elanthipedia:Town Green (policy)

Town Green policy discussion   post
This policy section of the Town Green is to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines here at Elanthipedia.
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the File:Button sig.jpg in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

Town Green
Town Green
Policy (post)
Technical (post)
Assistance (post)
Miscellaneous (post)

New users with strange names

Four new users have been created within the last week with similarly weird, code-like names:

Gj0Vxn, LyuZsg, TycZzv, and CpaPqe. Seems kind of fishy to me. Is it possible to run an IP check on them and/or otherwise see whether they're legit or not? None have performed any edits yet. --Farman 16:51, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

If it becomes a problem we can utilize the captcha extension, and make new users enter a string. And/Or we can utilize SpamBlackList which protects us from malicious edits. --Callek 21:14, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

I noticed that too. We'll watch them.--Naeya ^(talk) 22:08, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

IG Secrets

I think it would be useful to state the policy on revealing in-game secrets in articles. Please correct me or add to this if I am wrong.

• Posting in-game secrets or solutions to quests is discouraged on a main article page, as this might reveal the information to someone who came to the article seeking general info only.

A good way to segregate info on secrets is to make a sub-page off the main article. --Farman 16:28, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

How does one make a sub-page? --Kraelyst 18:04, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Simply have a "secrets" page linking from the main page somewhere, perhaps under the heading of "extra info." Then the subpage can be something like Article Name/Secrets. Or something similar. Just a suggestion.--Naeya ^(talk) 20:56, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Yup, it's just like subfolders in Windows. Dummy Article would have a subpage Dummy Article/Secrets. The reason I'm bringing this up now is that I'm running across some articles written in the last month or two that include what look like quest walkthroughs. --Farman 13:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I agree with Farman's original idea for our policy and I think the solution for posting secrets as a subpage is good, though I do have one additional suggestion. Although it may be a hokey old web design trick, we could just make the secret text the same as the background color and that way the secret text could remain in its appropriate place in the article. Let's finish up this discussion and get this policy posted in our help section and wherever else it needs to be. --Kraelyst 05:32, 5 November 2007 (CST)

Posting Policy in general

Actually, I think it would be a good idea to draft a simple posting policy to cover a few basic things:

1. secrets policy
2. language/respect for fellow posters etc.
3. opinion/commentary vs. facts (akin to wikipedia's NPOV?)
4. copyrighted material

Any other thoughts? I'm hoping this can be something pretty simple and casual as opposed to a huge legal document, and have a prominent link on the main page. Growth has been slowing down a little here lately but I still think it would be useful to have a clear posting guideline while Elanthipedia is still relatively new. --Farman 13:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Script articles

I think we need a guideline for how to post scripts.

The problem is that current practice seems to be to post the script with the article title equal to the script name. This can be confusing since there's nothing in the article title that indicates that it's a script, and the potential for conflicts with other article types exists, especially as more and more scripts get posted.

I can see a few ways to approach this, and I'm not sure which is best:

• Put script articles as sub-articles of the main Scripts page, eg "Scripts/AScript". My gut feeling on this is that it doesn't go far enough.
• Put scripts in User space under the author of the script, eg "User:Farman/Scripts/Empathy". The benefit here is that indication of authorship is preserved, however should an account be deleted the scripts would be lost.
• Make a new namespace Scripts eg "Scripts:Scriptname". I think this is the cleanest way to do it but most people will have a hard time searching in anything but the main space.
• Put (script) after the script title, eg "Script (script)". I don't think this is a good idea since it doesn't go far enough in segregating script articles, but it is an option.
• Keep all scripts off-site, and link to the external page. The most severe policy, but it has the benefit of preserving a script author's code, which would otherwise be subject to editing as any other wiki article.

Any thoughts? --Farman 14:29, 4 November 2007 (CST)

Of those options my favorite by far is to add "(script)" to the article title. All the other ideas were good, but each of them also had a fatal flaw which was accurately described. I think the most important thing is that it be easy for people to post their scripts (and easy to find), so doing the subcategory, User namespace, or off-site are all out of the question. I vote "(script)" --Kraelyst 05:26, 5 November 2007 (CST)

I guess allowing the upload of .cmd files would be out of the question too? I think that would be easiest, especial for script users. Being able to download the file instead of copy/paste and creating a new script... just the opinion of a tired empath taking another long walkabout from Elanthia.--Naeya ^(talk) 09:03, 5 November 2007 (CST)

It may be unwise to allow people to upload .cmd files because if someone decides to add something malicious that we don't catch others might download it thinking that since it comes from Elanthipedia it must be safe. --Kraelyst 10:27, 5 November 2007 (CST)

True. My trusting nature still has trouble understanding why anyone would do such a think in the first place. Oh well.--Naeya ^(talk) 12:46, 5 November 2007 (CST)

Kraelyst, you raise a very good point, but there's nothing to stop someone from posting a malicious file right now (unless there is some kind of AV software running on the server, which would make a lot of sense). And it adds another reason to why I think we need to hash out all of our policies a bit more completely. Given the open collaboration nature of a wiki I would expect there to be something stating the owners and sysops aren't responsible for the content posted on the site, since it's impossible to police what people post, instantly and with 100% infallibility. Of course such malicious files should be removed as soon as they are detected, but that won't eliminate the possibility that someone could be victimized by it before that happens.

