[DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

Summary:

Lets fire this out of a canon

page 1 of 212next »

[DISCUSSION] canon creation and organization

psychicprogrammer 11 Aug 2023 08:50

04 mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16248447/discussion-canon-creation-and-orginization

Canons are a vital part of site navigation and discovery. However recently there have been some discussion over increasing the barriers to the creation of canons. The aim here is ensuring that created canons maintain a diversity of authors after creation and to prevent canons where the loss of a single author kills the canon.

Secondarily we have a lot of canons on the hub that are effectively inactive which has a collection of navigation problems associated with it.

In the interests of disclose I do have an issue with people treating making a canon as an aim as opposed to something emergent, but that is very subjective.

So there are two key changes I want to bring up:

Firstly a raising of canon requirements to 15 works by 7 authors with at least 8 works not by the canons largest author (as defined by the number of works they have written for the canon) and a reasonable expectation of the canon being continued to added to by a diverse set of authors. Thirdly any given article counts for a maximum of 2 authors (see megacolabs). 10x5x5 is also an acceptable requirement. Fourth a hub containing a set of advise for writing for the canon.

The second part is a subjective judgment on the part of tech similar to how we deal with character tag requests

There are concerns WRT coauthorship where it is obvious that one author was very secondary or had little to do with writing the "canon concepts". Ie (hypothetically), a somebody/Harry collab where the only OG43 content is Wettle appearing, and it is obvious Harry wrote all the Wettle content. Is this an issue should we do anything about it and what can we do.

Next up is a navigational change to the canon page. I am proposing a separation of the canon page into two sections, an active canon and inactive canon section. For a canon to be active it needs either three article in the last three years or a total of 50 articles. This should encourage new users into reading the more active canons.

Key questions:

- What is the point of canon establishment
- What are your thoughts on raising the bar to creation of a canon
- Under what circumstances should we encourage something to be a series instead of a canon
- Should we encourage users to read the more active canons over the more abandoned ones.

This discussion will go on for two weeks

Last edited on 11 Aug 2023 16:57 by psychicprogrammer Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and organization

psychicprogrammer 15 Aug 2023 08:30

If we decide to have some canons be marked as inactive, here is what we would be looking at: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/829823115324030996/1140922551992844349/image.png?width=319&height=662

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

JackalRelated 11 Aug 2023 09:48

Supporting raising the canon requirement (assuming this doesn't affect series requirements) to 15 x 7 x 8. I think any collab article should be raised to a maximum of three authors — there are a chunk of three-people collabs that aren't megacollab related and I think is a better cutoff. Canon establishment is largely up to authors, and if someone manages to wrangle up seven or eight people to create a shared canon I think at that point staff should recognize the intentions and not conflate their status as authors with their status as staffmembers; even if all fifteen plus articles are the most repugnant, drily written prose in existence (not suggesting any canons that are currently on-site are as such) if the community deems the works and canon-in-the-making to survive, then we should respect that.

Only encouragement we should give on series v. canon is if a canon author comes to us with 20 works set in the canon and they're all written by the author. Even then I think if the author wants it to be a canon, we should suggest something along the lines of "Find some like-minded authors who would be interested in this concept, as you currently don't meet requirements." Canonization is a community process via authors and artists who choose to interact with a shared world — we should only be here to facilitate the 'officialization' of them. Most of my reasoning behind this I already spoke above. I will, in the interests of fairness, say that I do generally not like when canons are made with the express reason to become a canon; that being said, it is a freedom that should be given as authors and decided on by the community: not infringed by us.

The co-authorship issue presented is not one fixed with adjusting canon requirements. If an author like Harry or whomever else were to write something like that and put their name on it, then that's that. I don't think that should be left up to staff unless it is a tagging issue (such as deciding to tag it 'doctor-wettle'). The issue there is convincing authors to co-author if they feel like it has been an equal effort — and if both authors decide it has been even if one author has written 95% of it, there's nothing we can really do.

I think a hub restructuring is more effort than is worth, and most likely would promote more popular canons over actual "abandoned" canons. Not to mention we would have to have someone periodically check for active v. abandoned canons occasionally. Frankly I think the canon hub is mostly underused. If there were to be any choice, I suggest we undertake something akin to the 001 proposal page where the links are randomized, or we start listing canons in reverse order; newest first, oldest last.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Last edited on 11 Aug 2023 09:51 by JackalRelated Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

psychicprogrammer 11 Aug 2023 10:53

So based on google analytics numbers, we have about 80,000 users who access the canon hub a month, which is not much less than newest pages. Updating this should only be a once a year thing and can be done with a few crom searches.

