Boder wrote:
I think it might be a chance to salvage old, rotting gdnet articles on the new wiki, but would that be possible because the old articles are copyrighted?
We will, at the very least, use the wiki as the publication platform for articles. This makes it easier to edit them - instead of needing to use external tools and specific formatting, editors will have access once they log into the site. This will help with fixing typos and other errors.
One thing using a wiki will allow us to do, also, is designate more members of the community as Community Contributors or Guardians (or whatever branding you want to slap on it) and let them help us with reviewing the 2,000+ articles on the site. We want to preserve all the articles, but we want to place clear editorial statements that certain articles are primarily of historical interest or applicable only in certain contexts, etc. The standard form would be to place that note at the top using a custom tag, then place a more comprehensive explanation at the bottom. Without making the article as a whole public domain, even this adds tremendous value for everyone.
As for contributing them to the public domain wiki, the articles are the property of the authors, to which we have been granted a perpetual but non-exclusive license (unless we paid money to commission them, which is rare). In the instance that we own the article outright (commissioned) or can secure a release from authors, something Richard and Drew have expressed interest in pursuing, we will contribute them to the wiki. Ultimately, though, I think it's best if an article intended for static publication remain a reference, with a new wiki article - or several - with broader scope emerging that may link to it if it contains valuable original work.
Alternately, we could maintain the original article statically, then have an open errata section editable by all. There are a lot of different opportunities here, so we'll be putting proposals before the community as the platform stabilizes.
Boder wrote:
Some people are concerned about the informal, personal pages. I don't think they would be deleted, but maybe moved or if they really aren't helpful, they could be deleted after being discussed on the talk page.
No, they won't be deleted. Not as policy. We've been talking internally about something called "GDNet Home," which takes your current profile page and expands it to list projects you've been a part of, workshops you've taken, showcase contributions, etc in a way that essentially constitutes a game development community portfolio. You'd also be able to advertise your availability for various positions, whether commercial or no, and services you offer.
The personal pages and our current user profiles will probably merge to become "GDNet Home", so
everyone who is a registered member of GDNet will have one. Being a wiki, of course, people can create personal pages as wiki articles, and we won't object to this as policy. We'll leave that to the community to determine its cultural preferences.
Boder wrote:
To me, I've seen the gpwiki recently floundering in spam and not adding as much new content. To combat spam, it is possible to allow only registered users to edit, but at the same time you miss out on a lot of typos being fixed.
I'm adamantly opposed to registered-user-only editing. I've made contributions to Wikipedia, for instance - typo corrections, factual corrections, grammar revisions - but I've never registered for an account.
Boder wrote:
The wiki is in transfer now, so when and where can we begin contributing again?
I'll have to conference with Superpig on that one. I'm not sure how much adjustment he wants to make before making the wiki live - user integration? content guideline publication? I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