Anyway I've always felt a bit conflicted about scripts on Elanthipedia. It feels to me that they aren't really in the core mission of the site, since scripts aren't a part of DR itself. They're important though and I do think we should have them here if people want to post them, which it seems they do. But while you can assess the accuracy and completeness of an article about Vorclaf, or Khri, for example, you can't do the same for a script since they are entirely subjective and user-created. And there are unlimited variations possible for scripts that achieve the same essential end. That's why I'm hesitant to just stick (script) after the name, it's very possible to end up with 50 Origami (script) articles and who is to say which one is the best? Not to mention the fact that each one might run on a different FE and there'd be a need to organize them that way. Origami (script-SF), Origami (script-Wizard), Origami (script-Genie), etc etc etc.

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards having them in the user space of the person who posts it, or keeping the code offsite. I know that the latter is what I would want to do for any of my own scripts I'd put here, to protect the code. --Farman 00:12, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Personal and vanity topics

If there is a discussion on this elsewhere or an already-existing policy by all means point me to it.

There should be a hardline policy on posting vanity pages and personal topics anywhere but in your own namespace. I just got finished moving two "proposal" pages with little to no bearing on actual game lore or mechanics into the creator's namespace, and it occurs to me that the more popular Elanthipedia gets the more stuff like this will pop up.

I also have concerns for adding vanity to pages. The biggest risk I think is pages on things like orders or militias; I don't think pages like this should turn into platforms from which to sell themselves. They should contain factual information about the orders, links to websites, and the names of the leaders, but not big sections on why they are the best or most awesome and why you should join now and get a free cookie.

That's pretty much it, was wondering what other people would think of that. Reene 15:43, 11 November 2007 (CST) _{(reposted from Elanthipedia Talk:Policy)}

I agree almost completely. On principle I think Elanthipedia's main article space should be NPOV and informational, with as little subjective content as possible. But I go back and forth about how hardcore to be in terms of enforcing policies like that. We are such a small site, with such a small number of registered users (and even tinier number of active editors), that being too strict about it could alienate some people. And if the community consensus is to include such content, then so be it (although I suspect this is not the case). On the other hand, it seems that many users here are new to wiki's in general and staking out policies like this would set a good example and a firm foundation for future growth. --Farman 11:57, 12 November 2007 (CST)

Ok I think we need to put something about this in our policy section. Let me know what you think of this...

All articles at Elanthipedia are to be written in the Neutral Point of View (NPOV). This means that they are written without any sort of bias or subjective language. In addition to this, articles about history, NPCs, and other "in-character" topics, should maintain an In-Character Point of View (ICPOV). That is, they should be written as if by a character in Elanthia, perhaps not necessarily "your" character, but keeping OOC (out-of-character) references to a minimum. If the article is to have any sort of out of game references, please insert a section titled OOC at the bottom of the article with these notes, or keep the discussion to the article's talk page.

By putting forth these style rules, we are committed to keeping an unbiased index of DragonRealms information which will be useful to all players. Any questions can be directed to the policy section of our Town Green.

Feel free to comment/add other statements you think will make our point clearer to the average contributor.--Naeya ^(talk) 18:38, 18 November 2007 (CST)

I actually don't agree with or else I don't understand the concept of having in-character articles. Does this mean people shouldn't use section tags like "Appearance" or "Conversation Responses"? For example, I just added a lot to the article Daralaendra Suanealaena and don't see how that could be made "in character" without making the information less organized and therefore less useful. --Kraelyst 20:49, 18 November 2007 (CST)

I don't agree with the part about an ICPOV requirement for certain articles. NPOV means no character at all, that articles are written with as little "personality" as is possible, and I'd much prefer that. I shudder to consider reading articles written in a "tisnae" dialect or worse. And Kraelyst's example is a good one; this would limit the kinds of information we could add to these articles. I can imagine adding info relating to game mechanics and behind-the-scenes stuff, but I personally would find that interesting reading in an article about, say, the history of the Dragon Priests, providing the article were well written, researched, and organized.

In any case, I don't think ICPOV is necessary to limit OOC info. For the kind of articles you're talking about, I don't think there's much OOC stuff to add. Anything such as commentary, opinion, predictions on future events, or the like wouldn't be NPOV in the first place and wouldn't be appropriate in a main article anyway. --Farman 22:01, 18 November 2007 (CST)

I didn't in any way mean that they had to be written in dialect, I just meant... oh forget it. We'll just word it to be strictly NPOV and keeping opinions to the talk pages.--Naeya ^(talk) 22:08, 18 November 2007 (CST)

What is the DR Wiki? Issues concerning privacy, editing policy, and the boundary between IG/OOC

There is a really interesting discussion going on right now on the Talk:Natashya page regarding the inclusion of a player character's name in connection with a particular in-game event. I think it touches on a number of issues about the DR Wiki that haven't really been sorted out yet, but which I think merit serious discussion. I would highly recommend reading the linked page before continuing on...

