Talk:Wikiepic

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

One clear obstacle to this project would be maintaining consistency of information about the world across pages. I think otherwise it would be meaningless, since you'd have contradictory history and information, and new contributors would add things not knowing they contradicted other things, etc. and it would eventually turn out a bit like Uncyclopedia. I expect it might also share other problems with that project, such as adding so many details about a place that it gets ridiculous. Not that I necessarily think these hurdles can't be overcome, but they're things to keep in mind. For instance, you might want to begin with a general theme, a major geography phase, and then a major history phase, before letting people fill in the smaller details. The important stuff needs to be determined before the smaller details can be filled. You'd also need a group of "historians" to ensure dates and information remains consistent, and a policy for correction when it is not. It might even be a good idea to "finish" one world and move to another so that people have an opportunity to help with the earlier stages of design. Just some suggestions. Sarge Baldy 10:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Your idea seems to prevent contradiction, but it has the problem that it doesn't allow for constant building and interconnection that the "neverending" world seems to imply. So the idea as I see it is that you would always be adding new places and new events and rewriting past parts for a bit of continuity. Christopherparham 08:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Achilles heel of this idea is continuity and consistancy. Even if every editor had read every word everyone else had ever written (which would rapidly become an impossibility) - it would still be trivial for a new addition to completely overturn everything so far written. ("Joe the sheep farmer awoke from his dream (which encompasses everything so far written) and returns to his humdrum daily life"...or,,,"Susan the mad scientist invents a time machine and reverts all known history"). Worst still - think of the controversies we have on Wikipedia when we're attempting to describe the real (100% immutable, 100% self-consistent) world? What happens when the pro- and anti- gay rights or pro- and anti- religion groups get into this? There is no longer a NPOV - no longer can you force people to defer to actual reference works or to the laws of physics. This would get very contentious! I don't think this can work. SteveBaker 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I love the concept of the Wikiepic, but I also foresee inconsistencies leading to an Uncyclopedia situation. Perhaps some basic rules, along the lines of those at Ghyll could be useful. I'm a little put off by Ghyll due to the strictness of its rules - perhaps we could work out some looser ones. 192.148.223.10 23:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If certain restrictions are implemented, inconsistencies are rarely bound to happen. Also, any articles going against the storyline can be deleted with a kind note to the writer. The idea of improvised stories and plays have been around for a long time, and I think an improvised Wikiepic wouldn't be too bad for the imagination. The Beard 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


The Elemenstor Saga[edit]

I'm not sure if you are already aware of it, but this sort of "epic" has been created quite successfully already. Check out The Elemenstor Saga, it was seeded by the same people that make Penny Arcade - Fosnez 14:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No. I most definatly was not aware that this had already been done. I suppose I should be glad to find out that my idea would work but knowing that its not really my idea sours it a bit. Honestly I was a bit suprised not to have found one yet. ...sigh... Does this mean theres no point in even continuing this proposal?--Olsdude 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally like the idea of an improvised saga, without any predecessors in RPG or card games, TV, etc. I think it's worth my time contributing to one. The Beard 15:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Having contributed a lot to the Elemenstor Saga, I can tell you that a lot of the issues that you are raising generally don't come up. The biggest problem tends to be encouraging people to continue to contribute once the world is fleshed out, because adding anything tends to require a fair amount of knowledge of world lore. One thing that helps is agreeing that the world is somewhat crazy, in other worlds build in a system that has a tolerance for some amount of internal inconsistencies. -Tim
While the elemenstor saga is already available, I think your article may still have a place, as the saga is designed specifically to mock and parody, which it does quite well. If you were aiming for something more serious, you could still have success. (Mrjeff from wikipedia) 84.92.249.118 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

???[edit]

What is this, a RPG in a web browser? --Member 03:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

An RPG is a game. This is not.--Olsdude 21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Project[edit]

I see no point why this project should be a Wikimedia project - Wikimedia IMHO is about free knowledge, not anything that could be distributed under a free license. I am sure there are other ways to promote this project. --zeno 12:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Think of it as a way of working backwards - create a world out of thin air, with the help of some other writers, make a Wiki about it, and then, when it's finished, commit it to paper so it will be "legitimate". At least that's how I see it. The Beard 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a cool idea, but not a particularly professional one, or one well-suited to Wikimedia. Andrevan 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

not wikimedia, but...[edit]

if you could get a good enough number of people involved and think of good ways to promote a site, I'm interested in setting up an independent wiki devoted to this. it's a good idea. --Alfakim 04:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Novelas[edit]

Check it out, we have one running with 300+ articles, and there's only a limited amount of contradiction. YZH 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)