OGC Wiki?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Okay, one last, hopefully more constructive, post.

What if: a wiki were established that had user privileges. Not your wikipedia-style "anyone can edit" wiki. And that wiki contained posts by writers containing their own OGC, and nobody else's. And it becomes a kind of Mega Best Of d20 Online Repository where you could set up your own little corner of the wiki and put any of your OGC material on it, linking to other stuff you liked elsewhere on the wiki, making reference to the publication in which your OGC originally appeared, if anywhere.

Publishers could pay for space in an online store (something like the ENWorld storefront, or perhaps actually the ENWorld storefront, while we're speaking hypothetically), so that there would be a direct connection between the open content and the publication without needing a section 15.

Products could be posted in their entireity, or in bits and pieces, highlighting the "good parts" as seen by the publisher. Have a rating system. Have a cross-referencing system to show when OGC from one publisher appears in a product by another, and each product in the storefront has links to all the pages of open content available on the wiki, no matter who wrote them?

This, it seems, would be more manageable, although it would require moderation. It would also satisfy publishers who want to get their OGC out there, but want more control over how it's presented and how it is associated with their documents.

Just an idea, anyway.

 

[Yair]

Ahh, too many posts coming in too fast, I can't keep up with all the subconversations.

This is the fastest growing thread I ever participated in. I feel like I'm in a chat.

 

[philreed]

Just an idea, anyway.

I like this idea because it places some controls on the material and involves the authors and publishers.

 

[Yair]

Okay, one last, hopefully more constructive, post.

What if: a wiki were established that had user privileges. Not your wikipedia-style "anyone can edit" wiki. And that wiki contained posts by writers containing their own OGC, and nobody else's. ...

I don't think anyone would mind such a wiki, and I mean it literally - no one will be very much interested in it unless it became really popular, and it wouldn't be popular unless pretty much everyone that's anyone participated in it, so no one will give it the time of mind.
Also, managing the crossrefencing and other bits would be extremely difficult.

I have to agree with Mearls.

The only things preventing a wiki that contains a variety of OGC are barriers of time and effort. Discussing it is a waste of time.

But it's such a fun waste of time...

 

[jezter6]

Okay, one last, hopefully more constructive, post.

What if: a wiki were established that had user privileges. Not your wikipedia-style "anyone can edit" wiki. And that wiki contained posts by writers containing their own OGC, and nobody else's. And it becomes a kind of Mega Best Of d20 Online Repository where you could set up your own little corner of the wiki and put any of your OGC material on it, linking to other stuff you liked elsewhere on the wiki, making reference to the publication in which your OGC originally appeared, if anywhere.

Publishers could pay for space in an online store (something like the ENWorld storefront, or perhaps actually the ENWorld storefront, while we're speaking hypothetically), so that there would be a direct connection between the open content and the publication without needing a section 15.

Products could be posted in their entireity, or in bits and pieces, highlighting the "good parts" as seen by the publisher. Have a rating system. Have a cross-referencing system to show when OGC from one publisher appears in a product by another, and each product in the storefront has links to all the pages of open content available on the wiki, no matter who wrote them?

This, it seems, would be more manageable, although it would require moderation. It would also satisfy publishers who want to get their OGC out there, but want more control over how it's presented and how it is associated with their documents.

Just an idea, anyway.

see, the great part about this is...it's voluntary. so those who want to horde away their OGC will just not contribute, and eventually it will fall apart due to lack of information. Phil obviously doesn't want his stuff given away free, so I wouldn't see him rushing to post all his stuff up there. Neither will Monte, because it's painfully obvious he protects as much content as possible. Without larger publishers like that, it's worthless.

 

[jaerdaph]

Add me to the list of people who could care less how much content a game company opens or closes. If I can use it, I'll buy it.

Add me to the list of people who would still buy from a publisher who starts closing more and more of his content because of projects like this (projects that never seem to get off the ground, but nevertheless...)

I can only see projects like this either forcing publishers out of business, or resulting in more and more closed content (and I wouldn't blame them for doing it either).

 

[philreed]

Phil obviously doesn't want his stuff given away free, so I wouldn't see him rushing to post all his stuff up there.

I wouldn't put all of my stuff up there but I would definitely add to such a Wiki. For example, I would add the supplementary spell component rules that I wrote and two or three examples. Then the two products with the 200+ other supplementary spell components I've written would be linked to from the page with the rules and examples.

 

[jezter6]

I wouldn't put all of my stuff up there but I would definitely add to such a Wiki. For example, I would add the supplementary spell component rules that I wrote and two or three examples. Then the two products with the 200+ other supplementary spell components I've written would be linked to from the page with the rules and examples.

See, it's already not the great OGC collection the name implies. It's 'some' of the ogc that's not as cool as the other OGC that you want 'protected.'

This is why voluntary publisher input on this will fail miserably.

 

[HinterWelt]

The entire book is available in HTML?

I have no idea how to explain that, then. I can't imagine buying a PDF of a book I could get for free in HTML, not when there are so many other things I want to purchase.

Well, yes, the entire BOOKS (I am working on Roma, my bad there). I have had customers who could not look over the book at theirt LGS due to shrink wrapping/no LGS or many other bizarre conditions including one store that kept Roma under the counter as explicit material. I have the HTML versions as a means for people to see if they want to buy our books. Makes sense to me. I have had in-print and PDF sales influenced simply because I am so open with our products. I have sent comp copies of the PDFs, in fact, and in only two cases has it turned out to be no sale.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your point. There are people wout there who want a free lunch. Those are not my customers. They do not matter.

Bill

Just a quick edit, the above sounded a bit snarky to me and I just wanted to say, I would rather have a person happy with their purchase than their money in my pocket and the customer regretting their purchase.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't think anyone would mind such a wiki, and I mean it literally - no one will be very much interested in it unless it became really popular, and it wouldn't be popular unless pretty much everyone that's anyone participated in it, so no one will give it the time of mind.
Also, managing the crossrefencing and other bits would be extremely difficult.

I have to agree with Mearls.

But it's such a fun waste of time...

Ditto. It wouldn't be an OGC repository, it'd be a preview gallery. And most publishers wouldn't bother. The points been repeatedly made, there's not point in a publisher extracting OGC from themselves. It costs money with no return.