Note: I don't have any connection to the event, player characters involved in the event, or Wiki users involved in the article about the event. Furthermore, I'm not particularly interested in the edits that have been made to the Natashya article. I am, however, very interested in how we think about and use the DR Wiki in a broad sense.

I think part of the reason why people might be sensitive to what is posted on the DR Wiki is because it is not clear how the information here will be used. Is the DR Wiki IG or OOC? The NPOV policy suggets OOC status, but much of what is here could be considered IG background information which characters can reasonably be expected to know. How should the DR Wiki be used? Furthermore, how is it actually used? My guess is that the answer to the latter question will trump the answer to the former.

Let's consider a few questions, moving from specific to general: if a player requests that their character's name not be mentioned on the Wiki, when should that request be honored? What reasons are legitimate for removing a player character's name? When is it legitimate to remove any sort of information from the Wiki?

Here are a few possible scenarios to consider:

• A player character was centrally and publicly involved in an event. The DR Wiki mentions the player character's involvement in the event. The player would prefer that the player character not be mentioned.

• Same as above, but the player character's involvement was not generally public. (Of course, where is the line between public and private? A substantial portion of the DR-playing community likely doesn't know who Lanival is, much less who did what in some event)

• A player character participates in an event and later adds information about that event to the DR Wiki. The GM involved requests that the information be removed because it is (part of a secret event/is part of a game secret, such as how to join the Thieves' guild/annoying).

• An article mentions a player character in a negative light. The player would prefer that this information be removed.

• An event (GM-run or otherwise) occurs about which there is substantial debate as to what actually happened. Players request the exclusion of particular information which does not support their interpretation of events.

I can imagine more scenarios, and I suspect others can imagine many more. As an encyclopedia, including information should be, as a general principle, a good thing. That said, however, there are cases where inclusion of particular information may not serve the goal of being a good encyclopedia. Currently, I don't know that there is any consensus on how these cases should be handled. I think talking about these scenarios (or others) can be useful, so long as we keep in mind that the goal of figuring out general rules for inclusion/exclusion of information from the DR Wiki. --Basselope 23:04, 29 November 2007 (CST)

I'm not going to comment on all your scenarios right now, mostly because it's late and I'm not thinking as clearly as I could be. However, I would hope that Elanthipedia (or as you called it by its former name DRWik) would be used OOCly. Much like information gleaned on the forums or other such venues. Unless specifically stated, IMO, articles much like the Natashya article are for background and informative purposes only. Most of the information can (read: should) be available to all players if they care to look for it. In that vein, all RP should be available to all players if they care to try to join in on events. That brings me to a question... what exactly would you define as a "secret" event? We all pay to play this game, and no participation rights should be held from anyone if they put forth the effort to get to know the plot and RP with it. But I digress...

I really would have liked to know the user's reasons for not wanting his/her name mentioned in the article you cited, besides just "not wanting" the name mentioned. It would have been nice, and would help in this discussion. Like I said on the talk page, I'm not familiar with the events enough to know the extent of their involvement. ... And now I've drawn a blank as to where I was going with this. Will post again tomorrow. --Naeya ^(talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (CST)

I am of the opinion that all information should be shared, as it isn't an IC venue. If people take it in game, well they're probably not worthy of your (general) time. I understand that some people may not want what their character is up to revealed, but having thought long and hard about it (since my character has been involved in shady dealings in the past) it is the truth, and as long as it was presented in as unbiased a way as possible I could deal with it. Clearly not everyone will feel this way, but I think in order to maintain the wikiness and usefulness of the Elanthipedia it should be that way. Perhaps disclaimers reminding people that the information is not IC and should probably not be taken as such? Editing this a bit, because I don't think I was clear. There are things that obviously, from here your character would and (likely should) know. History, general events. It's obviously up to each use to make the call on what they would conceivably know. I lost my train of thought with this, but I hope someone gets what I'm trying to say. --Ysselt 15:14, 30 November 2007 (CST)

As one of the people mentioned in the article I wish my name removed as well as all of the other player character names unless they specifically grant the author the right to include it. Part of roleplaying in DragonRealms as a darker, or even good guy, is hiding the morally gray and/or terrible things that you do. These actions effect the story and remain quiet, yet the main points are still available for Joe Bob from the wider pool of knowledge.

