Is this a medieval reenactment wiki or an SCA wiki? The whole thing looks like it has been set up presuming that the SCA way of doing things is the only way it is done.
So which is the truth? Is it a badly-designed medieval reenactment wiki or is it a SCA wiki that misrepresents itself as a medieval reenactment wiki?
- It's a medieval reenactment wiki, plain and simple, but wikis always reflect the people who contribute to them. Currently, the only contributors (as far as I know) are people from the SCA, so the design, content, the main page, and opinions are all SCA oriented. We write what we know. If you'd like to add non-SCA content, please go right ahead. Morgant 11:36, 15 Aug 2003 (EST)
- Well, it was, way back when we started, a medieval reenactment wiki, and it still is but (almost?) everyone who contributes is in the SCA. I'd be willing to change the explanation on the front page if people think its misleading. - Tobin 12:23, 15 Aug 2003 (EST)
Arts & Sciences
Okie dokie, re the crafts/sciences. What would you have things such as astronomy under? It could be argued that there are no arts in the SCA only crafts (or the emulation of period art, at any rate). I'll agree that no true science in done in the SCA but there are certainly people who apply themselves to the study of period sciences.
Feel free to tell me I'm wrong (is this the first wiki argument? ;-) - Tobin 14:10 6 Aug 2003 (EST)
- - Tobin: *I* feel that there's a number of people who do the 'crafts' of olde, and VERY few who actually do astronomy - and then they aren't doing the science of it, mearly recreating the 'elements' that were developed.
- Why not leave it as craft and see how many people actually object ? never hurt to irritate anyone :)
- Point taken but there are people that do astronomy and I dont think it should be thought of as a craft. - Tobin
- When more than 3 people use test tubes and actually reinvent the wheel, rather than just follow someonelses work - sold. till then No Dice. The SCA does Crafts.
- Follow someone else's work vs. reinventing the wheel? I think it's important to distinguish between science and scientific discoveries. Nobody's claiming to be making scientific discoveries - these have already been made. Think about it like Crafts - nobody's inventing new ways of doing things - we're trying to recreate what was done before. We're investigating science as it was done during the middle ages. I enjoy researching medieval cryptography - it doesn't mean that I have to invent new methods of frequency analysis. Also, and more importantly, Arts, Crafts & Sciences is a pain to say. Morgant 11:22 11 Aug 2003 (EST)
Arts & Sciences (again)
A google search reveals something in the region of 1,500 results for "sca "arts and crafts"" but more than 7,500 results for "sca "arts and sciences"". I've never met an A & C officer and doubt I ever will (even if that is a more accurate term. Shoule we start calling all constables "order enforcing people" just because some people think "constable" suggests that they are part of the police force?)
The point I'm trying to make is that, regardless of accuracy, people say A & S not A & C (if you were searching for A & S stuff on the web which would be seaching for?) If the SCA is a game then it really doesn't matter but there is no point in being non-standard. - Tobin 21:29, 25 Aug 2003 (EST)
Newt: Well let's start a trend, Tobin! We can slowly change the SCA to our way of thinking. Hmm.. I see what you're saying but I think with regards to the wiki we're just looking for ways of grouping topics nicely. There's nothing much to put under 'sciences', but you can very easily split up our 'arts' (which is currently damn huge) into 'arts' and 'crafts'. Re: knowne worlde handbooke... Sui does have a point!
- That sounds exactly like something sui would say ;-) It doesn't worry me if we add in a Crafts topic but taking out the sciences link (or going through that whole pointless "Crafts ("sciences")" thing again would be a bad thing, IMO. Split up the Arts link if you want and then add Crafts to the main page. - Tobin 10:23, 27 Aug 2003 (EST)
Arts and Sciences (yet again)
I can see we're about to have this argument again. Reading what was said in the previous arguments, I'll not change it back right now but, the fact remains people say A & S not A & C ("correctness" doesn't enter into it, this is an SCA wiki and in the SCA people say A & S) - Tobin 14:00, 26 Sep 2003 (EST)
- yes.. and americans are ALWAYS right about everything.. *sigh* glad to see that u can atleast accept change though Tobin. Now can the hard link from craft -> science, be removed? they are different! - Ben
- I intend to change the link back from Crafts to sciences. - Tobin
I think this statement should be removed from the front page. Anytime i have been bold or attempted anything slightly .. erm.. off beat.. it has been quickly slapped down, and yes i am going to single Morgant out here. Either have the policy that this is to be dry and humorless and a totally informational database only or allow it to be more 'open' - of course, and this is an amazing idea - u could have BOTH!!
So the choice - I believe - is everyone, how do u want your WIKI to be?
as u can guess i'd like it to be more 'interesting'
- We want people to be bold as in adding content not as in making changes that run against the majority. I Agree SCA science isn't real science but the majority of the SCA still call it science (this is an SCA wiki).
