I was simply interested in exploring how to externalize and systematize some of that knowledge for those who would benefit from it but are not part of the Candlekeep community. I apologize if was being an over eager newbie and rehashing issues that appear have already been settled. |
Afet bint Tuzaní
"As the good Archmage often admonishes me, I ought not to let my mind wander, as it's too small to go off by itself."
- Danilo Thann in Elfsong by Elaine Cunningham |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2008 : 06:26:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Karzak
The search function here doesn't offer as many options as most people would expect from your average board software. You can't specify that search results should show up as individual posts, not the whole threads. So suppose your keyword appears in two posts in one thread. This thread has eighty pages. Want to locate those keywords? Tough, given the board software, you'll have to look through every single page. Yes, all eighty.
The 'Search Function' itself will likely receive some degree of refinement once the Forums themselves are updated. Improved search features will probably also be a part of the update.
quote:
But to say that people can't get results because they enter in "vaguely typed parameters" suggests you don't quite understand why Afetbinttuzani thinks the search function is weak. Compare Snitz Forum's search to that of VBAdvanced and Simple Machines (yes, these two are - like Snitz - free software) and you'll see what I'm getting at.
I understand perfectly well what Afet was referring to Karzak. What I was referring to, mainly, was the penchant for most scribes and visitors at Candlekeep to only post one or two words into the 'Search Function' when attempting to locate a particular scroll. Whereupon, they are presented with the page upon page of search results. It should be clear that the more information they possess about a given topic, the more useful the search results will be. I've tested this myself many times, and I've always had success with it.
Now, granted, sometimes it is difficult to search for a particular topic a scribe may know little about. But, as I've said before, that is why Candlekeep is often the better source to search for something related to the lore. Most registered scribes have the ability to post a query and immediately receive the assistance of our devoted community of Realmslore scholars.
Now, we apparently have delved a little too far off-topic, so, if any of you wish to continue this side-discussion, please PM my profile here.
Back to the FR Wiki discussion... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
fw190a8
Acolyte
United Kingdom
32 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2008 : 14:02:08
|
I must respectfully disagree once again with The Sage's opinions on the wiki.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
And the fact that corrected entries, such as some of us have attempted to do in the past, can be changed back to their original inaccurate form only further adds to the irrevelant nature of the FR Wiki itself.
Please provide an example of this! None of the regular contributors at the wiki are aware of this, but we would certainly be interested to know about it.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
But for every one or two of those type of Wiki-ists, there are also those who wish to abuse such a potentially useful site in order to promote their own either poorly researched or nonsense opinions on various aspects of the Realmslore.
Unfortunately that is only speculation and is very far from the truth. Vandalism of articles does occur, but it is extremely rare and is usually fixed in minutes. Again, could you provide examples of abusive users promoting their own poorly researched opinions?
As an aside, whilst the Candlekeep search function is not particularly strong, you might be interested to know that you can use Google to specifically search Candlekeep. Just input your search terms into Google and add "site:candlekeep.com" at the end. It's Google, so you're likely to find what you're looking for. |
Contributor to the Forgotten Realms Wiki: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com |
|
|
|
Big Mac
Acolyte
United Kingdom
21 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 14:44:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
We've tried in the past, and then it got changed back from what canon/official lore states. :)
The FR Wiki is a wiki of canon - not fanon - so if you don't cite your sources, someone else may well revert your edits. That isn't someone being a troll on you. It is them policing the information to make sure it is accurate. Maybe you didn't make a mistake with your information, but it looked like you have made a mistake, because you didn't put in an edit summary that explained your changes. Maybe someone mistook you for a vandle.
All you need to do is flip open the sourcebook you are getting your stuff from and give details like page numbers. If you do this in <ref> tags it should appear at the bottom of the page (instead of being inline and in the way). But the exact way you should cite things, is probably explained on one of their help pages.
Actually, this sort of edit-war behavior sounds a lot more like the sort of thing that happens on Wikipedia than the FR Wiki. Different wikis look similar, but have different policies. The thing you described doesn't sound like FR Wiki to me.
quote:
Originally posted by turox
I just checked this site out it looks pretty good, however with what was said here I went ahead and clicked on the edit option it offers and it looks like anyone that want's to change something can. It didn't ask me to sign in or anything. Just thought I would let you all know.
That is normal wiki software behavior.
I would strongly urge you to set up an account (on any wiki), because normal wiki behavior lists your IP address if you do not log in. In effect your IP address becomes your account. (This means everyone in the world can see your IP address. If you set up an account, only the admins can see your IP adress.)
Small wiki owners need to get people in so do usually allow one or two or even a few edits, but you may well find that your talk page (the talk page of your IP account) has a "please set up an account" request on it if you do unsigned in edits.