You've all cited that information pulled from non-game sources is OOC, but you have to realize the fallacy. All it takes is one person to mention something, then their friend knows it, and then their friends friends knows it. Suddenly everyone through in game sources has detailed information that originally was not available to the public and there is no turning this back. If this is going to turn into a freedom of information discussion in roleplay then so be it. I am of the opinion that those who seek something out get the information and involvement that they desire (at least with me) if they make an attempt. It comes down to those who I am not familiar with and that know the actions of my character fill me with a sense of privacy invasion.

Reading through the article, the first sentence under "The Triad" section aptly describes the acts of the individuals that Natashya associated with and conjures all of the standard stereotypes in my mind. Going beyond that and naming names does nothing to further the article except to make it more factually correct at the expense of those involved. --Maje 03:22, 1 December 2007 (CST)

As I explained to Naeya, part of my enjoyment from participating in events is how I choose to divulge my experience to others. I like having a sense of ownership over my character's actions, and how I choose to share information about her interactions OOCly. As this is the internet, there are obviously places in which I have no control over where information is posted about my character. However, the wiki format of Elanthipedia does allow me some control, and I choose to take advantage of it.

As far as the Natashya event is concerned, I find that Basselope accurately described my involvement: "A player character was centrally and publicly involved in an event ... but the player character's involvement was not generally public." Due to the nature of my character's profession and various affiliations, knowledge of her involvement with Natashya was limited to few, very specific individuals. There was no indication at the time of my involvement (nor during the article's authorship) that my actions in game would later be reproduced in an OOC format such as Elanthipedia. If I had known, perhaps I would have been more selective with whom I was sharing information.

Naeya wrote, "That brings me to a question... what exactly would you define as a "secret" event? We all pay to play this game, and no participation rights should be held from anyone if they put forth the effort to get to know the plot and RP with it." I agree, in general. However, knowing the plot OOCly does not equal knowing the plot ICly. Even with all the claims that this is an OOC forum, I am perhaps just too pessimistic to have such an outlook. If anything, this experience has taught me to be MORE wary of revealing information than actually sharing it.--Pythea 04:38, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I disagree that people involved in events should necessarily have control over whether their character names appear on the event pages or not. As long as the information is neutral and objective --which is how the Natashya page seemed--, I don't see a problem. Otherwise, we'd have to allow, say, Pathian, to censor MWP pages if he no longer wanted to be known as Tethia's parent for one reason or another. Yes, I'm aware that's a stretch.

The only reason I could see justification for it would be that the event in question is actively being continued. From what I've understood, it has concluded for the most part.--Aetherie 05:49, 1 December 2007 (CST)

The point is not whether the writing is neutral or objective. The point is that as a member of Elanthipedia, I feel I should have the right to choose where my character's name is placed and where it isn't. A tasteful example of how an event can be summarized is the page on Kalag The Black. No specific PCs were mentioned, other than Enef, because the progression of the story did not require specific names. I feel the Natashya storyline can be adequately summarized in a similar way, but the author chooses to disregard the alternative to her version, claiming it will be inaccurate otherwise.

Also, while the Natashya event has slowed down in recent weeks, it has not concluded to my understanding and awareness of events.--Pythea 06:56, 1 December 2007 (CST)

Really interesting discussion, and here's my two cents. I should also state that I wasn't involved in the Natashya event thread and still know almost nothing about it:

We are not a strict encyclopedia like Wikipedia is. Given the much smaller community and much smaller scope, requirements of non-original research and citability aren't as important here. I think we should be less formal than that, which unfortunately means there will necessarily be a bit more messiness. I don't think there's any way to prevent this kind of dust-up from occuring from time to time, but I personally don't mind that, as long as we can all walk away satisfied that things were done fairly.

I do agree that Elanthipedia should be entirely OOC. People come here to learn about DR the game, and everything within it (or around it, behind it) that interests them, not their character.

To the point at hand: the issue of a player wanting their name removed from a history article. There are two competing interests at play, 1) maximum accuracy, and 2) personal wishes of the person in question.

While I believe Elanthipedia should be as accurate and complete as possible, my first impulse is to be generous. If someone wants their name removed, I would call that a personal prerogative, and acquiesce. To do otherwise is to be unkind, and can lead to bad feelings. HOWEVER I believe that right has limits. If the player's involvement was truly central to the event in question, and he/she held a very public role in it, to the extent that removing his/her name would significantly reduce the value of the article about it, then the name should stand. If the involvement was secret or behind-the-scenes, and the player wishes his/her name not to be included, it should be removed.

I disagree with the idea that the default position should be not to include names unless permission is previously and expressly granted, since IMO that is an unreasonable hurdle to put in front of a good-faith editor. That policy would stifle contributions unduly.

Also along those lines, I think it's important to remember that DR is a community game. It's impossible to fully control how you are perceived, and it's impossible to prevent other people from talking about you. Elanthipedia isn't the venue to try and extend that control, either. You have the right to remove your name everywhere it appears, but other people have the equal right to replace it.

