Page 2 of 5

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 04 Sep 2009 19:50
by Redstar
I'll start it if we have some idea of what we even want to do.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 00:31
by SandRider
no Keith.

ever.

period.

end of line.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 00:49
by TheDukester
Redstar wrote:providing all documented information in an educated manner.

Fuck that.

Redstar wrote:If we want to focus solely on true canon, then we're better off forming a new wiki ...

Yes.

Redstar wrote:How to best go about compromising the two canons in this wiki is what I'm concerned about.

Waste of time.

+++++

Also: what SR said.

If you want to make a nice DUNE wiki, then go for it. But, for crying out loud, what would be the point of including officially sanctioned fanfic?

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 00:58
by SandRider
I love you, Duke.

serioulsy.

leave your wife & kids and come on down here.

I'll even let you sleep in the big house.

(chaniluv's getting the bunkhouse with the mexicans when he come out here on "holiday")

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 01:48
by TheDukester
Easy there, Tex! :lol:

See how you feel when you sober up in the morning. You're still too emotional right now with the disappointing night on the gridiron.

Plus, I'd miss the little ankle-biters. They can be a pain, but they're pretty cute.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 02:42
by Redstar
TheDukester wrote:
Redstar wrote:providing all documented information in an educated manner.

Fuck that.

If you want to make a nice DUNE wiki, then go for it. But, for crying out loud, what would be the point of including officially sanctioned fanfic?

Choosing not to acknowledge the fanfic only allows for others to guess why it's not present and assume we're censoring. That invites edit wars and ostracizes us from various communities.

Allowing that information to be present, however, and providing sources that detail inconsistencies and bad reception is more helpful to our cause than simply pretending nuDune doesn't exist.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 03:51
by lotek
do we aim to make a Dune fact searcher or a pointer to the discrepancies between FH's and the Others', or both?

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:07
by TheDukester
Redstar wrote:Choosing not to acknowledge the fanfic only allows for others to guess why it's not present and assume we're censoring.

So what?

First of all: how many preeks have you run into whose opinions you really value? Second: it's a free internet; anyone who would be upset by this hypothetical "pure" DUNE wiki would have every opportunity to start their own project somewhere else. Third: is allowing any McDune content really adding anything of value? I say again: it is no better than officially sanctioned fanfic.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I really don't care what y'all decide. I'm not a big believer in the wiki concept, so it's not likely to be something that affects me in any way. But it does piss me off that I'm seeing some sentiment here that a "pure" DUNE wiki would be somehow wrong. That's just bullshit.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:16
by Redstar
TheDukester wrote:
Redstar wrote:Choosing not to acknowledge the fanfic only allows for others to guess why it's not present and assume we're censoring.

So what?

First of all: how many preeks have you run into whose opinions you really value? Second: it's a free internet; anyone who would be upset by this hypothetical "pure" DUNE wiki would have every opportunity to start their own project somewhere else. Third: is allowing any McDune content really adding anything of value? I say again: it is no better than officially sanctioned fanfic.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I really don't care what y'all decide. I'm not a big believer in the wiki concept, so it's not likely to be something that affects me in any way. But it does piss me off that I'm seeing some sentiment here that a "pure" DUNE wiki would be somehow wrong. That's just bullshit.

The library at Alexandria being burned to the ground churns my stomach and makes me want to puke. I don't believe any information should go to waste.

Like it or not, nuDune is "Dune" and should be documented. Pretending it doesn't exist suggests it had no impact on the initial series, when in actuality far more has probably been done since KJA came around. We've examined the text word-for-word and know it in-and-out, and discovered things once overlooked all in an effort to catch inconsistencies. Even better, we've cracked open the books and read them more than we probably would have. Put nuDune on there for contrast. If anything, such a wiki would serve the same purpose my suggested KJA site would: clear evidence why Dune is superior and KJA is a lying idiot.

