[karajorma]

Following the discussions that have been going on lately I thought that a poll would be a good idea to see where the community stands on the idea. The question is whether we should keep the wiki just as a reference for the canon information from the game or whether we should allow non-canon interpretations of the game to be placed in their own area of the wiki.

[Sandwich]

I think it should be allowed in there, as long as it is clearly marked as such - like they do it at DITL.

[aldo_14]

As I said in the other thread; No - not unless it has a complete criticism of any inaccuracy or problems relating to the known stuff of FS1/ST/FS2, and every equivalent theory in that area is given it's own entry to ensure fair coverage of the area of discussion.  Also no because the wiki is intended as a reference source, not a place to store fictional stories; IMO this would be equivalent to inventing a 'universe' which is not used in any form except to be inserted into the 'full' (i.e. en.wikipedia.org) wikipedia.

Also, another 'no' reason is because this type of thing really is only of value in discussion (i.e. in the forums), and that precludes sensible inclusion in wikipedia (because discussion and change is to be avoided in a factual reference).  Finally, adding non-canon means that anyone can add any old rubbish into the wiki, and justify it with a non-canon tag - regardless of whether it cites evidence that is actually similarly made up or incorrect.

EDIT; and also, it strikes me that any criticism added in to balance out these articles will be removed as 'unfair' or somesuch, especially if said article has massive holes and hence lots of criticism.

[Fineus]

Could we take a moment to define the word "material"?

My point being that if someone wants to document BlackWater Operations - good for them. It's a well known campaign and people may want to hear about it. If someone wants to write up The Babylon Project and a description of what you'll find within it then that's also FreeSpace related (as it runs on the same engine). It's additional information relating to the overall topic of FreeSpace. I support the addition of such content on the condition that it is appropriately marked as "Non-Canon" material.

However as aldo_14 says, I don't think the wiki should turn into a "story archive" where anyone who feels like a bit of a writing spree can type in some half-cocked unsolicited story and enter it into the archive. That sort of offshoot has no place. It's not a download, mod, campaign or total conversion.

[aldo_14]

If the SM was to be added as the result of some campaigns output, I wouldn't object so much; albeit I wouldn't view it as the job of the wiki to document campaign storylines (that's surely what playing the campaign is for - not to mention the individual campaign websites).  To me, the level of detail in Skippys' list is what is needed for campaigns, with perhaps just a tad more for the TCs like TBP (because they have a whole new universe that needs to be explianed, even if just by linking to B5, or WC, Star Wars, etc wikis).

My objection to the SM - in particular, but also in the general principle - is that it's already been cited as if canon (even though it says so in the theory; although IMO is puts itself as too conclusive in the key assumptions made), and that it's presences means it has precedent over non-featuring theories.  Moreso, my worry is that people will simply adopt it as an easy, lazy background with considering the flaws within, and thus it'll act to stifle creativity.

[Flipside]

Personally, I can see it generating a lot of arguments and disagreements, since, if we can't argue over canon, we will argue of what is the most viable non-canon. The Shivan Manifesto is an excellent example, there are long-time members of this board who think it is very good, and others that think it is full of holes. It's probably better imho, to keep that kind of thing to the boards and stay away from conjecture, even if it's clearly marked as 'Non-canon' you can be pretty sure at some point or another people are going to say things like 'That campaign is wrong, because it says in the Wiki.....etc'. It's the same risk as suggesting that Inferno is the closest thing to FS3, it isn't, it's Inferno, a bloody good user made campaign, but nothing else.

[Shade]

My two cents worth...

Fan made campaign backgrounds/stories/ships/whatever:

I'd prefer a 'User-made campaigns' section located below all the canon stuff where each campaign could then have it's own area, with any of the subcategories found in the canon sections as desired by the authors. So you could have, say, a 'User-made campaigns->Mindgames->Ships' category where the ships of that campaign can be found, and the same for background, weapons etc.

Since each campaign is under the user campaigns category, and the articles for each are seperated, it's clear to anyone using the wiki that it's non-canon, and also that what info is true for one campaign will likely not be true for others. I suppose you could say that these sections would be 'canon' within the context of their specific campaigns, but nowhere else. Call it campaignon if you like

Speculation based on canon, but not related to a campaign:

This has no place in the wiki in my opinion. This would include things like the shivan manifesto, as it is not tied to any campaign and is simply an attempt to make some sense out of the Shivans based on a mix of known facts and assumptions. But if for some reason it -has- to be there, I think it should be in a section appripriately titled 'random speculation', 'fan theories' or something similar. But I still don't think any of it belongs there. If it had to be anywhere, my preference would be a 'fan fiction' section off the main page, and not the wiki.

