Discworld & Pratchett Wiki:Biers

This page is restricted to Administrators ("Sysops"). Others may discuss wiki policy, questions or suggestions at the Mended Drum.

Current Staff

Sanity (ab ovo) - Founder and Administrator, resident in Gouda, Netherlands. Hasn't participated much in the visible proceedings recently, but continues to keep the machinery fueled and oiled.
Death (ab ovo) - Now administers the German DiscWiki; still visits to plant those "Deutsch" links at the lower left and occasional comments.
Old Dickens (23 June 2006) - Toronto area
Fhh98 (20 September 2006) - USA
AgProv (24 April 2007) - Manchester area
Iron Hippo (4 July 2007) - Uppsala, Sweden
TC01 (10 October 2009) - USA

Annotation, again

I'll start with my perennial question. How can we keep from being overwhelmed by annotations? Here's my general opinion, written long ago:

Annotations come in several types: the factual, opinions, and the merely superficial. These are apart from the quality of the observation, which can range from clever and scholarly through stunningly obvious to complete misunderstanding. Factual notes can be supported by internal or external references. The very superficial need no reference, but then they don't need to exist, either. Opinions are the sticking point in a wiki. Wikis are for editing; the whole idea is that the content can be challenged and corrected or removed where it's not supportable. Opinions can't be challenged. If something convinces you that Wyrd Sisters was actually written by the Earl of Oxford I may think you're nuts, but it's an opinion - legally just as good as mine.

Unfortunately, there's no separation of these types and no separation of annotation from regular wiki entries (as there was supposed to be originally). More unfortunately, they get mixed in with the real articles as newbies and some who should know better fail to grasp the distinction. As a means of expanding the source of annotations beyond afp, annotation pages where Leo could find them were a reasonable idea. Articles full of "ooh, ooh, teacher! I get it! Look at me!" and wild surmise are annoying. Why not have just two types: the supportable, which then become indistinguishable from regular content, and the rest, which are kept separate. (The supportable notes could still be added to annotation pages as well, of course.)

Now of course annotations are very popular and we already have masses of them which may be a struggle to weed out, but don't they have to be stemmed somehow before the wiki part is buried in them? --Old Dickens 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting example here, where there's a paragraph of related information, that meanders around the issue a little and provides not much more than additional background notes aimed at people who might not be up to speed on the Utopia/Dystopia concept. This is followed by a one-line Annotation that nails it dead in the fewest possible words.

And I know I can be as guilty of both sorts of Annotating (the useful and the tenuous) as anyone, when the frenzy takes me! --AgProv 00:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an example of two types. I'd put the first in the round file and the second in the article body. You, of course, write lots of them, but they tend to be factual or at least amusing (again, I'd rather have them in the article proper or an annotation page, as appropriate). --Old Dickens 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I still support the "annotation pages" idea, making seperate annotation pages for books and important articles spanning many books.

Also, perhaps a new "Annotation submissions" page can be created and we insist all annotations be put there (possibly with a note on the Policy page, the Getting Started guide, or on the Main Page). Then we could sort the annotations from the meaningless to the meaningful, leave the rejected ones there and move the meaningful ones to the annotation pages. Maybe if this was done, those annotation pages would be protected so only a sysop could do it?

The trouble is that either solution requires contributors not posting annotations on regular pages. What do we do if someone refuses to stop posting annotations on a regular page? A ban, even one for a day only, seems a bit excessive, but I don't know. TC01 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If we decide that's policy, then we edit them. Edit warriors get blocked. --Old Dickens 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(It could be Manchester, NH or Toronto, NSW, but Uppsala seems unique, actually.) --Old Dickens 01:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The annotation that TC01 just segregated from the Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon Night is one of those opinion pieces that drive me to a homicidal rage. (Why not any of the "Illuminated Brethren" or the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elk, for that matter?) TC01 and I seem to agree on the need for separate annotation pages. AgProv seems to support free annotation but doesn't say. Iron Hippo, who proposed this page, and Fhh98 are mute. You might hope for a simple majority out of five sysops. --Old Dickens 01:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like we're anywhere closer to getting a majority since no one else wants to comment on this, it seems... Fhh98? Iron Hippo? TC01 03:43, 2 September 2010 (CEST)