So in a nutshell this is what I propose:

• Whether or not to name players involved in events should be based on how public their involvement was, with the bias towards maintaining a player's privacy.
• Editors should respect a player's wishes who does not want his/her character's name included.
• If however that player played such a central and public role that exclusion of his/her identity would make the article significantly less meaningful, then the name should stand.

Now to respond to some of Basselope's thoughts:

"An article mentions a player character in a negative light." --Ideally, the article will neither be positive or negative, it should be neutral and factual. If an article is negative, that's bias and it should be rewritten for a more neutral and reportorial tone.

"Players request the exclusion of particular information which does not support their interpretation of events." -- Again, in this case it sounds like the original material is based on opinion, and thus not neutral enough. I would recommend a section or subarticle that allows inclusion of multiple perspectives. Removing another editor's contributions because you disagree with it but cannot factually disprove it is censorship. If something is clearly and demonstrably false then it should be removed, with a note on the edit and an explanation on the talk page.

"A player character participates in an event and later adds information about that event to the DR Wiki. The GM involved requests that the information be removed because it is (part of a secret event/is part of a game secret, such as how to join the Thieves' guild/annoying). --GM involvement on the wiki has been non-existent (at least, none under any GM names that I am aware of), and a GM user holds no special ability to dictate content here above the ability of other users. Nor does an admin, for that matter. In this case, I think the information should be handled like we handle any other in-game secret.

--Farman 17:34, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I'll be brief, "fully agreed". and in the case of edit-wars we should "of course" protect the pages and an admin/community member could work with the conflicting sides to help find a happy medium. (edit wars are bad). --Callek 00:32, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Would it be unfair to request that if someone wants their name removed (and/or removes it themselves ahead of time), that they post in the talk page with a reason why? --Naeya ^(talk) 17:55, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I would say in the comment and/or the Talk page could be useful (or even required). But I do have to wonder how often that would actually be done, "My name was included in the Mass Murderers in the Sorrow War article, but I only killed two or three people, so I was not a real mass murderer...." is not going to really get typed in its talk page, if they don't want to be associated with that article at all. (To use a far-fetched example) --Callek 00:32, 2 December 2007 (CST)

My name got mentioned so I thought I would weigh in on the topic. I don't feel I would have the right to censor myself from the wiki in regards to my role in the Mirror Wraith Prophecy. It's an event where others were involved and there were many witnesses. If you see or know about something in game I say it's absolutely fair to post about it here...whether I may want it told or not. I think the Natashaya event falls under the same light. If it's relatively known to be factual by several individuals in game then sure, feel free to post it up here as valuable information.

--Pathian 20:50, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I agree here --Callek 00:32, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Just one more thing ;-) ... For literally years the DR community was held to "IC-ok" news standards which were used by MANY people, "The Wrens Nest", which I repeatedly heard of people as using in an IC way, (as the site was designed to let you refer to the info ICly). All the knowledge on events etc there, was based on names known, not "Oooo this guys an NPC" or "well player-character Callek stood up to the gorbesh in the lute room". it was simply "Wren did..." etc. And for that matter, I believe many people thought Wren was a real player character (having been a part of the Bard guild for a while before being in that event). So sometimes the line between "player character" and "GMNPC" can be quite thin. --Callek 00:32, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I echo Pathian's sentiments. As far as I'm concerned this is a completely OOC venture. I've consulted it as such, and have written what little I have with that in mind. To subject this place to the typical backbiting, social proxy-wars, and moronic attempts at personal sabotage that so thoroughly permeate the greater events community would be a great disservice. Allowing people to patrol and censor the content here to further their wider strategy toward whatever end they're seeking from or in DR would be a bad move. --Urwin

Wow! Lots of interesting stuff here since I last posted. A few thoughts (brief because I accidentally deleted my first version):

1) Pythea asks about how to determine how secret an event is. One possible brief definition: not public. But I think that in the sentences immediately before asking that question, she provides a good description for secret: "my character's profession and various affiliations, knowledge of her involvement with Natashya was limited to few, very specific individuals. There was no indication at the time of my involvement (nor during the article's authorship) that my actions in game would later be reproduced in an OOC format such as Elanthipedia." I think one weakness of this description, though, is that it concerns secrecy at the time the event occurs, not at some later point. Can others come up with a better definition?

2) Farman notes that my hypothetical "article that mentions a character in a negative light" is impossible in the case of an article written from NPOV. I'd like to modify what I wrote earlier, to be "an article that mentions actions a character took which would be viewed negatively by most." In this case, there is a real threat to particular kinds of roleplaying if people take OOC information into the game.

3) Callek brings up some great stuff about the Wren's Nest. It's too bad people don't use it more. That said, I'm thinking about how the Wren's Nest (or other quasi-IC venues) should be treated with respect to secrecy. What happens if somebody spills the beans about a secret event at the Wren's Nest, in the play.net IC forums, or just yells about it in front of the bank for a week?