If we don't, we'd also have to decide whether or not to include the DE. That's expanded universe-material, and clearly not entirely canon, so it'd be hypocritical to say one fan fiction is better than an other. (Even though it is)

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:25
by TheDukester
Redstar wrote:Like it or not, nuDune is "Dune" and should be documented.

No, it's not.

It is not "DUNE" is any way, shape, or form. It is recycled Star Wars scripts from the most notorious hack working in the industry today.

Have fun with your little project. I personally cannot imagine a bigger waste of time than actually documenting the stream-of-consciousness ramblings of a clown who has hiking confused with writing.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:30
by Redstar
"Dune" was in quotes. nuDune is Dune in the same way the Bible is an addition to the Hebrew Tanakh. Some Jews didn't like it, and I'm sure some still don't, but they acknowledge its existence and study it to contrast it with their own "holy work".

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:40
by Seraphan
Dune was written by Frank Herbert, so if if you're going to document about it, why the fuck should you put content regarding something and someone that has absolutly nothing to do with the afore mentioned work?
If you're worried about KJA's fans arriving at the scene and blurting "kevin and brian shmoighady notes fmogadolcen plafoid!" than my advice to you would be "dont bother".

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:48
by TheDukester
Redstar wrote:nuDune is Dune in the same way the Bible is an addition to the Hebrew Tanakh ...

This is where I make the Whatever Fingers:

Image

Seriously, knock yourself out. Make the absolute nicest wiki you can; I wish you nothing but the best.

But you can stop trying to convince me that 2+2=5. McDune is not "Dune" (with or without the quotes) and never will be. It is fanfic, and I mean that in the literal definition.

I'll just stick to canon myself.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 10:55
by Redstar
Neither of you need to jump on me like I'm a preeq. I'm not SandRider, I'm not Chig, and I'm definitely neither of you. I don't have to pretend anything written by KJA doesn't exist to enjoy the originals. If anything, simply knowing they're out there helps me enjoy FH's work more.

This isn't my project any more than it would be anyone else's. I'm just expressing an opinion and anyone is free to offer a rebuttal, and once that's out of the way we can actually go ahead and do whatever's preferred. I'd personally rather keep anything nu out, but I'm not looking at a potential encyclopedia as a fan. I'm looking at it as someone wanting to document the facts, and maybe when it's all said and done I can grin that critical reviews and inconsistencies were referenced for said additions.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 11:15
by Lundse
There are a couple of issues here:

What to do, regarding the existing Dune wiki?
And what woulld be preferable, overall?

Obviously, the best solution would be a real Dune wiki based on Frank's work. With pet theory/articles/thoughts-pages with "original research" and fan speculation and analysis (these would be linked to from relevant pages, eg. a link to a "why the DE version of the Butlerian Jihad makes sense"-article from the relevant articles on "facts", such as the Butlerian Jihad and DE articles).
At least, that is obvious to me, I don't think anyone here disagrees on the basics here.

The first issue is a bit harder. Going in guns blazing and deleting everything based on KJA's crap won't work in the long run - you cannot strongarm a wiki to be what you want it to be (even if it is better). So annotating the KJA articles with a bit of "this is obviously a misunderstanding" and clearing up what is Frank's stuff and what is KJA's seems better than doing nothing...

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 11:19
by TheDukester
Redstar wrote:... anyone is free to offer a rebuttal ...

And that's exactly what is happening. No need to be so sensitive.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 12:45
by Redstar
TheDukester wrote:
Redstar wrote:... anyone is free to offer a rebuttal ...

And that's exactly what is happening. No need to be so sensitive.

Alright. No need to be so sensitive about a free wiki project either.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 12:58
by TheDukester
I'll repeat: I don't give a damn. Truly.

While I think there's lots of smart people here who could combined to create an interesting site, I'm not a believer in the wiki concept to begin with, as I've mentioned. To me, you'd all be working with very flawed tools.

What I'm objecting to is the insistence that McDune is somehow canon just because it exists and takes up physical space. It's not. I'll argue that point for as long as it keeps getting brought up. And I'm off all weekend, too, so I've got the time ...

