Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

Summary:

Regarding crosslinks.

Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

Zyn 15 Jan 2017 00:22

Noting that someone in chat notified me that in the pitfalls essay: http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls#toc16

There was a section heavily discouraging crosslinks. I've added an explanatory footnote to there mentioning The Grand Crosslinking and the WikiWalk team.

I feel like anything more substantial merits discussion. What should be done about it, if anything? The section in question stated,

Something that is far more common in grandfathered-in Series I articles, cross-linking or cross-testing is almost never done anymore, and a great way to guarantee downvotes. Cross-testing and cross-linking is generally seen as a blatant attempt to ride another article's coat-tails and leech votes; even in cases where that wasn't the intention, if the article requires understanding of the linked article to make sense, then it is considered highly detrimental to the stand-alone ability of the page.

Last edited on 15 Jan 2017 00:22 by Zyn Show more

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

MrWrong 15 Jan 2017 16:04

Considering that this is an essay and essays are ultimately an opinion piece, I do not think there is a need to change the content. The footnote works, although we can note (via the same footnote) that authors can crosslink if they choose to.

I mean, the footnote can be misconstrued that staff intervention is needed to allow "validated crosslink".

Additionally, we can make a note that the footnote is not a statement expressed from Aelanna (to make things and not put words in other's mouths).

Last edited on 15 Jan 2017 16:10 by MrWrong Show more

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

Zyn 15 Jan 2017 19:08

Considering that this is an essay and essays are ultimately an opinion piece

Not all site members know this, though. I link to the pitfalls essay fairly often for reference (since we don't really have other things that describe issues with monster SCPs and the like? I prefer open-discussion things though, like that forum thread we have on compulsions and addiction effects. Maybe we can get some more of those things started in General Advice…)

Footnote has been updated.

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

thedeadlymoose 16 Jan 2017 00:01

The pitfalls essay is Aelanna's work. Beyond requiring the note in the beginning, we don't have the right to alter it.

Requiring such notes is something under staff purview at our discretion, and was determined by staffwide discussion, not unilateral action. At the time, some staff wanted very much to change some of the things Aelanna put in her essays — and staff overall decided that even if those things were wrong, we did not have the right to change them.

As with my Writing Tips page, these are all subjective observations and do not represent absolute truths or requirements. You are free to follow or ignore any of the items outlined here.

Much of what Aelanna did was gather up popular opinion and catalogue it, with her own unique phrasing. She also added her own opinions as well. In both cases, the material belongs to her. We don't have the right to change any of the material.

So let's remove the footnote and revert the page to its original form. If anything is added, it should be to the note at the beginning itself.

What we should do is to create a page under staff purview (either created by us, or given to us), which we can actually edit, and link that page to newbies instead.

Last edited on 16 Jan 2017 00:03 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

DrEverettMann 16 Jan 2017 00:14

Agreed. Much better to have something we can use as a living document.

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

Zyn 16 Jan 2017 03:33

Page has been reverted.

What we should do is to create a page under staff purview (either created by us, or given to us), which we can actually edit, and link that page to newbies instead.

How about a discussion thread for some specific topics? We can monitor the discussion on that and it seems a bit more approachable, methinks, if the information and the discussion aren't kept so separate. Also there's no worry about anyone vandalizing or downvote-brigading the first post with the infos.

Something like this: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1526851/critiquing-compulsion-addiction-effects

People can chime in with their opinions so the introductory material isn't be-all-end-all, and questions can be posed right on the same page.

ETA: Actually, heck… I'd love to have a "writing resource" forum for overarching discussion (as opposed to simple single-person queries) where I could put all of those stickied reference threads from General Advice (the discussion about SCPs and IQ, the aforementioned compulsions thread, WJS's "what makes a crosstest work? thread…).

Last edited on 16 Jan 2017 03:38 by Zyn Show more

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

thedeadlymoose 16 Jan 2017 12:01

Pasting chat discussion here because I think it's useful —

[20:50] Zyn General Advice is, as I initially envisioned it to be, a place where quick queries about the writing process could be asked and answered
[20:50] Zyn this included issues with the sandbox and chat
[20:51] Zyn but basically I was thinking of another forum where people could discuss various ways to approach something even if there's no current idea/draft being developed
[20:52] Zyn Gen Advice is for threads that can be considered "done" once the OP has received a sufficient response/help
[20:53] Zyn [This forum] will be always-open discussions on various aspects of being an author for the Foundation'verse
[20:55] Zyn so think "Socratic discussion" rather than "help desk"

I like this idea and would like to see such a forum made. I think it might be pretty useful. We might consider renaming General Advice to something like Ask For Advice, in that case.

Re: Updated pitfalls essay with a footnote

AdminBright 16 Jan 2017 18:57

Looks good to me!

---

Admin, SCP Wiki