And yes the point is to direct people to the more popular canons that people actually write for.

Three authors in a single article works fine here agreed.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

Ethagon 11 Aug 2023 11:30

I think having an active and inactive section for the canon hub is a good idea. It is currently a bit unwieldy and that would make it easier to navigate through it.

I'll also second BitOddInnit's suggestion from the mainsite mirror to have a place for the larger series we have on the site. Given we have tag requirements for series as well, I think it's easiest to just list everything there that has a series tag. (Or perhaps only the "Open Series" among those).

If there is a space for open series like that then I am also fine with the larger hurdle of 15x7x8, otherwise 10x10x5 sounds better.

I don't think judging wether co-authorship really "counts" for a canon is a good idea.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

basirskipreader 11 Aug 2023 12:45

I agree with the raised number of authors required to form a canon (specifically the 15 by 7 by 8 requirement; I personally think 10 by 5 by 5 is too small to count.); a canon should be healthy enough that if the head gets hit by a bus, the canon can reasonably still run as normal. However, I would like to clarify some parts of the requirements of the Upgraded Canon Requirements with a hypothetical question:

User "basirskipreader" wishes to form a canon. Assume that the user has 12 works, 4 authors, and 4 works not of "basirskipreader". How do collaborations figure into this? I have two figures as to how this can go:

1.

Figure 1 shows three works by different users 'basircuser', 'basirgamerpleb', and 'basicskipreader', yet all of them are collaborations with 'basirskipreader'. Do these works count, or does it work more like figure 2:

2.

Figure 2 is how I assume the policy will work — 3 separate works from 3 different users, along with an entry by the canon holder.

I present these two hypotheticals since from my reading, there is no clear differentiation between the two, or whether the distinction matters at all.

Another question I have is the phrase 'reasonable expectation' — will there be a description on how this judgement will be made?

I also do not like the idea of personally vetting who made the contributions to what parts of a collaboration/co-authorship, since not all collabs will have equal distribution of contribution, and vetting whether a work is justified in inclusion to the canon feels like overstepping a bit.

Last edited on 11 Aug 2023 12:48 by basirskipreader Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

AriadnesThread 11 Aug 2023 14:43

These images were super helpful, I appreciate it.

I admit that I also have issues with 'reasonable expectation', specifically because it shouldn't be something that is subjective or vetted by others. I concur with Basir's concerns that it would ultimately be an overstep.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

psychicprogrammer 11 Aug 2023 16:59

So if basirskipreader colabed with basircuser then those works would not count as works not written by the primary author.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

LORDXVNV 12 Aug 2023 04:00

Hmmm, actually looking at that setup it seems kind of overly stringent. I honestly think the current guideline of "5 authors" is good enough to demonstrate interest if we're excluding the primary author. I'd go so far as to say if we raise to 15, 15 x 5 overall with all 5 being unique/not primary collab would be acceptable. Now that I've had a chance to process it more, I think most scenarios where a canon with 10 works by a primary author and then 5 different works by 5 different authors (in any combination, but with no contribution from the so-called primary) wouldn't meet "notability" requirements.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

Fishish 11 Aug 2023 14:39

The main issue with the idea of making a canon onsite is that it's treated as an artificial status symbol that can be attributed to the main author of the setting. There's a clear disparity between some canons that can exemplify this, in that canons that emerge naturally as a result of site interest have a certain ability to stay relevant over time, while canons that have been artificially inflated via a creative combination of collaborations, small mentions, and in some cases, even requesting works outright, stay not as the ideal of a canon onsite, but as a series by a small number of authors that also happens to be on a hub page that will garner an increase in readership. The problem lies in the fact that canons made in this manner usually fail to attract authors, yet enjoy spots on pages whose main purpose should be to direct readers to projects where contribution is both welcome and happening. I would support an increase in the eligibility requirements for a canon to a more appropriate number, such as 15 articles by 10 authors, but the main issue imo is the fact that there's no real notability guidelines enforced when requesting a canon tag. It sounds like enforcing an arbitrary measurement, but given the fact that rating, authors involved, comments, etc are all easily checked, I don't think it'd be an issue to ascertain whether there's interest in the setting.

The second issue related to this discussion concerns series onsite. As it stands, it's fair to assert that they hold a place often overshadowed by the idea of a canon, which is evident in the fact that there exist a number of series whose main aim, as written in their own hub, is to eventually transition into a canon. This is an issue because it treats the idea of a series as secondary to the goal of a canon, with no clear distinction between the two from a practical standpoint. Series could stand to get an easier navigability option, even if it only benefits some series (where, perhaps, a similar approach re: authors / works would be beneficial) this would help treat series as their own category more.