If you continue to do edits without an account an admin may block your IP address to force you to set up an account. (I say "may", because I'm not one of the admins on FR Wiki, but this sort of thing is common behavior of small wikis. It is the way to ensure that new people can get involved, but spammers and vandles can't do too much damage before they are blocked from editing.)
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
While the premise is a sound one, the concept of an FR Wiki is fraught with problems of inaccuracy and poorly researched references tainted by fan-bias. And the fact that corrected entries, such as some of us have attempted to do in the past, can be changed back to their original inaccurate form only further adds to the irrevelant nature of the FR Wiki itself. And this alternate version looks like it may still suffer from these same problems.
You are right in that anyone can revert edits. But one of the policies of wikis, is that wiki editors are supposed to "assume good faith". They are supposed to assume that you edited the article to fix something.
Now that isn't happening on Wikipedia, like it should, because there are a bunch of deletionists that think that D&D is not worth a ton of articles. The deletionists challange everything and use Wikipedia policies to support their arguments. (As wiki policies are created by the members, this means that the deletionists have been working behind the scenes to move the goalposts and create the rules that help them delete D&D stuff.)
But FR Wiki is a totally different thing to Wikipedia. The FR Wiki is there for Forgotten Realms fans. It isn't a general thing like Wikipedia is. The policy can be set by FR fans themselves.
The only potential problem you get is the canon/fanon thing. A D&D wiki can either be a canon wiki (where fanon should not be included) or a fanon wiki (where fanon is encouraged). Anyone not understanding the direction the wiki is supposed to be going in can accidentally push it away from where it should be. I say "accidentally", because I'm assuming good faith on their part.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
'Tis why I never refer any Realms fan interested in actual canon details to the Wiki. If you want canon facts, take them from the sourcebooks themselves, or from the game designers here at Candlekeep.
It is strange that Canonfire! (the leading Greyhawk fansite) has taken the opposite approach and they have actually set up their own wiki of Greyhawk canon. I think that Candlekeep could work with the FR Wiki admins to set up policies that will ensure that good citations are added to all articles, and that bad articles are corrected*.
* = Rather than just being deleted or reverted, as happens on Wikipedia.
The FR Wiki is your wiki. You can get involved and fix anything about it that isn't working. I'm not part of the FR Wiki team, but I have spoken to one of them and they seem a friendly bunch. I'm sure they will be keen to work with Candlekeep to ensure that things are best for the fans.
The best thing about a wiki, IMO, is that people can make a one line article for something that doesn't need more than a single sentence. That sort of thing would look a bit weird on Candlekeep, but is expected to happen on some pages of a wiki.
Better still, where Candlekeep has articles that expand upon canon (or enter grey territory), the FR Wiki can provide some sort of "additional information" link over here, without needing to allow non-canon over there.
You could for example have a complete collection of small articles about languages (along with a Languages of Toril template) on the wiki, but one large article over here. |
David "Big Mac" Shepheard
Webmaster - Virtual Eclipse Roleplaying Club
http://www32.brinkster.com/virtualeclipse/
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/
Visit my Yahoo links for: Forgotten Realms websites, Al Qadim websites, Arcane Age websites, Kara-Tur websites, Maztica websites, The Horde websites and FRCS web enhancements |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 16:47:33
|
With all the problems we've experienced with the ASP errors over the last few months, I must've missed this.
quote:
Originally posted by fw190a8
Please provide an example of this! None of the regular contributors at the wiki are aware of this, but we would certainly be interested to know about it.
You'll note that I wrote the part you quoted back in November 2006. At that time, I had noticed several instances of once corrected entries being changed back to their original inaccurate form. Asking me to provide an example of such an occurence now, at this later date, is a little unrealistic fw190a8 -- especially since the FR Wiki presently has tighter controls in place. 
quote:
Unfortunately that is only speculation and is very far from the truth. Vandalism of articles does occur, but it is extremely rare and is usually fixed in minutes. Again, could you provide examples of abusive users promoting their own poorly researched opinions?
It's not speculation. It's actual truth and a fact based on what I've read from the opinions of some scribes here at Candlekeep and from posters at WotC. And you'll note that I didn't specifically say that there were currently [then] examples of articles vandalised by such individuals. I was merely stating that for every dedicated FR Wiki-ist that does exist, there will also be those who wish to alter the specific canon content of an article to match their own perverted view of the official Realmslore. And that is fact.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 17:32:05
|
As was my post from 2006, since, as we've both said now, there was entries that WERE edited from official canon lore into entries that were uncorrect.
