Should we move The Acaeum to a Wiki?

Posts: 2339 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:42 am

Based on some recent posts in the "building a complete RPG catalog" discussion, I thought it would be good to have a poll to see who thinks wiki is a good idea or who prefers a setup similar to the current Acaeum model.

What the discussion has brought to mind is that if wiki would be that much easier for development and maintenance that maybe The Acaeum should really just move to a Wiki.

Some things to consider:

1) Currently update work is mainly done by 1 Foul person; consequently, updates are usually slow and occur maybe once a year. With a Wiki model, everyone would be allowed to make changes to descriptions, add new printings, update valuations, etc.

2) There are some natural areas in which the Acaeum could expand its knowledge into: other early TSR supplements, other TSR games, TSR kitsch, other campaign settings, 2nd Edition D&D etc. These subwebs although having been proposed years ago just aren't getting developed - possibly because they are just too much for a single person to handle and possibly because we can't get organized to get it done, etc. Again, wiki would allow everyone to edit and update so as people cycle through the project, one person can pick up where the other left off instead of starting from scratch.

Posts: 1348 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:19 am

If "everyone" has access to modify, I'd hope there was some sort of verification process. I mean, it would not serve anyone any good to have someone jump in and start saying there were 50 new printings of Book A without being able to back it up -- its easy to say anything.

Posts: 2130 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:13 pm

Wiki is too open. It will open the door for unscrupulous sellers to try and manipulate the market for there own gain; we have seen it before Sad

The community we have built here and on the Tome is knowledgeable and reliable. Things just will not move fast enough for some people. Let’s face it, in order to do research in this type of field it will evolve as more items and printings are discovered. Patience is the key to do this right. Lets stay the course

Posts: 2635 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:18 pm

serleran wrote:

If "everyone" has access to modify, I'd hope there was some sort of verification process. I mean, it would not serve anyone any good to have someone jump in and start saying there were 50 new printings of Book A without being able to back it up -- its easy to say anything.

Wikis are great for some types of information repositories. If someone posts something incorrect, it's often quickly noted and reverted. There are enough people paying attention to any given subject that they effectively are the "verification process".

I don't think it would work terribly well for the Acaeum, though, especially if it were open to anyone that signed up. It's going to be a situation where a newbie shows up and rewrites the Mentzer Basic description every three days, referring it it as Original D&D from 1974 because it says 1974 on the copyright page.

Posts: 2635 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:23 pm

Mars wrote:

2) There are some natural areas in which the Acaeum could expand its knowledge into: other early TSR supplements, other TSR games, TSR kitsch, other campaign settings, 2nd Edition D&D etc.

This is at least the second time someone's touched on the issue of "expanding" the Acaeum in recent history. I'm not sure that's a good idea, or necessary. It has a well-defined focus as it is, in my opinion.

Posts: 2339 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:32 pm

deimos3428 wrote:

This is at least the second time someone's touched on the issue of "expanding" the Acaeum in recent history. I'm not sure that's a good idea, or necessary. It has a well-defined focus as it is, in my opinion.

I'm not sure if the Acaeum should expand or not either - that is probably the subject of another pole. But it has been proposed in another thread to expand the Acaeum into the complete RPG catalog. I have suggested that there are smaller expansions that are maybe a bit more natural. If we have a Planescape subweb, the other campaign settings would seem appropriate, etc. Early TSR supplements such as Bio One, Tricolor, DGUTS, etc also seem appropriate. There are of course lots of other possibilities that could be argued for and against.

I think there is still a lot of work that could be done within the existing scope of the Acaeum as well. For example, pictures of all different prints, etc.

Posts: 246 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:16 pm

I for one am glad we are having this discussion; however, since Scott owns this domain and essentially controls when updates occur, I think it is important for him to weigh in on this issue and suggest what path forward, if any, he would like to see. Certainly, many of you have contributed to the community content of The Acaeum via scans, research, valuation tracking, and postings in the forums; nonetheless site updates are few these days and many individuals, myself included, would like to see more frequent updates and additional content. But the question still remains, what does Scott want to do with the site? Or would he be willing to hand day-to-day updates to a group much like the Valuation Boards? Until these questions are answered by Scott, I think it will be difficult to proceed with any plans.