4) Naeya makes a good suggestion that players wanting information excluded should post to the relevant discussion page. This way, the entire community can reach a consensus on the issue rather than a single editor making that decision, potentially from a position of ignorance about the event/character(s) involved. So, I've modified Farman's (very nice) proposed policies:

• A player wishing to have information about a character excluded should express that desire in the relevant discussion page(s).
• The player's wishes for privacy should be weighed against how public and significant the character's involvement was.
• Where reasonable, the player's wishes should be granted.
• If however that player played such a central and public role that exclusion of his/her identity would make the article significantly less meaningful, then the name should stand.

How does that sound? I think there is still a missing piece with the issue of 'secret', but I think we are making valuable progress towards some sort of policy on when and why to exclude information from the DR Wiki. Let's keep the thoughts coming. --Basselope 03:36, 2 December 2007 (CST)

My thoughts.

Elanthipedia is a resource with the potential to make the game world a richer place for everyone who uses it by serving as a repository of background information. For it to fulfill that potential and to be true to the wiki concept, its articles have to be complete to the extent possible and factually correct to the extent they can be checked. When an article is about a historical event, the who, what, why, when and where all need to be addressed as accurately as possible. An article where names have been withheld is no longer a complete or factually correct article, and that betrays the wiki concept and does a disservice to Elanthipedia's readers.

Some people have claimed they have a privacy right and that their right to privacy entitles them to control any information on this wiki that relates to them. I think this is a fallacy. Where events are concerned, they have become part of DR's ongoing story and their deeds or words are part of the historical record. Elanthipedia's primary purpose is to make that historical record accessible, so its first duty must be to correctly representing the events.

If Elanthipedia took the position that its first duty should be to protecting privacy rights, or that privacy rights should be respected "whenever possible", its mission would become hopelessly mired in the self-interests of reader-editors. Elanthipedia would become a propaganda page, and that would destroy its value as a repository of information.

Some people have argued that information should be redacted or suppressed because its release might cause them to come to harm or damage their reputations. This is a valid concern. Elanthipedia moderators should weigh the interest of preserving the historical record against the potential of harming an individual. However, this should be a strict test. If the information is part of the historical record - that is, it relates to Events - the information should be released because Elanthipedia's first duty is to preserving the historical record. If the information is strictly personal, then the information should be suppressed only if the subject requesting the suppression can demonstrate that its release would do them material harm.

Are any events secret? IC, yes. OOC, no. All events are part of the historical record. No event should be censored from Elanthipedia because it is secret, because Elanthipedia is an OOC resource and there are no OOC secret events.

Elanthipedia is particularly important for preserving information about events that are IG secrets. By definition, no one can find out about those events because the people who are involved don't talk about them IG. Anyone who knows to ask someone about the secret event will already know about the event, and hence not have to ask. Those events are nonetheless part of the historical record and constitute meaningful background information that players (not to say their characters) have a right know about.

To summarize my thoughts, I believe that Elanthipedia's primary mission is to be a repository of DR lore. To function in that capacity its articles must be as complete as possible and factually correct to the extent that they can be checked. Edits to articles should be allowed only when they further the goal of making an article more complete or they correct facts. No article should be suppressed unless it is purely personal and demonstrably harmful to the subject of the article.

Objectivity and completeness are what make Elanthipedia a resource worth using. I believe the moderators should definitely define a process to arbitrate disputes that arise over matters of fact. Defining processes that attempt to accomodate personal preferences for secrecy defeats the Elanthipedia concept and compromises the virtues that make Elanthipedia valuable.--Mazrian 10:19, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I agree that the first principle is to accurately record useful information pertaining to DR, but that does not mean that other considerations must always be severely subjugated to that and always take the back seat. There is a balance that must be reached. I believe that the principle behind allowing personal requests such as we are discussing is to support building the community and maintain good will among and between different editors. If we took a draconian policy of "always maximum information about everything, all else be damned" without at least considering personal exceptions such as this, I think we would quickly find that noone will want to contribute. This is why NPOV is so important, to try and stay above the drama (it's not always possible, I know). When articles include information about active player characters, it is hard to maintain neutrality since personalities and relationships get involved. That is why I think we should lean towards respecting personal wishes, in accordance with the proposed policy. I don't mind sacrificing a little bit of accuracy or completeness if the alternative means endless edit wars and alienating people. Note that I said a little bit of accuracy. IMO privacy requests should be respected whenever possible, and I don't think doing so will destroy the wiki, on the contrary I believe that it will help preserve it. "Whenever possible" doesn't mean "always" and it doesn't mean "never".

I think we're all in basic agreement here, and it seems that the real question is about exactly where to draw the line, not whether or it should be drawn at all. I think that's always going to come down to a judgment call on the part of editors, and the personal wishes of the people cited. In other words, it's always going to be messy. I don't mind that, either. --Farman 12:17, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Those are all great points, Farman. Collaboration is the strength of a wiki format, so a policy that encourages collaboration is ideal. However, the solution to the problem of today is to take a principled stand that will solidify the wiki's credibility tomorrow and thereafter.