EDIT: As I've mulled over the idea of enforcing any requirement retroactively, I have slowly come to stand in agreement with the decision. While I don't think separating inactive from active canons would serve a real purpose, a retroactive 10x5 enforcement of the canon requirements would solve the issue pretty permanently, I feel. Looking at the canon hub, I don't think doing this would affect anything other than a small number of canons, mostly reserved for those that only gained this status as part of a laxer environment onsite. For example, codename: green king, which is a canon known for being a "dead canon" (a canon without interest in wriiting for it behind it) fulfills these requirements, and thus would not be affected by this. I think it'd be wise to enforce this instead of a subjective assessment by another staff team.

---

Every day, I write my silly little words and plot my silly little plans.

Last edited on 11 Aug 2023 16:11 by Fishish Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

DrBleep 11 Aug 2023 14:48

I am opposed to raising canon requirements beyond 10x5x5. 10x5x5 is a reasonable requirement, 15x7x8 is not.

Next up is a navigational change to the canon page. I am proposing a separation of the canon page into two sections, an active canon and inactive canon section. For a canon to be active it needs either three article in the last three years or a total of 50 articles. This should encourage new users into reading the more active canons.

Would this not effectively ensure that inactive canons die completely? Thereby preventing any ressurection of a canon by authors who come in down the road?

All policy here does fall under tech and navigation purview so there will not be a voting thread.

While tech does have policy purview over tags it does not have sole policy purview over Canon requirements and determinations. Note I've mentioned this in Staffcord and changes are being made accordingly

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

psychicprogrammer 11 Aug 2023 17:00

Inactive canons could be resurrected by writing three articles.

This is not a high bar for anyone wanting to bring back a canon

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

S D Locke 11 Aug 2023 14:58

I’m with Jackal in that I don’t think a hub restructure, separating canons by activity, is the right way to go. I get wanting to direct people to what’s fresh and expanding, but at the same time it may discourage people from adding to/reading older canons in the inactive category. Dividing it may give some the impression that inactive canons aren’t noteworthy, interesting, or relevant. I’m concerned it may be, to some at least, an ‘undesirable’ section.

I imagine someone would shy away from, say, adding to Coldest War because their one tale wouldn’t drag the canon into ‘active’ status. It could very well contribute to older canons remaining stagnant.

I also considered a setup akin to the 001 hub, but there’s no clean, automatic way to promote recent additions to individual canons to the main hub that I’m aware of. Though, if automatic, live updates per new additions aren’t feasible, perhaps there could be sorting listings based off both alphabetical and creation date?

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

FlyPurgatorio 11 Aug 2023 17:17

I have a lot of thoughts about this.

• What is the point of canon establishment?

I’d be going by the way I’ve considered series and canons: a set of navigational tools to show a potential reader that a set of articles have a specific arc or shared “extra ruleset”.
I was under the impression that the difference between a canon and a tale series is simply whether it is closed or not. A canon has been earmarked to be open for contribution by other authors, as well as a guide on how to contribute. A series is closed and under complete supervision by the writers for that series. I've since learned that this is not the default setting, since there are open series. In that case, I'm kind of curious as to what the difference is between a series and a canon, apart from the requirements?

• What are your thoughts on raising the bar to creation of a canon?

As per the definition I have stated above, I don’t really see the benefit here. If anything, it feels like it would become so much harder to get a new canon off the ground. More cooks in the kitchen before a shared ruleset is solidified. I’m not convinced about it actually benefitting the quality of writing for the wiki.

It would also mean that smaller canons are no longer possible. I don’t see how having 5 active writers for a canon is more desirable than 7 active writers for a canon. Having two more contributors before getting the tag is not going to safeguard it from becoming ‘dead’ at any point.

Also noting that this feels like a concern about a canon ‘emerges organically’, which feels to me like a strange concern. We all write stories and pitches and get each other hyped for it. A lot of collaboration is between friends. We actually want people to work through the feedback process in our critting spaces, meaning we’re encouraging sharing concepts. It would just mean more networking. If that’s your concern, raising the bar is not going to solve it, and would turn canon creation into a (bigger?) popularity contest, or encourage lower quality entries to clear the bar. I don’t see this having a certainty of a positive outcome for writing quality.

• Under what circumstances should we encourage something to be a series instead of a canon?

As per my initial definition: closed versus open contribution seems like the way to go? Or "set plot" versus "open world"? We already have different numbers of required contributions between tales and canons.

• Should we encourage users to read the more active canons over the more abandoned ones?

