AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I think it would be really nice for the amia wiki to be updated by an initative of the community and filled with a lot of the stuff it is missing, for it to become a place that speaks of the servers history and be able to read up on all that was and is.

For starters a lot of places still require more detailed descriptions, like Guldorand. I also think it would be neat to have more the common known history in there, staying with the example of Guldorand, adding that it was occupied by the banites and freed by the alliance of who ever participated in that. What was the Isle of Lumorier? Been there, but are there any who still remember it properly?

The same goes for a lot of factions. Here it would be also nice to have a tag like with the inactive characters, to sort through which are still around, like with the Defenders of Kohlingen. History of the various factions is cool to read. Please fact check here, as for instance with what I wrote of the Eternal Order it is hard to be certain that it is as objective as I hope it would be.

NPCs need updates as well, or need to be fully written. Justicar Marinsbane has only an entry, but nothing is written about him outside the Kohlingen entry. Pictures flavor things up here.

Events such as the Wyrmshadow Prophecy, Revolution of Cordor and other such things would deserve their own entries. Of course lacking unknown bits such as (and this is not true) that the Duke is actually a golemn made of puppy tears. Horde Plot?

I'll second this; I can run through and fix up what classes I know of.

...Thats why it's called "Player Maintained Wiki" on the side bar.

I cruise through most of the additions there and when I have the time I try to add stuff. Though npc-wise there is simply a lot of things there will never be posted there since it isn't available to players. Though I really like when players put their characters there and stories of their factions too, it gives new players an impression of just how vast the lore behind Amia is (because you the players created it) So tally ho and get writting folks!

I've been trying to keep the Winya Council page up to date, but there's a lot of history which I'm just not confident enough in my knowledge of to post, since I've only been playing here for roughly 1.5 years. I'd love to see contributions from people who have been around longer than me.

I've written up history/lore for the Monolith. But, it would be awesome to see some of the earlier history expanded on, especially events prior to Ulrik's involvement. As for much of anything outside of the Monolith, I won't touch it. Maybe something about ley-lines and mythals. Maybe.

Hmm. I might have to go through it, too. One of these days.

Won't touch it for fear of legitimizing it as sanctioned.

Yossarin wrote:

Won't touch it for fear of legitimizing it as sanctioned.

You don't have to log in as "Yossarin, well-known Amia DM." You could be some anonymous schmuck player, like the rest of us.

People read that?

Yea, I don't particularly like Amia-Wiki, mostly because its impossible for someone to write about their own characters in an unbiased manner, thus the information will always be biased. Furthermore its based mostly on player views, which aren't always correct.

Which is why we need Yossarin writing the whole thing.

I can't take that level of honesty and neither could most of you...

Should I work on adding Knight Commander to the list of classes? I have 5 levels in it and know how to publish the stats people want to know I think. Or should I leave that for a DM?

I could work on a page for the Cordor Revolution. Don't expect it, soon, though. I'll have to be careful about spoilers.

Lally wrote:

I can't take that level of honesty and neither could any of you...except Mosh!

Fixed.

remember to make the page about the deity Skeletor.

My Characters are up to date.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Furthermore its based mostly on player views, which aren't always correct.

Ascending to DM status doesn't magically grant you 100% knowledge of everything that has ever been or happened on the server, as proven many times. That's why it's a team effort to summarize this knowledge. Most of it is correct (albeit occasionally outdated), even more is written with the goal of being correct, and downplaying five years' worth of information because it's created by lowly players borders on being insulting.

Yossarin wrote:

Won't touch it for fear of legitimizing it as sanctioned.

If it wasn't, it wouldn't be on our website and every DM wouldn't be an admin on the wiki.

The issue for me is more practical: I don't really have the time to re-write everything in the server and forums and in game for a wiki after I already wrote it the once on the forums here.

Maybe there could be a team elected by the DM Team to go in there and fix up the Wiki?

I'd love to go and fix up people's shit if the DM Team approved me. Also, I love Yossarin's honesty except when it implies I'm too uncool for him 'cause I'm just a player!

No, no. That was Selvec.

But no, I think the wiki is a great source of information. And I think Phearnun's goal in his post was only to remind people that's it's there and that they should use it! Which I would support.

Even if I haven't updated my stuff there for ages...

