ENWorld Setting Wiki?

[Bront]

I believe Living Enworld has a Wiki, but it's badly out of date, and inaccurate (Someone was messing with it)

 

[jdrakeh]

And it isn't as if word processors won't handle cross-references within and between documents, should internal linking be desired.

That would take an insane amount of effort, as such linking would have to be very specifically coordinated with other contributors and implemented offline (i.e., files would have to be edited offline).

Note how the message boards are intended for discussion, but aren't a wiki

Note how hard it is to locate certain discussions on a message board that lacks a search function (and to be fair, even with one, tracking certain discussions can be a pain).

Again, wikis are a great tool for collaborative creation. But more conventional tools would be better for sharing materials that aren't intended for group editing.

So, would a wiki/archive hybrid (again, with static documents stored in the archive and dynamic documents portrayed on the wiki) be feasible? I think that it would be. I just finished managing a file archive for the past three years, so I could help out on that end (in fact, I may already have some server space available).

 

[IronWolf]

I disagree - it's only a great place to document your setting if and only if you only intend to work with the setting matrerial on a computer. If they don't use a laptop at the gaming table, and intend to work from hardcopy, a more traditional approach is called for.

You don't have to use a laptop at the gaming table for a WiKi to be useful. You can print sections of the WiKi for use at a game session of material you need. I am talking documenting a whole campaign setting, parts of which may not even see use during a particular campaign if the party doesn't even head to that area. So no need for a laptop at the gaming table, it is more of a resource for between session use.

Now if you never use a computer for any work on campaign material then the WiKi may not be for you. But even then getting that information recorded in an easily referenced format can make things easier for the world creator, especially for campaign worlds that have spanned several years, bears certain consideration.

And it isn't as if word processors won't handle cross-references within and between documents, should internal linking be desired.

However a web format is accessible across a huge variety of platforms. I can access a campaign WiKi from a large variety of OS's and browsers. One is generally not quite sure how a document will look converted from one Word Processor package to another. WiKis help make the information accessible.

As for discussion - I don't think a wiki is best suited for discussion of setting material. Note how the message boards are intended for discussion, but aren't a wiki

I don't think I advocated for WiKi's as a discussion medium. I agree, message boards are more useful in this function. Which can easily be linked to from the main page of a WiKi if one is interested in seeing discussion of one's campaign setting.

Wikis are a great tool for collaborative creation. But more conventional tools would be better for sharing materials that aren't intended for group editing.

I think you are overlooking some of the other benefits of a WiKi by thinking they only excel at group editing. They are a useful tool for sharing information by allowing one central place to be updated (no hassle distributing updated word processing files around) and accessible from many different platforms and locations.

 

[Umbran]

That would take an insane amount of effort as such linking would have to be very specifically coordinated with other contributors and implemented offline (i.e., files would have to be edited offline).

I'm sorry, but I think my point that the wiki is good for collaboration but not so good for single person works keeps getting lost. I'm talking about the case when there are no other contributors to coordinate with.

And even then - I work on wikis and standard documents all the time at work. Cross references in Word take less typing than setting up a link in the wiki.

Also consider - a bright, shiny, new and empty wiki in which the contributor may place their work means a large data-entry task. All the stuff they currently store in word-processor files and spreadsheets will have to be re-entered, by hand, and all the links created by hand. The entire setting must be entered again. This will be a barrier to submission. As opposed to giving them a place to stick the files they've already developed, takign little extra work on their part.

Note how hard it is to locate certain discussions on a message board that lacks a search function (and to be fair, even with one, tracking certain discussions can be a pain).

Tracking and locating particular discussions isn't difficult if you subscribe to them. Gotta comapre the full feature set of one system with the full feature set of the other

So, would a wiki/archive hybrid (again, with static documents stored in the archive and dynamic documents portrayed on the wiki) be feasible?

Feasability depends upon who's resources you're using - you need a machine to put this all on, and that machine's resources will determine how well it'd work. If the machine is buff enough to handle it, then using both shyould work just fine.

You don't have to use a laptop at the gaming table for a WiKi to be useful. You can print sections of the WiKi for use at a game session of material you need.

My biggest gripe with pdf's applies here as well. This only works if you know exactly which sections you'll need before the session. Generally speaking, if I need to refer to a book in session, it is because I didn't think of reviewing the material beforehand, because I didn't think it'd be relevant. Players have this nasty habit of dong the unexpected, so I need more than just a coupel sectiosn of my important references at hand.

I'm sorry, but you can't get around the fact that a resource strongly molded by it's electronic nature makes a poor reference if you aren't electronically enabled when you need to refer to it.

I think you are overlooking some of the other benefits of a WiKi by thinking they only excel at group editing. They are a useful tool for sharing information by allowing one central place to be updated (no hassle distributing updated word processing files around) and accessible from many different platforms and locations.