I have a lot of thoughts about this. There is a time and place for every kind of story within the wiki’s “style” over the course of its existence. I feel that putting ‘active’ canons on the foreground could benefit that. However, it shouldn’t stop a writer from writing for an older canon since it feels “lesser”.

How many ‘dead canons’ would we actually have, based on the metrics set? I believe 3 years of no new contributions?

• As for how to count co-authorship:

There are concerns WRT coauthorship where it is obvious that one author was very secondary or had little to do with writing the "canon concepts".

I have big concerns with this. Are you going to check sandbox pages for the qualifications of a canon? That appears to be the only somewhat trustworthy way to figure out who wrote what. And that is separate from cases where authors write in a separate document or discord environment before moving to a sandbox.
In other words: I doubt you can objectively check this. And I don’t feel it’s fair to suggest that anyone here or in the future will be able to do this based on reading the article with any kind of measurable certainty. In other words, it would leave the door open for subjective treatment in a way I don’t feel comfortable with, or see as future-proof.

If two people co-author a page, they have found a way to both contribute in a way they both deem fair. I’d be against staff suggesting when this is or isn’t “correct enough”, and would consider it a massive overstep.

Besides, we already require standalone works for a canon, so I don’t see how counting a co-authored piece would need to be scrutinized further. We’re a collaborative writing site, after all. If anything, someone who wants to “rush a canon” (which seems to be the concern here?) could easily still just be the critter and denounce co-authorship.

Last edited on 11 Aug 2023 19:42 by FlyPurgatorio Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

FlyPurgatorio 12 Aug 2023 13:50

I've been mulling this over a bit more and reading some of the messages following this one, and I've come to a more specific conclusion: I am simply unsure what the navigational issue is.

Now, I'm not in navigation, which means I might not be privy to the kind of issues we see here. I'd suggest pointing them out, and how raising the canon requirements or splitting up the canons based on activity would solve them.

Right now, the navigational issue seems rather abstract, and the “wins” from changing it are only potential.

Issue 1) Requirements for a canon: how is this hindering navigation? As stated before, we aren’t overrun by canons, so I fail to see what this would solve. It also doesn’t bode me a lot of confidence that most of the arguments around this case are based on preference.

The arguments brought up in this thread about the goal of getting a canon, co-authorship (as I’ve already gone into enough above), or “organic emergence” are not navigational arguments, they’re subjective examples of taste and interpretation. This all boils down to a dislike of seeing a canon as “prestige” or “artificial”, which feels like missing the point. We’re a collaborative writing site whose quality measurement is upvotes. That’s prestige baked into the system. Honestly, this part of the discussion reminds me of my days in university, with students discussing the merits of “high art” versus “pulp”, and the “pureness” of literature for art’s sake. Which is just pretentious navel-gazing that misinterprets the goal of literary theory and critique in the first place.

If enough people write surviving articles that result in it qualifying as a canon, there clearly is an audience for it. If the requirements are insufficient, could you point to why? And how it is hindering navigation?

Issue 2) Active/Inactive canons: What is the navigational issue here? Is it being unable to know whether something is “finished” or not? If so, that could be something we differentiate in for the reading pleasure of users with, I don’t know, a batch on the canon blurb? Splitting it more than that would only result in lowering the change of inactive canons getting new additions. I personally don't see a lot of new canons not being written for atm. Again, knowing what the navigational issue is here would benefit the discussion.

Last edited on 12 Aug 2023 13:50 by FlyPurgatorio Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

LORDXVNV 12 Aug 2023 13:57

Frankly? You're right. These aren't navigational issues. These are curational issues.

I think one of the issues you're identifying might be circular though. "People write enough surviving articles for it to qualify as a canon" — yes, but we made up those requirements in the first place so the underlying statement feels tautological to me. It would be a canon if it qualifies as a canon regardless if those qualifications are 10, 15, or 100 authors.

The example that coems to mind is the recent denial of the "skies made strange" canon tag. I'm not on the tech team so I can't speak as to the internal logic as to why, but it was a canon that just barely met the minimums, where the hub had little explanation as to how to contribute, and the only recent contributor had added 2 pages while the previous 5 or so hadn't touched it in years. I don't think the team was in the wrong to turn down a canon tag for that.

Last edited on 12 Aug 2023 14:09 by LORDXVNV Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

FlyPurgatorio 12 Aug 2023 14:49

The argument feels circular because we're not discussing the contents. This was framed as a discussion on navigational issues. On the navigational aspect, I don't see it go further than "since it qualifies, what are the navigational issues?"