If you go along with personal requests in this case, you will only have peace until someone else with a self-interest in changing history decides to initiate an edit war and claim a personal exemption. You will not be able to maintain NPOV, because the final forms of all your articles will have to conform to the POV of the most committed self-interested editor.

Taking the principled stand is the only way to rise above the drama you say you want to avoid.

If you take a principled stand and disallow personal exemptions except for purely personal information that is harmful, you may lose some of the people who are clamoring for exemptions now, true. However, those are short-term consequences and I submit that the people clamouring for censorship are precisely the people who are not interested in sharing information in a public forum anyway. There is nothing gained from trying to keep them in the community except that they will stop fussing in the short term.

However, if you stand on principles, people will accept the terms of collaboration on the wiki and will understand the principles behind those terms. You will gain contributors, not lose them! A principled policy is precisely designed to protect contributors by shielding them from self-interested censorship.

If you want to rise above the drama, preserve NPOV and grow the community, the right choice is to stand on principle and not do the expediant thing. --Mazrian 13:13, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Another point I just thought of, that I haven't seen expressed... The "trading" situation. Now, officially trading characters among players is against the Terms of Service, but it is done, and has been done. I can see points for both sides of this argument for people who do trade, which are slightly orthogonal to the actual points brought up thus far.

pro-character names in articles

When taking control of your newly traded/purchases character, you can learn about key historical events your character was part of, and roleplay according to the characters history. Which as with any character you have, will be influenced by your own personality, likes, and dislikes.

anti-character names in articles

A character you are now taking control of has done some very shady things in the past as far as events. These things could very well be why the person wanted to sell the character to begin with, or well.. maybe not. But either way, you consider yourself a caring and generous person and intended to use your new (higher-level) character that way, but don't want his/her past actions known to the world.

While I can understand the reasoning against it as articulated here, I'd be more apt to ask people who do trade to find an IC explanation for their character/behavior change rather than simply go with 'omission' of facts/information. --Callek 16:47, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Another issue in this situation is primary versus secondary or further removed source. I believe that primary sources SHOULD get the benefit out of the doubt at least initially on accuracy in an article. When one or more primary sources disagree with a secondary source, as is happening in this article, I believe the primary source should be followed unless some type of overwhelming evidence or a pattern of behavior emerges which would call this primary source into question. --Navak 19:17, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Point of clarification. The poster of the Natashya article is a primary source for most of it, or referred to a primary source for the information.--Mazrian 21:28, 2 December 2007 (CST)

If the poster is referring to a primary source, the poster isn't a primary source. Some of the issues held in contention are those presented by secondary or further removed sources versus a primary source. --Navak 21:45, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Navak, you're pushing a weak point. She was present for a lot of the events she's talking about and no one is really disputing the facts of the matter.--Mazrian 21:51, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I completely agree with Farman. Although this is a Wiki and we want as much comprehensive information as possible, we should not be so strict as to disregard people's wishes about their own characters' names. I think the three governing rules Farman suggested were dead on when considering when to allow a person to remove their own character's name from an article:

• Whether or not to name players involved in events should be based on how public their involvement was, with the bias towards maintaining a player's privacy.
• Editors should respect a player's wishes who does not want his/her character's name included.
• If however that player played such a central and public role that exclusion of his/her identity would make the article significantly less meaningful, then the name should stand.

My only caveat is that the first point makes it sound like posters should consider these things prior to posting - I would generally say post now and if there is a problem then follow the above mentioned guidelines. What this means to the current situation is that the names of Maje and Pythea are not so central to the plot that leaving them out effects any understanding of the plot whatsoever... so leave their names out!

p.s. I think since this discussion is so long we should move it to its own subpage --Kraelyst 20:16, 3 December 2007 (CST)

I have held off on contributing my two cents in favor letting people who aren't directly involved in the spawning conflict have their say. It's my work; of course I'll defend it. So I won't respond here to the vast amounts of personal criticism this issue has spawned, nor will I rehash the arguments that should be taking place on that article's talk page here. I will address the more general issues of secrecy and privacy, though, and I will try to choose my words carefully.

On the most basic level, I feel these terms are too subjective and subject to wild and unreasonable interpretation and application. First, to the general ideas of publicity and secrecy - how do you define it? What is considered "too" secret to include with regards to events or characters? The response to this question that rolls off the tongue of most of the people on this page is "public knowledge" - what is reasonable for your average Joe to know about. Yet if that became our threshold for withholding information, the vast majority of the Kalag The Black article should and must be culled in the interests of secrecy. The Satarra article should very well be utterly scrapped as well, as shockingly few even among Thieves know that she is an Enforcer (and her public identity, oddly enough, isn't mentioned at all there). Indeed, the vast majority of the Natashya article itself would have to be completely removed in favor of painting a portrait of only her public facade and nothing else.