What hassle? That's what a document store is - a central place that gets updated, that each individual user pulls from as needed.

On the other hand, wikis are not particularly good at versioning, or tracking who changed what and when. Word processors and data stores do that better. And a word-processor store is better at "prettying up" the document, as wikis generally have fewer formatting options available and lack wysiwyg editors.

Let me be clear - I'm not saying wikis are bad. I work with them every day. I also work with document stores every day. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and there's simply a matter of using the right tool in each case.

 

[IronWolf]

I'm sorry, but I think my point that the wiki is good for collaboration but not so good for single person works keeps getting lost. I'm talking about the case when there are no other contributors to coordinate with.

I even use them in these cases quite often. I use a program called WikidPad for campaign tracking and even some adventure writing. Easily cross-referenced by using CamelCase or brackets, auto-complete as you start typing what is to become a Wiki Link. This is for information I am likely to be the only one to use. It saves the files in text format for portability and can even save the whole collection to html format for easy posting if need be.

Also consider - a bright, shiny, new and empty wiki in which the contributor may place their work means a large data-entry task. All the stuff they currently store in word-processor files and spreadsheets will have to be re-entered, by hand, and all the links created by hand. The entire setting must be entered again. This will be a barrier to submission. As opposed to giving them a place to stick the files they've already developed, takign little extra work on their part.

When I moved a fair portion of a campaign I was running into the above mentioned WiKi it was really just a matter of copying and pasting from existing electronic sources. It didn't take very long to populate and in the end left me with a more useful format (useful for me).

Feasability depends upon who's resources you're using - you need a machine to put this all on, and that machine's resources will determine how well it'd work. If the machine is buff enough to handle it, then using both shyould work just fine.

Generally not an issue in my case, but point taken. Not everyone will have the resources to handle a WiKi and or messageboard for public consumption.

My biggest gripe with pdf's applies here as well. This only works if you know exactly which sections you'll need before the session. Generally speaking, if I need to refer to a book in session, it is because I didn't think of reviewing the material beforehand, because I didn't think it'd be relevant. Players have this nasty habit of dong the unexpected, so I need more than just a coupel sectiosn of my important references at hand.

True, it is always inconvenient to not have material on hand when you need it. I think this is an issue with any electronic format though. You can either risk printing off sections and not having the right section when you need it or printing off the whole thing. Whether its a WiKi, Word doc or spreadsheet makes little difference. But I sometimes wish I had brought a certain book to the table at times, so the problem even exists when there are not any electronic aids used in prep. Sometimes you just don't have what you need when you need it.

I'm sorry, but you can't get around the fact that a resource strongly molded by it's electronic nature makes a poor reference if you aren't electronically enabled when you need to refer to it.

And as mentioned above this affects all electronic formats, not just WiKis. You can either print the whole thing or hope you brought the right pieces.

What hassle? That's what a document store is - a central place that gets updated, that each individual user pulls from as needed.

And the same thing a WiKi is, a central place for individual users to pull from as needed. The docs would need posted online to have easy individual access between sessions. No electronic access then no WiKi access or document store access.

On the other hand, wikis are not particularly good at versioning, or tracking who changed what and when. Word processors and data stores do that better. And a word-processor store is better at "prettying up" the document, as wikis generally have fewer formatting options available and lack wysiwyg editors.

The WiKis I have seen seem to have good versioning. Each doc has a history of the old page. So I can see who was the last one to edit for many, many edits back and actually get back to that version if need be. For the WiKis I setup only logged on users can edit pages, so that will be associated to a user name for accountability. We also restrict who has accounts to further limit who can actually edit the material.

Let me be clear - I'm not saying wikis are bad. I work with them every day. I also work with document stores every day. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and there's simply a matter of using the right tool in each case.

And in this I agree with you 100%. It looks like we just prefer different tools.

 

[shaylon]

its not ready. Heck, one one of my players knows about it since he helped set it up. One other player may learn about it if he reads these threads. But it will appear in my sig when it is ready. I'm thinking a week or two away depending on how lazy I get.

Duly noted. I now know! Ah, the power of reading.

I think that they can be useful to organize a campaign, it just depends on the personal preference. I am working on the basics of a campaign with a friend right now and we are just emailing back and forth but if the planning develops then I might see need for a wiki, a messageboard, or both. We'll see how motivated my friend stays.

-Shay

 

[the Jester]

Already have one for my homebrew.

That said, I think it's a great idea- but it would have to be divided up by setting to work at all (imho).

 

[jdrakeh]

Feasability depends upon who's resources you're using - you need a machine to put this all on, and that machine's resources will determine how well it'd work. If the machine is buff enough to handle it, then using both shyould work just fine.

I don't see any reason why both must exist on the same machine, actually (they could merely be linked).