PS. Kudos and many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the site over the years. The Acaeum is an invaluable resource and perusing the forums is my first stop every morning. Smile

Posts: 51 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:46 pm

There are varying degrees of open. Wikipedia allows anonymous edits, but they have a lot of infrastructure for filtering spam and vandalism, and an army of people who review anonymous submissions and submissions from new accounts. A small wiki would want to make a potential editor register and verify their email address at the very least. Since this community is small, it wouldn't be much of a burden on the administrator to restrict access to a list of people.

Posts: 1210 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:52 pm

vote the "no" (second option) but it'd really better to make your mind up on how to improve the acaeum pages...

Posts: 593 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:33 pm

Hi,

amongst ppl I know, the general opinion is
"its on Wikipedia so it probably isnt true"

I dont think you should have put Option 3 on - its obviously playing to emotions, and most of us are old enough not to be fooled by it.

You could equally have put an option
"No - Wiki is sh*t"

Cheers,
Malc

Posts: 610 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:05 pm

I haven't voted yet, but it seems like there should be more options than the ones presented. Of course, I am likely showing my ignorance, so please forgive me. For example isn't there a way for more than just one person add in updates or information? I mean, we have a valuation board, why not an editing/update board? If you don't like the word "board" call it a team or committee or whatever.

Also, I am not opposed to expanding our horizons, but it needs to be done slowly and on a trial basis. Bigger is not always better. It's not that important to me, but it's likely there are regulars on this site who have the expertise and time and would be willing to do all the initial set-up work. For example, I'd personally like to see values and descriptions for the remaining Dungeon Magazines. This editing board would/should have say and sway over what gets added, cut, edited, etc...

Finally, I agree that what we have here is a good thing. It is helpful, instructive and fun. But if I have learned anything from history, it's that when cultures fail to adapt, it eventually dies. I am not saying The Acaeum is doomed or going to die anytime soon, but we need to be open to considering changes. We should never change for change's sake, but only to keep our interests and values (pun intended) alive and well.

Finally, part of keeping our interests/values alive is through growth. And when I say growth, I am talking about people who do more than join and introduce themselves. And in the same way that we should not change for change's sake, we should not grow for growth's sake. So far, I have seen a steady stream of people coming to this site with similar interests which is great. We have been welcoming unless they have an agenda different from our own. But I have also noticed that few people really stay around and add to our culture. For example, the Friday night chat has stayed about the same number of people for the past year from what I can tell. I don't know if I'd like it as much if it were much bigger, so maybe we're growing/evolving at just the right pace. The bottom line is that we need to never forget that growth factors need to play into our decisions.

This was more than I planned to write, but I'm glad we're talking about this. Cool

Posts: 2339 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:06 pm

benjoshua wrote:

I haven't voted yet, but it seems like there should be more options than the ones presented. Of course, I am likely showing my ignorance, so please forgive me. For example isn't there a way for more than just one person add in updates or information? I mean, we have a valuation board, why not an editing/update board? If you don't like the word "board" call it a team or committee or whatever.

The intent of this pole is basically just some public opinion. None of this has been discussed with Foul so it is all hypothetical.

One point though is that having an editing/update board is more of a micromanaging issue. Whereas the pole question is more of a fundamental change on structure of the Acaeum.

Posts: 2559 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:06 pm

deimos3428 wrote:

This is at least the second time someone's touched on the issue of "expanding" the Acaeum in recent history. I'm not sure that's a good idea, or necessary. It has a well-defined focus as it is, in my opinion.