If we want to look into raising the requirements for a canon, I'd like to get more clarity on what the current qualifications are for the tech team. According to the canon hub that's 10 articles by 5 authors, and the added line "We're not going to split hairs on this. Remember: the purpose of this list is collaboration and innovation." But coming from your statement, there are more requirements that aren't visible on the hub. Meaning we already have additional requirements that are being used, but not registered in the place users look.

That wouldn't be so much as a policy change on navigation, as a tech/curation policy needing to be added to the spot visible for readers and users? That's also a different conversation. If tech already uses the metrics as discussed above and has rejected a canon candidate that qualifies otherwise, I'm not sure how this is anything but an announcement? Since it's apparently not up for discussion.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

Uncle Nicolini 11 Aug 2023 19:40

There are concerns WRT coauthorship where it is obvious that one author was very secondary or had little to do with writing the "canon concepts".

When and where has this been brought up? I ask because this feels disingenuous and like an attempt to discredit certain up-and-coming canons.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

psychicprogrammer 12 Aug 2023 07:42

Stormbreath brought it up when we discussed it in DMs, I don't think it is too much of an issue.

Re: [DISCUSSION] canon creation and orginization

OriTiefling 12 Aug 2023 00:32

I'll be honest, I'm not sure this is a problem.

Secondarily we have a lot of canons on the hub that are effectively inactive which has a collection of navigation problems associated with it.

What navigation problems? You are presenting a policy change that will have sweeping effects. If there are legitimate issues that need to be fixed, then you need to tell us what they are now so that those of us not involving with navigation can understand the situation. Is the issue that the canon hub has a lot of canons? There's a table of contents there. IMO the page is quite navigable.

In the interests of disclose I do have an issue with people treating making a canon as an aim as opposed to something emergent, but that is very subjective.

This is subjective to the point of being unrelated to the discussion, and I am extremely confused as to why you chose to include this in the initial post. This holds no bearing on whether there should be a policy change here, this is pure personal opinion. I also want to go ahead and say that I very much disagree with this being an issue- there is nothing wrong with an author setting the goal of having a canon.

To answer the questions-

- What is the point of canon establishment

To build and develop a world within the wider SCP multiverse. To build up and develop an idea/setting people find interesting. I'm not sure there needs to be a point.

- What are your thoughts on raising the bar to creation of a canon

Against. I don't see this as a necessary change at all. I don't like the idea of us raising the bar here apropos of nothing. We hardly get new canons as is, so it isn't like we need to gatekeep them. If a canon dies, it dies.

- Under what circumstances should we encourage something to be a series instead of a canon

Literally never. This is not staff's job.

- Should we encourage users to read the more active canons over the more abandoned ones.

Do we not do this already? I mean there's room to discuss that "canon/series feature" idea I saw floated, but I don't really feel like new canons are struggling to get eyes on them. People write OG43, people write F120A, people write WoaF. The problem is actually the inverse, people hardly ever write the old canons. When was the last lolFoundation article? Ship in a Bottle?

EDIT: I misread the question. Please disregard my answer to this one.

I am also against the idea of splitting the list into "Active/Dead Canons". All that will do in practice is ensure no one ever writes for the inactive canons, leaving them dead and inactive.

Overall I am not sure what the purpose of this policy is. It reads like unneeded gatekeeping, and I have no clue what this is in response to. I don't see the navigational benefits, and I don't see how this will help improve the site.

EDIT: Something amazingly concerning was brought to my attention.

I have read over discussion in SCPD's meta channel, and the following stood out to me-

+ show block

Assuming I am reading this discussion correctly, this makes it seem that this policy is being proposed in direct response to a recent canon and a potential canon. I need it clarified immediately, and honestly- is this policy being developed with the idea of targeting specific canons/authors? Right now, that is what I am seeing. That is, simply put, absolutely unacceptable and an abuse of staff power.

I need someone to explain to me right now what the intent of this policy is if not the above, and if it is different than the above, I need the discussion in the screenshot explained to me.

EDIT 2: Had a long staffchat convo about the above. Long story less long we came to the conclusion, it seemed, that the policy was flawed. I'm going to reiterate my main points below-

- This policy needs to be completely reworked
- This policy needs to be split into two portions

• Navigation needs to be its own policy, clearly highlighting whatever the navigation issue is and how we should address it.
• Canon requirements needs to be its own policy, highlighting whatever benefits would come from raising these reqs.

Moving forward I also ask that staff avoid assuming things are "implied" in policy/staff discussions. Things should be as explicit as possible for the sake of communication- we can't all be on the same page if we're forced to make assumptions. I also ask that we avoid subjective language as much as possible in a policy proposal and stick to just the facts and proposed policy.

Last edited on 13 Aug 2023 03:06 by OriTiefling Show more

page 1 of 212next »