I don't mind annotations within an article as long as they are marked off into a separate section. --Fhh98 04:46, 2 September 2010 (CEST)

If annotations are to go inside the article there can't be anything ambigous about it. For example why trolls and billygoats are a sensitive matter; anyone having ever heard the fairytale of The Billygoats Gruff (Bockarna Bruse in Swedish) recognizes this in split second yet I remember someone well-read in the Usenet-days who toally had missed it. If the reference is less than 110% sure they can be put on a separate page (or not att all) Iron Hippo 16:46, 2 September 2010 (CEST)

OK, I guess that's a simple majority but not much of a consensus. I give up. --Old Dickens 01:13, 3 September 2010 (CEST)

Death, Tod or Rene

The user Rene posts a plethora of edits which are links to the kraut-diskwiki, all of them good. Can we make Rene an sysop so his/her editd are autopatrolled? Iron Hippo 00:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the link for you.

But I like the idea. TC01 00:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Rene is a sysop over there, I believe; I don't know if he even wants to be, here. We know him already and he can comment if he wants, he doesn't need to be on the board. --Old Dickens 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He'd have to comment on the Drum or on your talk page/Sanity's talk page, though. On that subject, I remember Sanity promoted you to bureaucrat- can you make people sysops now too? Or is that power limited to Sanity? I can't remember. TC01 04:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what about a new user rights group with autopatrolled edits instead? TC01 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He could be a "bot", but I'm missing the advantage of being "autopatrolled"; who cares? --Old Dickens 20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy Decision?

See Talk:Kreeblephor re: categorisation. --Old Dickens 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that it was seemed a little weird putting a character article in both Discworld characters and _species_ characters. I just did it there because that seemed to be the policy- a dwarf or troll or undead would automatically get placed in their category. However, it is true that that only happens when we know the character is a dwarf, troll, or undead, so I guess characters that we're merely assuming are human should not be flagged as a human character? TC01 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual characters aren't a problem; one might be Human, Supporting, Serial and a Wizard. I don't think mere mentions need to be categorised further, particularly in Human characters, which is pretty large. Generally, I'd say a character needs to exemplify some aspect of the category, but in the Other Races that could be relaxed because there just aren't so many examples. (There are 396 "Human characters"; I'd probably cull them down to one page.) --Old Dickens 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar Link

I'm moving this discussion off of a User Talk page.

Anyway, it's restricted but people can still read it. It doesn't hurt and is more open. --Fhh98 01:27, 12 September 2010 (CEST)

LegoMyEggo

Ok, am I missing something? What's this user been doing wrong? Sure, Lego didn't sign a comment, no big deal, we asked him too. Knmatt's last revision doesn't appear to have warranted the comment or warning. If you look at the diff, the only change is the addition of a period. Granted I haven't been watching as closely since I don't yet have a copy of I Shall Wear Midnight but I haven't seen any serious problems. So again, have I missed something? --Fhh98 03:59, 17 September 2010 (CEST)

No, look more closely. He? created yet another big red error after a long line of others along with much unnecessary speculation. As I said, eventually it looks like vandalism. --Old Dickens 13:39, 17 September 2010 (CEST)

Obviously salutary: now he can do ten in a row with no problem. --Old Dickens 21:19, 17 September 2010 (CEST)

Fundamentals

AgProv reasonably suggests discussing my small rant in Talk:The Long Man in Biers, although part of the problem is that no one else seems to recognise the problems. Can we start from first principles and decide what it is that we want to do here?