But as far as your wiki project goes: knock yourselves out. I'm a bit mystified why you wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to create a pure Dune site, but it's no biggie to me either way. I don't believe in quantum encyclopedias, no matter what the subject might be.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 13:10
by DuneFishUK
I'm crap at writing wiki-style factual stuff, so I wouldn't be much use on any new wiki-project. I can, however, be a half decent edit-bastard, so while I've got not intention of devoting myself to a defunct cancerous wiki full time... a bit of occasional nudging is within my remit. OH represent.


But yeah... I want to read Lundse's wiki - sounds ace :P

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 15:44
by lotek
wow...
as I started the topic i did not expect so much debate, I really mentionned it because it was akward to find Dune and nudune mixed together like they were the same material...

I do not believe in wiki style treatment of info, too many editors, and the risk to have a nolife preeq changing what you spent time and effort to put together? That's a no sirree!

But definitely an online encyclopedia run by the people here would be a great thing and a tremendous project, I mean Dune is an endless source of discussion, and I find new meanings at each read so putting all that into organized work is quite daunting...

If I may give my opinion on the Dune/nudune thing: there are already enough people documenting the nudune, and my idea was to go canon all the way, I think there are enough things to say about Dune without bothering with KJA...
Not that i'm against the idea of showing why the nudune are shite but it seems that sales are doing that themselves no?

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 16:38
by Redstar
TheDukester wrote:What I'm objecting to is the insistence that McDune is somehow canon just because it exists and takes up physical space.

I didn't mean to imply I somehow think of KJAs additions as canon. I don't. I was just saying that since they exist, and have obviously affected nearly everyone's opinion and interaction with the original books, that it would probably be more beneficial to include them in some way.

I also didn't mean to imply that the information would be presented without attention to canonicity. I imagine something like the Wikipedia articles, just with the specific areas of information clearly stated in some way to be either true canon, expanded, and explanded+ shit.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 18:20
by TheDukester
Fair enough. It seems like extra work to me, but that's not my call.

I reserve the right to make one edit: I'll add the date in when KJA is officially cut loose by the HLP. :wink:

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 05 Sep 2009 18:31
by Redstar
Since Wikis belong to an organization, information among them can be freely used. This means we can copy the text from Wikipedia word-for-word, or write something completely different.

Yes, it may be more work, but that's just the fun. If anything (and I see this as the best option), we can simply take the text from Wikipedia and fill in the blanks of the things they don't allow up there. It provides at least a starting point. Working off of work that's already half-done is always easier than starting from scratch.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 06 Sep 2009 09:12
by Seraphan
lotek wrote:wow...
as I started the topic i did not expect so much debate, I really mentionned it because it was akward to find Dune and nudune mixed together like they were the same material...

I do not believe in wiki style treatment of info, too many editors, and the risk to have a nolife preeq changing what you spent time and effort to put together? That's a no sirree!

But definitely an online encyclopedia run by the people here would be a great thing and a tremendous project, I mean Dune is an endless source of discussion, and I find new meanings at each read so putting all that into organized work is quite daunting...

If I may give my opinion on the Dune/nudune thing: there are already enough people documenting the nudune, and my idea was to go canon all the way, I think there are enough things to say about Dune without bothering with KJA...
Not that i'm against the idea of showing why the nudune are shite but it seems that sales are doing that themselves no?

Agreed, and if you want to make a documentation about why McDune is shite, then making it a separate project seems to be the way to go. But i think that none of it should be done through wiki unless you're ready for some serious dedication and patience to deal with idiots.

Re: Dune Wiki

Posted: 06 Sep 2009 09:51
by lotek
Seraphan wrote: But i think that none of it should be done through wiki unless you're ready for some serious dedication and patience to deal with idiots.


precisely
and we can thank the interwebz to allow us to reach all the deluded fools on this planet that need education on what a book should be :)

making separate projects is fine with me btw

One question, if you reuse wiki stuff do you have to set it in a new wiki or can you do that without allowing unauthorized users' edits?