[TopAce]

I voted yes. It should be allowed when indicated.

[Wanderer]

I think Shades approach might be a good one...

I would probably toss in all fan theories about Shivans into a single page - separate from the canon shivan page - every one with perhaps one or two lines of pros and cons (or short description) about the particular theory and then a link to some distant far off site. But so that even the Shivan Manifesto would be mentioned, clearly indicated as non-canon material, and most importantly commented in the fswiki.

[knn]

That is exactly how the current SM article looks like. The text is not there, just a summary, criticism with a link to an article with a detailed list of flaws, and a link to some distant far off site with the text. And IMO that's a good way to include it, because it explains what the SM is, it does not use the SM to explain what the shivans are.

[BlackDove]

Facts are for the Wiki, everything else should be on the forum.

By putting in fan created opinions, no matter how smart or stupid, we turn the wikipedia which should be used for facts into a scribbling board that everyone needs to leave their 2 cents on. And believe me, there will be stupid entries, one of them being the Shivan Manifesto (to name one). Even if we all don't agree that it's garbage, the mere fact that there is such a large gap in opinion regarding the inadequacies of ONE piece of writing, inputting many fringe ideas (because that's what they all are in the end) will just make the entire page look idiotic.

That's not the purpose of any "pedia" as far as I'm concerned, the purpose is general knowledge pertaining to facts.

[TopAce]

...FreeSpace does not have many facts, only what we can see in the game.

[Wanderer]

Well the current Shivan Manifesto page is 3 to 4 times longer that what i would have made out of it... And it wouldn't be on a separate page but rather a single entry in a list of 'fan theories'. Main thing would be that it should be mentioned and critizised in fswiki. If it is not mentioned at all then its may even gain more 'canon' reputation than otherwise. And that would benefit no one.

[Sandwich]

I'd say that not having data on BWO, or TBP, or whatever, would be a great disservice. I think that such non-canon information should be placed not among canon information, but in its own category, under user contributions or some such. In other areas, for example the theories on Capella, I can imagine a page like this:

Canon info
----------------



Generally accepted assumptions
-------------------------------------------


Shivan BBQ Theory
-------------------------


Sandwich's Theory
-------------------------


etc...

[Black Wolf]

Facts are for the Wiki, everything else should be on the forum.

By putting in fan created opinions, no matter how smart or stupid, we turn the wikipedia which should be used for facts into a scribbling board that everyone needs to leave their 2 cents on. And believe me, there will be stupid entries, one of them being the Shivan Manifesto (to name one). Even if we all don't agree that it's garbage, the mere fact that there is such a large gap in opinion regarding the inadequacies of ONE piece of writing, inputting many fringe ideas (because that's what they all are in the end) will just make the entire page look idiotic.

That's not the purpose of any "pedia" as far as I'm concerned, the purpose is general knowledge pertaining to facts.

The nature of a wiki means that you can edit any articles that anyonme posts. You can delete them, if you see fit, though I personally would much rather that didn't happen unless it was obviously neccesary (an article about someones pet dog, for example). But what you can (and probably should) do, is edit the article to include criticisms of any wild theories that go into it. Or you could merge theories into one page, so anyone looking for one, particularly far out theory would also be exposed to summaries of a whole bunch of other, perhaps more likely theories.

So, the Shivan Manifesto. I don't know if it belongs. I don't think that the wiki is the best place to put the full text of the theory under the page title of "The Shivan Manifesto", as there's far too much potential for misunderstanding (as to the status of the document, and its level of acceptance/canoninity). But an article about the existence of a document by the name of "The Shivan Manifesto", an article which explains both the facts that support the theorys postulated by said document, and the criticisms of it, that has, I think, a fairly strong case to be in the wiki, if only because the document is seen pretty regularly on the forums in various discussions about the Shivans.