Burningoutbright wrote:

Maybe there could be a team elected by the DM Team to go in there and fix up the Wiki?

I elect the entire server

(the idea of a community wiki)

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Yea, I don't particularly like Amia-Wiki, mostly because its impossible for someone to write about their own characters in an unbiased manner, thus the information will always be biased. Furthermore its based mostly on player views, which aren't always correct.

I consider the wiki to be somewhat akin to the PC Stories thread or the Libraries thread - it's a collection of information about people & places that is a mix (in unknown proportions) of truth, rumour and outright fiction. Basic, verifiable, known historical or geographical facts should be correct (Guldorand, for example, is not an Amian gold coin) but everything else need not be.

The wiki is meant for pretty much anything that could be written in a forum post but offers more formatting and structure. You can post and maintain your character opinions without having them disappear on page 7 of 53, you can make available the command structure and public members of your faction, you can post stories and poetry, newsletters and books. But you can also get together with some oldbies and write a factual history of Cordor (without offending Yossarin), 20 pages on dwarven lore or the production of perfectly legal pipe herbs.

Which of this information is truth should easily be judged with common sense. Not metagaming and not posting metagameable information also boils down to common sense. Naturally it could be much more organized if we were to enforce a bunch of rules and systematically add information beyond our own interests but I don't have the time for that either.

Jan wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Furthermore its based mostly on player views, which aren't always correct.

Ascending to DM status doesn't magically grant you 100% knowledge of everything that has ever been or happened on the server, as proven many times. That's why it's a team effort to summarize this knowledge. Most of it is correct (albeit occasionally outdated), even more is written with the goal of being correct, and downplaying five years' worth of information because it's created by lowly players borders on being insulting.

Except that some of that 5 years of roleplay is incorrect. There's a lot that was done which shouldn't have been done, and thats an acknowledged fact. A lot of the past didn't mesh with Canon lore, or Amia's own lore. A lot of that is being corrected actively.

By the way, a wiki lets people say what they want about their characters, because its edited by a community, not all those people will be correct. Fact is, at any time a DM can point at the Wiki and say "No, sorry, thats not true". Because the DM's do decide Amia's history and RP. What the DM teams says on the matter, is what is final. What the Wiki says, may be wrong. Its not offical lore.

Quote:

Fact is, at any time a DM can point at the Wiki and say "No, sorry, thats not true"

Then you edit it and make it correct. Hello, you're on a wiki.

Last edited by Grymia on Sat, Oct 08 2011, 16:56 PM, edited 1 time in total.

With the Wiki you can go one of two ways:

1) Have it be a primary source of storage for Amian Lore that has in IC cases become public knowledge. This would require a bit more time on everyone's part to keep track of the Wiki and any edits made to it, but might be easier.

2) Have it be as is, but with a disclaimer somewhere noting that the Amian Wiki may not always be either up to date or entirely correct and the final discretion regarding Lore is with the DMs of the server.

I myself don't mind the way things are with the Wiki as an interesting source of archival information, although perhaps a bit more information on what should be readily availible information wise about settlements and certain topics related to the region might be of help. That said, that could just as easily be made availible by one or multiple DMs handling the particular settlement.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Fact is, at any time a DM can point at the Wiki and say "No, sorry, thats not true"

Then you edit it and make it correct. Hello, you're on a wiki.

Except do YOU want to do that everytime you change something? I don't, and its not apart of the website, so I'm not going to. But I will say "no" if someone points at the wiki and its wrong. The wiki isn't part of the website, its not hosted by Disco or Amia's server, its not official. We have a link to it sure, but thats it. Just a link.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Except that some of that 5 years of roleplay is incorrect.

So are some of the threads in PC Stories dating back to 2004. Character descriptions are the last thing I would trust blindly. The wiki is just a place where you can post yours, make it look more fancy than would be possible with phpBB's limited BBCode and more easily share it with others. In the end it's the author's responsibility to write a proper description and the reader's responsibility to be critical. Using any information beyond the physical looks in game would probably be metagaming ANYWAY.

There's more to the wiki than character descriptions.