Directly following this and using these same claims of "public knowledge" as support, we have the errant claims of individual privacy, the insistence of freedom from accountability and documentation regardless of involvement and impact, and proclamations of complete and total creative ownership of any documentation regarding either character or their actions akin to the woes of a plagiarized copyright holder. If you took this privacy argument to the same sort of logical conclusion as the secrecy argument, you would be left with the distinct possibility of being forced to tell the story of Tethia's conception without mentioning Pathian, the tale of Velmix without giving regards to Magmus, or the incident of Arilana's assassination and second miscarriage without implicating Enef or Meanne. You may call it the right of the player to erase their character's impact on the course of our setting's history and flow of cause and effect, but to do so deprives us of valuable context and even more valuable understanding of what truly happened and why it happened the way it did. You destroy and clip away and remove, and in doing so leave holes which spawn questions that may never be allowed to be answered, and in doing this you diminish everything that may rely on the story you are trying to tell.

Put plainly, events in DR are a strange and fickle thing to quantify. Their impact from the perspective of PCs and their involvement is undoubtedly significant yet largely undocumented and so often woefully underestimated in large part due to this same lack of documentation - which leads to the vicious cycle of secrecy and backbiting and which has likely lead us here today. Like it or loathe it though, those PCs choose (because yes, it is a choice, and to pretend it was thoughtlessly thrust upon them against their will is insulting to both the GMs and the participants) to go out of their way to participate in these events and in doing so alter the course of the event and indeed the playable history of the game. We exist in a game where every day we make choices that may conceivably negatively affect our character and how they may be perceived, and we are forced to live with these choices without anyone around to bail us out should it reach the ears of someone we don't want to know about it. Why should these events, which by definition are public in that they affect a greater number of people and are guided by the proverbial Hand of God, be any different? We are not, to be blunt for a moment, talking about something as ridiculous as who is text-fucking who here. We are talking about significant and lasting events that can have a huge impact on the entire greater scheme of things. The interwoven nature of most DR events makes this even more true.

The path of thoughtless censure some are asking for would be, quite frankly, unacceptable in the interests of sharing accurate and unbiased information, and I would hope that much is obvious. I do not believe any reasonable contributor to this wiki believes that this is the course of action we should be taking with regards to these articles. Yet that is what some people are proposing we do, without foresight or forethought to what precisely their proposals would actually mean. I don't mean this as an attack on the people suggesting it - it is, on the surface, a reasonable enough suggestion in the wake of undue discord. However, taken to its logical conclusion, with full knowledge that it would be misused and abused by those inspired by hubris, avarice, malice or ignorance, we can see that this is obviously not a productive solution to our problem, and does nothing but hurt the wiki and its casual users that just come here looking for answers.

Now, I realize I have been exceedingly verbose, and I thank those of you that have stuck with me so far. However, the simple fact is that there is no simple and easy solution, no all-encompassing policy that can be written to prevent vitriolic accusations and bad feelings. Indeed, as the wiki expands and has information added to it that may be distasteful to certain parties for whatever reason, these disputes will become more and more common, the claims and arguments at times more and more hysterical and defensive, and occasionally the information itself unverifiable beyond those who were specifically there to witness what happened (which I was, in this case, but that's neither here nor there). At the end of the day, the core user base of the wiki - those that have established themselves as valuable contributors and have added a great deal of content of their own volition - will have to accept, in the interests of completeness and accuracy, that there will be times when they simply have to do something that someone somewhere doesn't like, and write what they know to the best of their knowledge. I would ask, given this, that this same core established group of users be given the benefit of the doubt. Should Aetherie say a PC was central to the Dragon Priest crusade and that PC creates an account to purge any mention of them from those articles, we should side with Aetherie by default and enforce the will of the editor that is trying to expand upon the wiki, not diminish it. Without very good reasons offered for why, reasons beyond 'because I just don't want it there' or 'because it makes me look bad,' we should not allow people to cull or destroy pieces of the wiki. Factual accuracy is a valid concern and one that should be taken into consideration, but vanity or shame is not and should not be a force allowed to sway the balance.

That's about all I've got to add to this general issue. I will address a few odd and spurious claims regarding the Natashya article in particular on that article's talk page as well. I appreciate everyone that took the time to read all of that. :) Reene 03:49, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Wiki vandalism

Well, it looks like we've had our first few cases of vandalism over the past couple of days. Everything appears to be ok, though. A big thank you to the admins. One question, out of curiousity: is future vandalism by the responsible parties prevented by IP blocking? --Basselope 00:41, 3 December 2007 (CST)

It should be, yes. The violators are prevented from creating new accounts from that IP range. As for our policy about this type of vandalism, I tried to go with a warn first, ban second approach, and we see where that got us. From now on, it's 1 strike you're out with this kind of hateful language and pornographic material vandalism.--Naeya ^(talk) 01:04, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Fully agreed, Naeya, and well handled. --Farman 17:44, 5 December 2007 (CST)