So, people might refute this all they want, but it DID happen. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 17:49:39
|
True, Kuje and Sage. The continual re-editing of canon lore into fan lore (and the injection of bias through commentary about Elminster, Drizzt, Ed Greenwood's sources and inspirations, and so on) was one of the reaons that certain folks at Wizards have never aided the FR Wiki or given it lore, after one instance in which a certain editor at Wizards posted some of Ed's "excess" lore (not enough for a web enhancement, but official, accepted for publication nonetheless) and got edited out of existence. Several times. As "spurious" because "it's just Ed Greenwood."
Pfffft! He just created the world, that's all! Do the Pern wiki posters wipe out McCaffrey lore as "spurious"?
love to all,
THO |
|
|
|
Nkoda
Acolyte
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 18:15:19
|
| All i know is that if you do a google search on FR facts and stuff, candlekeep comes up more often than not, and the posts here are much more informative than a one paragraph wiki entry. |
Welcome to Jamrock |
|
|
|
BlackAce
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
358 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 18:50:41
|
There's another thread around here on the Wiki too. In which several Candlekeep regulars discussed the vandalism and impartial editing problems. I will have a look for it.
No luck. Oh well, it's here somewhere. |
Edited by - BlackAce on 13 Jul 2008 20:34:26 |
|
|
|
fw190a8
Acolyte
United Kingdom
32 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2008 : 23:51:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
The FR Wiki is a wiki of canon - not fanon - so if you don't cite your sources, someone else may well revert your edits.
Big Mac took the words out of my mouth really. It doesn't matter who you are or how accurate the edits might be, unless some link back to the original piece of lore is provided, the edit might be altered or reverted.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
True, Kuje and Sage. The continual re-editing of canon lore into fan lore...
I don't think that is accurate. Assuming that the original assertion was correct, it claims that an article was changed, not that articles are continually being changed. This incident seems destined to remain an assumption, because despite a number of reputable contributors here at Candlekeep noting that the event took place, none seem to be able to remember any details. The nature of a wiki means that all edits are preserved permanently, so we should be able to find the original edit or edits that are alleged to have taken place.
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
...one of the reaons that certain folks at Wizards have never aided the FR Wiki or given it lore, after one instance in which a certain editor at Wizards posted some of Ed's "excess" lore (not enough for a web enhancement, but official, accepted for publication nonetheless) and got edited out of existence. Several times.
Is this the same incident or a different one? It is not one I am familiar with, but perhaps you recall the specific article in question? I have never known anyone at Wizards to have edited the wiki, nor would I expect them to differentiate themselves from the fanbase at large, but even if they were identifiable, those individuals would gain no extra credibility and their edits would need to point back to the original source material, or, like any other edit, be subject to removal or alteration.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
It's actual truth and a fact based on what I've read from the opinions of some scribes here at Candlekeep...
A fact based on opinions. Right.  No doubt those individuals are entitled to an opinion, and no doubt vandalism does exist on the wiki, but it's on a very small scale, and I would suggest that rather than there being a one-to-one relationship between dedicated editors and vandals, the vandals are few and far between. Vandalism is often repaired in minutes, and if not, within hours.
The wiki will continue to grow steadily as it has been doing for the past few years, with or without endorsement from Candlekeep. Personally I hope scribes here will take a fresh look at it, and I hope it grows to be as useful a tool as Candlekeep has become. |
Contributor to the Forgotten Realms Wiki: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2008 : 01:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by fw190a8
I don't think that is accurate. Assuming that the original assertion was correct, it claims that an article was changed, not that articles are continually being changed. This incident seems destined to remain an assumption, because despite a number of reputable contributors here at Candlekeep noting that the event took place, none seem to be able to remember any details.
Well, it's not an assumption. And, again, you're being entirely unrealistic asking us to recall instances that occured over a year and a half ago. Seriously, fw190a8, you can speculate however much you want on this. The truth of the matter is, we encountered these problems when there wasn't such tight control on the canoncity of content on the FR Wiki. Obviously, it would be difficult for us to provide specific examples now because the offending material once encountered has long since been altered to its original canon form.
But I do recall that specific details in one article concerning Ed's creation and promotion of Elminster through the books once claimed facts that were proven entirely false by Ed's own words here. At the time, this was something both Faraer and I attempted to change. Only to see it changed back to it's original incorrect form a day later. Even the quote from Ed himself was ignored and removed.
I appreciate that this same type of instance wouldn't likely occur today. And I do hope that such incidents will only continue to be prevented in the future. The Forgotten Realms is simply too important a setting for it to be brought down by such nonsense.
quote:
A fact based on opinions. Right.
Not exactly. I think it would be best to address this matter privately.
quote:
No doubt those individuals are entitled to an opinion, and no doubt vandalism does exist on the wiki, but it's on a very small scale, and I would suggest that rather than there being a one-to-one relationship between dedicated editors and vandals, the vandals are few and far between. Vandalism is often repaired in minutes, and if not, within hours.