Jan wrote:

But you can also get together with some oldbies and write a factual history of Cordor (without offending Yossarin)

I wouldn't be offended, anyway, as I'm not overly protective of that setting or anything crazy like that. I've seen other DMs who have been in the past and I'm not like that. People can write whatever they want to on the wiki and it won't matter to me so long as none of it is legitimized. That way, it is about as worthless as someone posting their opinions on Amia on a forum 20,000 hyperlinks from here. As a DM, I always reserve the right to steamroll over malicious peddlers or victims of misinformation both here on this forum and in the server. Why would I work to "set the record straight" on a wiki page with players who want to revise every detail to benefit their characters and their vanity when I also wouldn't be bothered to travel to the ends of the internet to defend Amia against random trolls?

Yossarin wrote:

Why would I work to "set the record straight" on a wiki page with players who want to revise every detail to benefit their characters and their vanity when I also wouldn't be bothered to travel to the ends of the internet to defend Amia against random trolls?

That's pretty paranoid and not based in reality. We've had approximately one case of dick vandalizing a drow page which Tormak fixed right away. If you have this problem elsewhere, well, that's elsewhere. Nobody's expecting the content to be official, none of us did back in 2006; we'd just fancy not having it called worthless.

It can be entertaining, useful or of historical interest.

I realize I am dancing a fine line here. I'm not trying to call what is on the wiki worthless, because I don't actually feel that way, although my lack of a desire to give it any credit whatsoever really suggests that I do feel that way. I just recognize it for what it is. That, and I'm still really upset that I already wrote a whole bunch of awesome stuff about Cordor and Wharftown (and was working on Kohlingen!) for the Rules and Lore forum and then like 2 months later it was all gone. I want to blame somebody, but I have nobody to blame, and it really sends me the cue that putting in that work isn't very valuable to anyone.

It is valuable Yossarin, (admittedly, I forgot that there was work done beyond Cordor) , I'd say. The destructive actions of some tool against the forums (if that's what I believe you're referring two) are disheartening, but I still think it's worth the work.

I know that I kept at much as I could reasonably from the work I did with Warrick on my own computer as notes as an example and even if a lot of my queries to you in PMs seemed strange or superfluous they did strongly influence the final product of his South Cordor Reconstruction Proposal. Though a lot of the information garned by that may or may not per se have been the sort of thing to go into an open document like what you had, that you still go to the trouble to think of the levels of detail is good to know at least in my mind.

Nothing can ever be valuable to everyone, but you can trust that almost anything is valuable to someone. I would personally squee with delight to see a detailed approach to all things Cordor, Warftown, Kohlingen (any city/town, really) and have missed that info that got deleted.

I have to confess not updating my wiki page for much the same reason - considering no one has an interest, but this is just at the scale of my inconsequential characters.

I also never considered adding relevant info to it for fear of wonky perspective.

I was under the impression the Wiki was never seen as official source of correct information on Amia's lore. It was a wiki created by a player, and hosted by a player. That you decided to make some DM's part of the Wiki team is your choice, it does NOT make it official or legitimate.

I'm sorry if you thought otherwise, but I believe the DM team has never agreed that the wiki is an official and legitimate source of info. I for one would never have agreed to that, and it seems neither would Yossarin have agreed. A source of information it is indeed, but one created by the community, and not officially maintained or endorsed by Amia.

For example. NWNWiki is a reliable source of information created by the NWN community. Does that make the information on NWNWiki legitimate. No, it does not. Bioware did not create the Wiki, it does not maintain it. Nor does Wizards of the Coast or Atari. As such, its not 100% reliable, and is subject to change should Bioware decide to come in and say "No, sorry, this bit of information is wrong".

Amia Wiki is like a journal kept by players in the world as a whole. The information is born of experiences, it is not however legitimate, and should not be used as a source of argument against something a DM says. The experiences presented and opinions presented could also be false or just plain wrong. As I said, what a DM says is the end of the argument. It has nothing to do with me or any of the team thinking we are better then players, it has to do with us having that DM tag next to our names, and us having the authority and responsability to craft Amia's world & story officially.

What doesn't seem to be understood is that how a DM presents an experience to a player, and how a player recieves that experience, could be different. That also goes for information or anything else. How the playerbase recieves information & interprets it can and usually is, vastly different to how the DM intitally intended the information to be communicated. Which can lead to people writing things that are simply wrong. Then there is also the millions of NPC's and unpresented population with their opinions that a player can't dictate, and if they do, they are wrong.