Four years ago, I thought we set out to create the definitive encyclopedia of Discworld and other Terry Pratchett creations within the premier Pratchett fan site. The contributors then were a pretty compact group of experts, somewhat known to each other and with considerable mutual trust. We generally sought to expand on The New Discworld Companion, writing "in-universe" and embracing original research, but sticking to factual and supportable accounts of the canon in an attempt to provide a credible reference for fans trying to recall some obscure point or newcomers who'd just heard of the Discworld. Now I wonder if the objective has changed to providing an outlet for anyone who wants to "have written", a sort of specialised MySpace.

I have called myself the "Editor Quia Nemo Vult" because I began by improving the spelling and awkward constructions of some of the founding experts who had English as a second language and continued to do a lot of the minor editing and some major reconstructions. There are now too many contributors to keep up with: some good, some simply filling space, and some dreadful. The wiki is becoming bloated with excess, sometimes duplicated, and poorly ordered information. Major articles, especially, the popular pages on major characters and concepts, become unreadable: piecemeal, poorly organised and confusing.

Is it everyone's right to speculate, express his opinion or put his tag on the wall, or should there be an educational purpose and structure to the wiki (and standards of coherence and readability)? --Old Dickens 01:57, 29 October 2010 (CEST)

Only facts proven from the canonical books - and any inferences that can reasonably be asserted from the evidence - belong on the article page itself. This might be supplemented by any "annotations" notes demonstrating where the idea might have originated, or to identify the potential source from which the original inspiration particle was launched that hit Terry's receptor nodes. As said before, these are essentially speculative, as we don't have a direct window into Terry's thought processes - but identifying the distorted routes by which Roundworld reflects on the Disc and makes it so real is a worthy spin-off activity in its own right!

Speculation and discussion, for instance of where the known evidence might lead, belongs on the secondary Discussion page.

Wholly speculative articles and essays -perhaps even the most literate and readable ones - might still have their place under "Discussions" but I suspect ultimately belong elsewhere, perhaps on Dr Whiteface's most interesting Fanon Wiki idea which he has linked here. A classic example, which we agonised about at the time, was the inclusion of an "Ankh-Morpork Undertaking" tube-line map, projecting the city of the future linked by subway trains. This was almost totally speculative, yet was so good, so well realised, such a perfect visual pastiche of the London Underground map, that an extraordinary editorial decision was made to allow it to stay (provided it was clearly identified as being one step away from fan fiction). In short, a "fictional" article, yet so in keeping with the spirit of the Discworld that we had little choice...

I'll try to come back with more thoughts later. --AgProv 10:06, 29 October 2010 (CEST)

I recognize the problem, and the pain of needing to clean up other people's edits...

A workable solution to this would be required citations of some sort, for major multi-book articles. Rollback edits if they aren't cited somewhere. See below for two examples.

In The Colour of Magic, Rincewind admits that he is a coward.

Or:

Rincewind is a coward. (The Colour of Magic)

Or maybe in some other style. I prefer the first though, since it flows better.

Annotation cleanup is part of this problem. When annotations and article text aren't distinguished between, it probably causes people to think "I can post whatever speculation I want here!" Maybe we should revisit that topic too. TC01 22:57, 29 October 2010 (CEST)

I like this idea, but then the practical details jump up and bite you in the burro. We'd need a classification system, not as elaborate as Wikipedia's, but identifying "articles of major importance" and preferably a "Grade B". Then these would need to be cleaned up by trustworthy editors (I've done this; I was balding before but not so gray, and they weren't as big as some of the problems now). Still, I could give it a go. We'd have to put put out a call to the known literate and active editors (and only about four occur to me immediately) beside me and thee. AgProv, of course, is capable but well-known as a player, not an arranger¹; Iron Hippo may feel, wrongly, hampered by his English-as-a-second-language, and Fhh98 manages to resist writing anything (admirable restraint, perhaps, but odd). So who's up for the challenge?