I believe the current focus of the site as a "Dungeons & Dragons Knowledge Compendium" is fine just the way it is. I dont much care for the Wiki idea. Too many possible headaches to deal with. I dont care much to see it opened up to allow for just any subweb either. I dont really think a MERP/Rolemaster, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, or any other game system subweb that isnt somehow connected with D&D would enhance the site at all. Not when there are already resources for those systems already out there. Why do what Tome of Treasures is already trying to accomplish? And although I think the site is a fantastic resource I also think that they are in way over their heads. TFM is going to bankrupt himself trying to gather everything he wants to see listed there. Wink

I think it would be great to see more information regarding the entirety of TSR. Specifically the miniature rules and wargames aspect. A 2nd Edition section might be a good idea. But the TSR Archive does a fairly decent job of cataloging the 2nd Edition stuff already.

I gotta agree with Blackmoor. By allowing just anyone to update information we are opening the door to mistakes and problems.

Posts: 610 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:37 pm

Mars wrote:

The intent of this pole is basically just some public opinion. None of this has been discussed with Foul so it is all hypothetical.

One point though is that having an editing/update board is more of a micromanaging issue. Whereas the pole question is more of a fundamental change on structure of the Acaeum.

I voted against wiki. Let wiki be wiki. I believe we're another niche. Cool

Posts: 827 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:02 pm

are all cards on table or anyone have more double secret projects now??

Quote:

By allowing just anyone to update information we are opening the door to mistakes and problems.

who is not 'just anyone'?? fix with overkill global WP:SEMI if must Wink

@Mars. is not same as wikipedia with newbies reverting correct updates + have final say

Posts: 995 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:39 pm

Just one point I'd like to make here. I have read a fair bit about Wikipedia and have always understood the editing function to be restricted.

When Wikipedia started out the growth was phenomenal. Within two years it had twice the amount of information of companies such as Britannica. Of course, it drew criticism, because sub-standard and biased article started to appear. So the editing rules were tightened. But then you have the same problem (that any encyclopedia has). It must be edited by a board, which controls the information. Critique goes both ways. The board may may have entries which are wrong (and just about all nations sanitise data - even our own great democracies), and people (users) may be powerless to change it. On the other hand, if too many can contribute, you get people putting incorrect or biased information up. It is hard to find that middle line.

I mostly use the online Wikipedia for science related subjects: physics, medical science etc. I have encyclopedias as well and find the data on Wikpedia to be by and large accurate and a boon to society. Soon every body will be able to access all the world's data everywhere and peer review will be by the masses. This will fundamentally change society and will happen whether we like it or not. Raising kids these days is different. We need to teach them the manage information and opposed to remember information.

My proposal and discussion was a little softer than what is stated here. That is to trial an external Wiki as a means to allow a number of members here to build up a body of data that could be ported to the Acaeum or to a subweb or even to ToT.

I agree with longer term members blackmoor and kingofpain - you cannot make it a free-for-all. Drawing on this discussion above, you have to find that happy medium between controlling the quality of the data and finding a way for the trusted members here to feel a part of the RPG or TSR knoweldge effort.

Posts: 827 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:49 pm

HermitFromPluto wrote:

It is hard to find that middle line.

talk page easier access from main article on wiki + can have multiple povs shown even if npov goal

HermitFromPluto wrote:

Soon every body will be able to access all the world's data everywhere and peer review will be by the masses. This will fundamentally change society and will happen whether we like it or not. Raising kids these days is different. We need to teach them the manage information and opposed to remember information.

^v^

Posts: 3191 · Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:22 pm

Vote: No!

ShaneG.

Posts: 145 · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:33 am

A WIKI??? DEAR GOD in HEAVEN NO!!!
The ENTIRE SITE would be DESECRATED...UTTERLY RUINED beyond all hope of recovery----Literally in minutes after you let the mob into it.
Sad

Posts: 676 · Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:20 am

If you cannot use Wiki as a source for college papers then what is its purpose in life? It is only there as a guide and that guide is written and changable on a global scale. Therefore its authenticity is always under scrutiny.

Letting the Acaeum become a Wiki will cause it to come under such scrutiny and not become a trusted source for ACCURATE information.

Let it stay where it is.

Kosh

PS Hello all, been awhile