And that's good. But it's not something that has always been in place.
quote:
The wiki will continue to grow steadily as it has been doing for the past few years, with or without endorsement from Candlekeep. Personally I hope scribes here will take a fresh look at it, and I hope it grows to be as useful a tool as Candlekeep has become.
If the FR Wiki is as worthwhile as you claim, then it shouldn't require active endorsement from Candlekeep. It should come to stand on its own merits. And I do sincerely hope that it will.
And I do intend to make every effort to look over the Wiki. And, to be honest, I hope some significant good will come from such an online FR resource in the future -- especially since we now have a particular divide between the lore of 1e, 2e, and 3e and that of 4e.
I may even feel the need to offer contributions at some point.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 14 Jul 2008 01:47:43 |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2008 : 02:16:56
|
fw190a8, I too hope the FR Wiki flourishes, and understand that it's being run far more tightly than in the past.
However, calling my comment an "assumption" is a rather curious use of the English language. I am relating what HAPPENED. That I and some Wizards staffers (at the time; not all of these folks are still with Wizards) did, observed to have happened to their posts, "fixed" their posts, saw them changed again, "fixed" them again, saw them changed again, and gave up. I sent an e-mail to the "contact" link complaining, and never received a reply.
The complete editing out of the Wiki of Ed's lore was a separate incident.
And Ed's lore IS "original source material" for the Realms, just as something Terry Pratchett writes is "original source material" for Discworld. Many fans make the mistaken assumption that as the Realms is a shared world, Ed is now just one more voice among many. Not so. In the original Realms legal agreement, he remains the creator and principal author of the Realms, "the" authority and ongoing creator (which is what allows him to post lore here at Candlekeep, through me). so Ed is "first among equals," if you will.
I'm not blaming you for what happened in the past with the FR Wiki, and it certainly sounds as if it would not happen today. I wish you every success with it, and if I ever have time, may (as one of Ed's "home" players, who has seen a lot of Ed's original notes over the years) drop by and add comments and corrections where I can. But please don't label what I said in my post as an assumption. Lore was posted, got changed by unknown hands, got "corrected," and then got changed again. In the case of the Ed lore, it got removed entirely, and replaced with the comment: "Spurious post removed" (a comment that itself mysteriously vanished within hours). I saw it with these two rolling eyeballs.
Yet I admire your support of the Wiki, and consider that your disbelief in these past events means you would never countenance such actions, so the future of Wiki should be bright.
love,
THO |
|
|
|
Theophilus
Learned Scribe
Australia
143 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2008 : 03:31:08
|
"In the original Realms legal agreement, he remains the creator and principal author of the Realms, "the" authority and ongoing creator (which is what allows him to post lore here at Candlekeep, through me). so Ed is "first among equals," if you will."
The Hooded One - I don't mean to pry, but is there a new agreement in place re. Realms and development? (I've interpreted what you've written to suggest that.)
|
|
|
|
Aravine
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2008 : 04:24:13
|
| just so you know, I recently attempted to make a Wiki, and was turned away because I would only allow admins to edit it. so you can see there is obvious pressure to allow anyone to edit |
The brave don't live forever,the cautious don't live at all |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2008 : 17:46:41
|
Hi.
Theophilus, there's only one agreement between Ed and TSR re. the Realms, so far as I know. We always refer to it as "the original Realms agreement" to distinguish it from the many, many legal agreements TSR and Wizards have made with licensors, freelancers, distributors, and other third parties regarding the Realms. And to remind the current WotC folks that there IS an agreement, that they can't change without NEGOTIATING with Ed.
One of the clauses in the agreement is that if a year (twelve consecutive months) ever passes without TSR (now WotC, but only because they now own TSR and TSR legally still exists) publishing an original (that is, never before published) novel-length work of Realms fiction by Ed (not just with Ed's name on it, but by Ed), all rights to the Realms revert to Ed, if he wants to claim them. Long ago, by mutual unwritten agreement (and so, now, by customary practise), Ed agreed that book-length game sourcebooks could qualify for the novel-length fiction.
There are many other clauses in the agreement (not discussing its details, byt the way, is NOT one of them), and Ed generally has cordial relationships with TSR/WotC, but the point is that the Realms aren't a property of Wizards that they can do anything they like with, ignoring the agreement. Doing so loses them the Realms, and under NAFTA, that includes all of its licenses, trademarks, and copyrights. The whole thing. (I have heard that Mattel regularly contacts Ed to see if Hasbro has slipped up, and if he wants to move it. Thus far, obviously, that hasn't happened.)
So, no, please don't interpret my remarks as meaning that Ed has a new (or newer) agreement regarding the Realms with TSR, WotC, Hasbro, or anyone, because 'tain't so.
love,
THO |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forgotten Realms Wiki
