Forum:Blogging option for RS Wiki
The following message was posted on my user talk page today:
Newspaper - random thought
- I saw the discussion on the Runescape newspaper - very exciting!
- I don't know if this would help or not, but Wikia recently launched a collaborative blog tool, that lets many people write their own blog posts in one place (think more magazine than newspaper) but maybe it would help. If you're interested, you can see it here: http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Blog:Recent_posts If the group wants one, we're happy to turn it on. If not, sorry for the bother Gil (talk)<staff /> 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like something that would be rather interesting, and I certainly would like the larger community to be aware of it. No, I don't know why my user talk page was singled out, other than that I am one of several admins here and I guess I've been pretty active lately.
As a part of the editorial section of the RS newspaper, perhaps this would be an interesting part to add. I'm certain that some rather interesting editorials could be developed that discuss various parts of the game (PKing, mods, new game features, Mechscape, etc.) and how they would affect the player community. It is at least something that deserves discussion here, and is another tool we can use in terms of discussing and promoting this game and wiki. --Robert Horning 16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - looks interesting and useful. I see no reason not to support this. Andrew talk 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Per below. I wasn't aware of the archived discussion. Andrew talk 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is not strictly the same issue here, and some of the problems that caused all of the grief for Halopedia would not, I believe, be an issue here, but it is useful to bring up the previous discussion. I would have to agree with you, the point system is simply silly and a complete waste of time or effort and can be highly counter-productive, but this isn't about the "personal profile" feature that Halopedia is using. I also agree with some of the points below about Wikia trying to turn into a social networking site that seems contrary to the goal of developing a site full of information about how to play the game of Runescape. I am not sure why the issue was raised on my user talk page instead of here at the Yew Grove, and that is what really causing me to scratch my head. The only real reason I'm bringing this forward is due to the fact that this tool was suggested to me by Wikia staff. --Robert Horning 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Per myself in that archive, Christine, and everything. Halopedia practically got ruined community-wise after that was introduced. We don't want any part of it. Not to mention the potential newspaper project is in the opposite direction of the blog feature. Newspaper = informative. Blogs and all the other stuff = ...Must I say? Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- After what was introduced? I just want to make sure we are on the same page here and talking about the same thing. This is not the same thing that ruined Halopedia, even though the blogging aspect is something to be concerned about. This is strictly a blogging feature where a user can add some content that can only be edited by that particular user, nothing more. Essentially, this is another variant of the forums and could even be a replacement of the forum feature we currently have. I don't know all of the issues here in terms of what this sort of blogging would do to us as a community, and I would agree that it is something very un-wiki like in nature. If the concern is an eventual creep into what has been happening on Halopedia (including the "personal images" issue... no wonder there is nearly religious opposition to any personal images), I can buy that argument as well. --Robert Horning 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - As per everyone else.
05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't there a policy against blogging anyways, right here?
- This policy comes from Wikipedia (i.e. mostly copied from Wikipedia), where the concern on Wikipedia was over objectivity with the development of the content. There were several issues for this policy:
- When the policy was originally implemented, there were huge concerns about flooding the early Wikipedia database with blogging content, that the server database would be nothing but blogs if it were permitted. Data storage costs were at the time huge, and those involved with Wikipedia didn't think they could sustain a website like some of the other blogging sites that were then brand-new. Mind you, there are essay articles that are essentially blogs anyway on Wikipedia, but those tend to be about policies and politics internal to the wiki than something regarding external issues like Iraq, 9/11, and Israel (to note some hot-button issues). Long-term data storage costs have substantially dropped over the years so this is not nearly as huge of a problem as it once was, and data storage costs for textual information is now incredibly cheap, so concerns about storage costs are now largely irrelevant.
- Concerns (which I think are just as valid here with the RS Wiki) about maintaining a neutral point of view and objectivity for creating an encyclopedia. Opinions can't be challenged for validity as one person's opinion is just as good and the next person's. While this wiki isn't strictly an encyclopedia, I do think some sort of scholarly standards should apply here as well.
- Limits to the scope of the project are ignored by adding features like this. I know that I have encouraged and fought for expansion of different features on this project (like the GEMW), but at the same time there does reach a point that you have to ask if adding blogging is going to change the community in a more destructive nature. Certainly on Wikipedia there were concerns about blogging bringing in an aspect to the community of a group of individuals that would be there for the blogging and not for trying to develop the content.
- There is no reason this policy couldn't be changed via community consensus (which is precisely what is happening here... at least trying to see if the community is ready for this), so I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't do this strictly because there is a policy against it. All that means is you shouldn't start a blog here without at least trying to change the current policy. Policies are never immutable once set, and from time to time it is healthy to question why the policy exists in the first place, even if the ultimate decision is one to keep the policy in place. --Robert Horning 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree. This an old policy that clearly needs re-looked at. I was not using the policy as an argument per say, just bringing it to user's attention.
Comment - Should this discussion really take place here? The wiki newspaper has not yet achieved consensus at all. This issue should be brought to attention RuneScape:WikiGuild/Proposals/RS Newspaper here to see if the users who are going to work on the newspaper want this. If they do, this feature can be added to the wiki if the newspaper project reaches consensus. Dtm142 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness to this discussion, I think it is appropriate to raise the issue here on the Yew Grove as opposed to the part of the community which is developing the guidelines and content for the newspaper. This feature, while it certainly has applications within the RS Newspaper, is something that could have an impact far beyond even that feature and requires a basic change to the software configuration that is running this wiki. There is nothing in this software that would restrict this to be used only with the newspaper, although admittedly we could establish a policy to make it restricted only to guidelines developed by the newspaper working group.
- Since there seems to be nearly universal opposition to this idea (no, I still don't think the comparison to Halopedia is appropriate, but that is irrelevant regarding the support for this change to the wiki), I'm not going to be pushing the idea any further. If there seems to be a group that really wants this, go ahead and start another thread on this topic, but I don't see it happening until well after this particular thread is archived and a part of a misty past that most people have forgotten about. --Robert Horning 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)