[knn]

I'm against putting in the full text of any theory in a wikipedia article, however a a link to the full text is a must. Also, a page with links to all the theories would be better than a page with all the theories together, because the latter would get quite messy after a while. Stg. more like the current list of campaigns would be fine. Then add a link to this page at the end of every theory, under See also

[CP5670]

The bigger question here is what exactly the wiki is for. If it's intended to be purely an FS universe reference, then the Manifesto has absolutely no place in there, even leaving aside the fact that it's riddled with contradictions despite being detailed and well written. However, if it's about the FS games, or more generally the FS community, then I think the current article on this topic is good (as it doesn't include the actual Manifesto but only links to it) if it's placed in a completely separate section from the other material. It's useful to have it in there not because it has any connection to the game or its universe, but because it's a topic that comes up repeatedly in FS-related community discussions here. It can be hard to find old things like this on the forum, even if the search was working correctly. The case could be made for having an entirely separate wiki for stuff like this, but making another section distinct from everything else would seem to have the same effect.

I'm leaning towards putting it in, but don't have any definite opinion on this issue as I can see advantages in both choices.

Here's an interesting question on this topic: should there be any articles at all on the headz box and the C monster? That's fully official material with a distinct Freespace flavor to it, even if it's not exactly related to the FS universe, but if you put that in, it makes sense to also have a short article on Tell a Story, which despite being unofficial, falls in the same category as that stuff and is something almost everyone in the community knows about.

[Shade]

So, the Shivan Manifesto. I don't know if it belongs. I don't think that the wiki is the best place to put the full text of the theory under the page title of "The Shivan Manifesto", as there's far too much potential for misunderstanding (as to the status of the document, and its level of acceptance/canoninity). But an article about the existence of a document by the name of "The Shivan Manifesto", an article which explains both the facts that support the theorys postulated by said document, and the criticisms of it, that has, I think, a fairly strong case to be in the wiki, if only because the document is seen pretty regularly on the forums in various discussions about the Shivans.

Hmm... I can pretty much agree with that, I can't see any harm in a discussion about it, as long as its text isn't there (well, selected quotes would be ok). Actually, I think it pretty much comes down to a wiki being about facts: The shivan manifesto is speculation. But that it exists is a fact. As such, it's content can't be in the wiki, but it -can- be discussed there with evidence for and against and so on. That's pretty much the same reason I think user made campaigns do have a place there. It's simple... they exist, so they're a fact, as are the ships, weapons, stories they are based upon.

As long as all these things are all in clearly non-canon categories such as something like 'theories on the freespace universe' for the manifesto or ideas about how subspace works and stuff like that and a 'user-made campaigns' or something similar category for the campaigns, I'd love to see it all there.

[WMCoolmon]

Well, I don't want to get into a debate here, too. But my general thinking is along the lines that the wiki is a community wiki...it is, after all, linked to from the forums and HLP page, both of which are sort of the hub of the community. Because of that, I think that things with (at least) relevance to the community and Freespace, or to canon Freespace (since that makes it automatically relevant for a Freespace community ), should be in the wiki.

I don't think that miscellaneous things like the Shivan Manifesto can be excluded with that definition, because the only way to do that would be based on arbitrary judgements (ie the only fanon things that can be in the wiki are campaigns and mods, websites, "FS lingo", documentation of SCP features, guides on SCP, the "Introduction to FSSCP" article, etc etc). I've also gotten accustomed to looking in the wikipedia for things IRL that may be totally fictitious, and it's useful for them to be there because it gives context to when people talk about them. Even if it is something that I think is total crap. So I can see how having something that's factually inaccurate but still discussed in the community would be useful, as long as the article itself is factually accurate.

So, IMHO, the wiki should have non-canon information unless it is split up/made into a separate project, like the old FS encyclopedia project (FSURP, was it?).

[StratComm]

Before we even get in to this tangent, we're actually looking at 2 seperate questions.  Technical things, such as SCP reference and Mod descriptions, are exactly what the Wiki is for.  They are all backed up by content, whether that's in the form of code changes or mod data or campaign files or whatever.  There is, I think, a clear-cut line between what is considered technical and what is considered fan fiction (none of this "fanon" nonsense as it provides too much legitimacy) and that should be the line for inclusion in the Wiki.  The Shivan Manifesto is fairly clearly in the Fan Fiction category IMHO, and since that's what this debate really lies then that's actually the question.  I'm going to vote for a "fan fiction" section with the majorly non-canon stuff, and let user-made campaigns backed by content fall where they may.