Thats why I'm not willing to accept Amiawiki's information as legitimate or even official. The quality of the writing, information or the stories isn't really up for discussion, as they can vary from player to player. But the information being legitimate or correct is. Its pretty much impossible for Amiawiki to have legit information as Amia history, story etc, is actively being changed & developed due to Amia being homebrew.

I am not sure why you have such hard feelings against the wiki selv. I truly enjoy exploring information the wiki because it is vastly superior compared trying to navigate our bulky and huge forums when you want to find some information. Not to mention some information that lies around the forum you will never find because you don't know where to look.

The wiki is far better organised and you can even check when the last revision was made and by who. No it is not officially sanctioned lore as in the lore and rules forum but in a lot of areas its the best information you can get. And if at times lore changed well it will be corrected eventually but be realistic Selv everything is not going to change overnight. Zanshibon's history will not be rewritten every day. What players do with their own character pages is largely left to their own devices but I do watch for any changes to npcs or areas to see if they're legit.

Finally I have previously asked for the wiki to be integrated into the Amia website and eventually it could become a sanctioned source of information. I still think it should because it is a lot better way to display information compared to the forums. For a prime example of just how good a wiki can be take a look at Arelith's http://wiki.arelith.com/Main_Page

Arelith's wiki is as good as it is because tey don't have a "rules and lore" forum. They use the wiki for everything. Ivrealized this awhile back and so it's not a fair comparison.

Moreover the forum info is not unwieldy or bulky..

TormakSaber wrote:

Moreover the forum info is not unwieldy or bulky..

The forum itself is great at being a forum, but the search function is kind of terrible. I tend to agree that it's not the best medium for storing rules and lore.

Good thing I am not talking about the search function, and the R&L forum is quite well organized.

Main Page > Rules and Lore > ???? > Profit!

Easy as that! And if that fails, go to the lore question thread and ask.

Let's go CnP all of Arelith's stuff, then!

Selvec Darkon wrote:

the Wiki was never seen as official source of correct information on Amia's lore. [...] That you decided to make some DM's part of the Wiki team is your choice, it does NOT make it official or legitimate. [...] A source of information it is indeed, but one created by the community, and not officially maintained or endorsed by Amia.

I don't think anybody's claiming otherwise, so I don't really see where there's any argument.

Yossarin wrote:

That, and I'm still really upset that I already wrote a whole bunch of awesome stuff about Cordor and Wharftown (and was working on Kohlingen!) for the Rules and Lore forum and then like 2 months later it was all gone.

You should've put it on the wiki!

If you still have the info, feel free to edit the relevant posts, or PM/email it to me and I'll rewrite them. Any input from DMs would be appreciated, not because it's in any way 'official', but because they likely have the best understanding of what's going on and so their information is more likely to be correct and thus of more value to the players. Do feel free to add misinformation :twisted:

if you wish, say to prevent metagaming or revealing what may only be known to a few people so long as it doesn't conflict with established and easily observable facts (eg. the Temple of Waukeen is not on the south side of the square).

Though it is still true that the wiki is operated by a player rather than a DM, yes? Meaning that even though DMs have been given purely symbolic "administrator" privileges that they are still outranked by a player on the wiki?

I've given Tormak bureaucrat and checkuser permissions, meaning he can do everything I can. Only Shatuga has access to the server itself. The only reason why not every DM has been given those permissions is that it takes some time and there's never been the need to check IP addresses or edit permissions.

And I think Shatuga has offered to let somebody else host it about a million times.

Yossarin wrote:

Though it is still true that the wiki is operated by a player rather than a DM, yes? Meaning that even though DMs have been given purely symbolic "administrator" privileges that they are still outranked by a player on the wiki?

Yes, but while Jan or Shatuga or I can block you or delete your pages a little more thoroughly than most other people (if we chose to abuse our power that way), as the wiki is in no way official should this not be irrelevant?

If it is in no way official, why would I spend my time providing unofficial information rather than official information when I'm the only one in a position to provide official information in the first place?

My overwhelming concerns about the wiki might change if it ever transforms into a source without conflicts of interest.

I think you all care too much about not really caring.

Any contributions, from DMs or players, are appreciated. Nobody is in any way obligated. That is all.

Amia Wiki

Who is online