1. Credit to Bob Seger for a metaphor I've loved for years. --Old Dickens 02:37, 30 October 2010 (CEST)

AgProv provides a nearly inarguable description of the rules for an annotated wiki and brings up an exception that proves the rule. This is one reason we're here as sysops: we're charged with deciding when something is valuable, despite the (feeble) rules. My question was whether there should be rules in the first place. Following up the easy part of TC01's idea, I came up with these:

• Suggested list for semi-protection and edit notice:

Havelock Vetinari... Samuel Vimes... Rincewind... Death... Angua von Überwald... Carrot Ironfoundersson... Granny Weatherwax... Ankh-Morpork... Susan Sto Helit... Ankh-Morpork City Watch... Nobby Nobbs... Unseen University... Moist von Lipwig... Mustrum Ridcully... Librarian... Nanny Ogg... Death of Rats... Tiffany Aching... Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler... Sybil Ramkin... Cohen the Barbarian... Assassins' Guild... Multiple exclamation marks... The Luggage... Ponder Stibbons... Igor... Fred Colon... Wizards' Magic... Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

• Template:POP

This Popular Page has been protected from editing by unregistered users. Editing by others should concentrate on improving the presentation and reducing its size where feasible rather than expanding. Additions considered unnecessary by the administration may be reverted.

I actually found six current registered users I might trust to help with the cleanup of these. I can't guess how many of them would be willing to take on the aggravation. At most, it's not many for a big job; we could hope that the restriction and notice alone would help over time. --Old Dickens 02:40, 31 October 2010 (CEST)

Vandalism

Yo! Fhh98! Do you know a way to REVERT TO (over multiple edits)? This could be slow, else. --Old Dickens 19:22, 13 April 2011 (CEST)

It seems to have stopped for the moment. I e-mailed Sanity to suggest protection, but maybe it won't be necessary. Good work, those men! It's pretty well cleaned up. --Old Dickens 12:56, 14 April 2011 (CEST)

As it seems to keep coming back, editing is now only possible from registered user accounts until further notice. --Sanity 22:56, 2 May 2011 (CEST)

Ah, thank you! We were getting snowed under - Old Dickens most of all, as I suspect the hacker is operating from the same time zone, long after Western Europe calls it a night and goes to bed. Now we have a little space to track down and tidy the hacked edits that have slipped through the net. --AgProv 23:00, 2 May 2011 (CEST)

More Vandalism

Question for Fhh98: Do you suppose the scumbag has a program clever enough to get through the arithmetic test, or he's just sufficiently life-deprived to waste all that time? --Old Dickens 02:10, 3 June 2011 (CEST)

math tests are a pretty simple captcha test. Fhh98 03:11, 3 June 2011 (CEST)

...but Sanity said he had a problem installing reCAPTCHA, although I seem to recall the fuzzy-character-reading element being there before. It's over my head. --Old Dickens 03:35, 3 June 2011 (CEST)

Going by the time intervals between appearance of a new troll following deletion of the old, therre appears to be a 20-25 minute delay. This suggests somebody trolling manually, physically re-registering a new identity on a rolling ISP, rather than a machine program that would add new trolls far more frequently. Either that, or they're wasting their time trying to get up to speed on new software.

BTW, I'm not happy about "EufemiaWalton", who while "she" hasn't yet messed with any articles, has uploaded a user page in which links to one commercial site feature far too suspiciously often in the text. Keep an eye on her? --AgProv 11:44, 3 June 2011 (CEST)

Use of "f" rather than "ph" in the username suggests North American English....

"Flip" belonged to Cisco Systems but they seem to be dumping it. This may be a scam or the Chinese producer trying to unload them but it's sure spam. --Old Dickens 16:14, 3 June 2011 (CEST)

The electronic cigarette attack may be real spam. There's a huge outbreak of it lately, probably related to the recent US FDA attempt to control them (this probably at the urging of the Tobacco Industry). The e-cigarette biz seems to be just as sleazy as Big Tobacco. They even have secondary sites purporting to deal with e-cig spam which just deliver more advertising. They don't seem very bright, though; their spam attack on a "safe" e-mail site for children in Utah won't win them much political support and they're not likely to sell the first unit out of this wiki. Google electronic cigarette fda or electronic cigarette spam. --Old Dickens 15:19, 5 June 2011 (CEST)