- I never said that the wiki was supposed to be a place or mirth and merryment. In fact the whole thing started so I would have a place to put what I know about the SCA. The software is free the content is open. You're welcome to start your own wiki. - Tobin
- In fact I wasn't even discussing the science thing.. It was more a general 'thing'. but point taken. If i wanna add content 'dry and humorless it is' - Ben
- Given that I'm singled out, I guess I should probably reply. I don't think I've ever slapped anyone down - I have, however, edited some pretty weird stuff. I'd like Cunnan to be useful, with a polished, edited look. Articles should be useful before they're funny - if you can do both, that's great, if you can't, don't. Morgant
Styles of articles
With the above responses, how about we agree to dissgree? Morgant wants polished articles, dry and informational, whilst I want interesting and informational articles.
Can we compromise, and do both, and aside from grammer [without changing the whole article] or spelling [which morgant does a great job of tidying up] how's about we leave the other articles alone?
there IS a certain amount of 'ownership' in having authored something, and if you wish to ADD to an article then go for it, but leave the orginal artical in place? this being a wiki, and us having a 'gentlemans agreement' about such things sound make for much better content and enjoyment all round - and redduce the .. erm.. 'bickering' ? - Ben
- Here's how I feel about this - if everybody restricted themselves to their own articles, this wouldn't be a wiki. If an article is inaccurate, inappropriate, or otherwise lacking, it should be edited. Not doing so would make for worse, not better content. Morgant
- Then unlock the page(s) you have locked, and accept my editing in return. _ Ben
- There is a single protected page on the wiki, the Main Page. I protected it because the consensus is, or appears to me and the other admins I've spoken to, that Sciences, regardless of accuracy, is the term used in the SCA. You're welcome to edit what you like but page protection and database locks are used from time to time when someone insists upon making a change that runs contary to consensus (corretion of common misconceptions does not come under this) - Tobin
- " Morgant " - Ben
front page counter
Is it working? i have been doing 15-20 articles a day and yesterday it went up 1...
you might wanna check it - Ben
- Last time I looked into it, the MediaWiki page count tag only counts articles of a significant size. (D'you know what it is, Tobin?) I'm guessing that Ben's 15-20 articles are predominantly short dictionary-style entries (which Cunnan should avoid, really), and they're not counting towards the total. Once they're expanded, they'll be included in the total. Morgant
- The articles need to be of some length (one line jokes and short dictionary style stuff wont be counted). They also need to contain at least one link. I'll have to check what the minimum length is. Also, if you're not logged in you might be served a cached copy of the page. I'll be moving this conversation to the village pump when I have time. - Tobin
Out of curiosity, why should dictionary-style entries be avoided? What if you can concisely explain something in 25 words or less (and include a link in it! e.g. acro-narcotic)? The way I see a wiki to be, it's like a cross between a dictionary and an encyclopedia anyway: it's a quick and efficient way of obtaining information. And so, if I enounter a technical word in an article I want to be able to click on it and get a _brief_ explanation first.. and if people want to later they can add 10 pages of history and detailed description to it, and that's cool. Short, dictionary-style entries are a good building block to more complex, detailed entries. Feel free to convince me otherwise. - Newt
- I say they are often useful, however they are more a definition, than an article - they contain little information. If I looked up acro-narcotic and found a definition i might be happy, and I might not care if the article only had a definiition, and no examples. But if I looked up lemon and got only "a yellow fruit of the citrus family" I'd wonder why I bothered linking to it. And as a really useful wiki, i'd say It's the longer articles that define it. Just personal opinion - ie that I'd only count longer articles in the article count, but I'm happy with the short articles as definitions of tricky words or starting inspiration points for articles. Tiff
- Whee! That got away quickly. By "short dictionary-style entries" I meant articles that consist of a definition with no re-enactment content or application, especially stuff lifted straight out of online dictionaries. I do think that making a stub article for further expansion, or defining technical or medieval words are good things - defining what a duck is, not so much. There are other wikis to do that. Morgant
- There are other website devoted to Medjeeval all round. hasn't stopped u guys. Morgant i defined 'duck' because i was working from the most wanted articles list. I have reduced that list considerably. if some of them are basic entries deal. (as for lifting them, i haven't done that in a while - and if i do, i change it)- Ben
- Hm, while I have no idea how old this conversation is, I'll put in my 2c anyway... I actually find the idea of removing pages from the "most wanted" list (by creating short dictionary entries) a Bad thing (tm) - because that way you no longer have a list of pages that need real articles (the point of said wanted list). I think the page should be used by people wondering what is missing in the wiki and that they are able to answer with some medieval information.
- I do agree that giving a definition of medieval words is very useful - and a good starting place for articles, but don't do it just so the list is shorter... IMHO that list provides much useful inspiration for article-writing. :( - Taryn