The June Revolt

From IBWiki

Near the end of June 2006, a relatively innocent response to edits made by an anonymous user caused a lengthy "Discussion on the Nature of IB" in Lla Dafern, in which many of the older IB members expressed their dissatisfaction with the way Ill Bethisad had developed after the IBWiki had become its main platform. This discussion took place in June and July, and ultimately caused numerous changes, including the wiki being closed for editing by outsiders and most of all IB-related discussion moving back to Conculture. It can be read in its entirety below.

A Discussion on the Nature of IB

The following was put forward by Deiniol, and I think that it bears comment by all members and interested parties:

Possibly mine will be the only dissenting voice here, and what I'm about to write may well come accross as unfriendly, but I assure you that it is not so :D Just a bit concerned.

Are we sure that constant expansion and everything being on the up-and-up is a Good Thing? It's not that I don't value our new members, far from it. But it's the fact that we have such a fairly clear distinction between New Members and Old Hands is a little disturbing. Those who joined the project post-wikification obviously approach it in a different way (as you mention above) to those of us who joined back when it was just chat on Conculture or even Celticonlang.

This wiki seems to monopolise IB. Where once it was an effort spread out across the ether of the internet, with discussion lists, webpages and so on, the pressure to have everything in one place has rather killed all that off. When was the last time a non-wiki IB webpage was updated? One reason I've not seen much of a hurry to get the Arvorec pages back online is because I know that most likely I'll be the only one to read them because they're not on the wiki. I'm not entirely sure I'm happy about that.

I recall a while ago, before the wiki, discussion about legal rights and royalties on fiction set in IB. IIRC, it was a gentleman's agreement that in any such cases a portion of the royalties would be shared among the participants in IB. I realise it's a bit far-fetched at the moment, but if such a situation arose, would that still apply? Would IB22 get a share? How about our unknown feminist who added in the female nation leaders?

One thing which might work and reintroduce something of the "old way" of doing this is requiring interested people to post to conculture *first*, rather than editing anything. Shift the focus of IB from being wholly Wikicentric. What was originally to be a solution to archiving problems has become the whole project, at the expense of individual webpages. I'd like to see people commenting on IB things not found in this wiki. For example, did anyone remark on Padraic's new domain? When was the last time we saw a new text in one of IB's established conlangs? I realise people are busy and that all things change, but it almost seems like that aspect of IB is dying. The focus seems to be these days on sub-subcreation. There's nothing wrong with that, and IMO it certainly adds huge amounts of richness and depth to IB, but what about everything else which makes IB what it is and what it was when I joined?

Finally, please don't anyone take this wrong way or see it as me being grouchy and saying "you should all be conlangers and new people should leave", it's not like that at all. I'm just a little concerned about what's happening to IB.

Also, and a wee bit ironically after what I've written thus far, perhaps this discussion could be better placed in Lla Dafern? Deiniol 15:09, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Yes Dan, I understand perfectly well what you mean. My own feelings about the whole thing are equally double: I highly value several our newer members, but it is true that there is a growing distinction between older and newer members.

I'm going to be very open now. Sometimes, I feel very, very old. And imagine, I haven't been as long in the project as you have! Yet, I can't deny that I don't feel perfectly at home in the current construction either. Let's not idealise the past: we had nice and vivid discussion on Conculture, but after one month had past, it was almost impossible to trace back the conclusion of a discussion (if there was any), not even to mention those constant fights over IB pushing aside other concultures... It was quite a mess, but at least it was our mess. A lot has changed since we "moved" here. IB discussion on Conculture has effectively died out, and the discussions we have here are of a completely different nature. While I don't think that was a change for the worse, I sometimes find it hard to adapt. And I regularly catch myself on writing things that would probably come accross as grouchy! And I'm probably not the only one. Have you noticed how many of the older members have fallen silent lately? Padraic, Kristian, Ferko, Carlos... just to name a few. I have a feeling that is not merely because they are otherwise engaged right now!

I've had lengthy private conversations with Padraic about the issues you address. From the very beginning, we wanted to prevent the wiki to take over the role of our websites. We invented several strategies to achieve that. But as I see now, nothing of that seems to work. At some point, we really started feeling like old Stattler and Waldorf! I guess we'll just have to accept that IB = this wiki, and that conlangs and websites have become a less important part of it. If there is a way to reverse that process, I'm all in for it, but frankly, I don't really believe in it anymore. And here comes a confession: more than once the thought has occurred to me if it wouldn't be better to step back and leave the whole thing to the newer generation of IB members. I'm not going to do that, of course. But at the same time, I can't deny feeling very very old from time to time...

And now I'm going to finish, because it's late and granddad has to go to sleep - see you tomorrow! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 15:57, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

To add my two cents, it occurred to me that we're in a very dangerous position, right now. We have so much invested in this wiki that is ONLY found here, and while Muke is kind enough to host us, who knows but he will fall on hard times and be unable to pay the webhosting bill. Where will we be then? I think that each of us need maintain our own pages. Yahoo and other companies provide free webhosting, even if it is ad-based. I fully intend to move LA information to a secondary, and even tertiary location to help protect my investment of time. I anticipate the same for other regions I'm interested in. I think we really need to push to redevelop our webpages, the wiki is great for conversation, compilation, but we NEED the broken out pages. I think we need a conscious effort, and I think we might make it one of the criterion for membership to maintain some form of webpage showcasing one's contribution.

I, two, feel very old, and I'm younger than a lot...I'm maybe middle-aged, but I feel like a protector of the "old ways." I move that we go back, that we consider a stricter decision on membership, as it seems to have fallen by the wayside and whomever wishes can "touch" our works. We should speak of this at length, I think, to make sure that we are both fair, but with a healthy dose of self-preservation for our unique "sub-culture". BoArthur 16:07, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

I must add that I feel we should seek the opinions of those who saw the "Dream Time," Andrew, Padraic, and any others still interested in participation. I'd rather move to older rules that helped us be what we are today, together than move toward dissolution of this unique group. BoArthur 16:11, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Good point. I'm going to contact Richard about creating a webpage for the Romanian Federation. I'm also going to see about creating a webpage for Mariner. Another notion might be to create an IB Webring. Zahir 16:12, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Bless you for your insight, David! That's PERFECT! In conjunction with the wiki, I think that may be a good tool to help us as we push the "pendulum" back! BoArthur 16:14, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

A Webring! YES! What a bloody good idea! Why did we not think of this earlier? <calls upon the gods of the Arvorchedeth to bless the wise Dr Zahir>.

I kind of agree with you, Dan, in that having a webpage is a good requirement for membership. With some provisos, though. It wouldn't be fair on our members "at large" whose contributions wouldn't really fit on a webpage, nor on those who have only just joined- we can't expect a webpage immediately! However, it might be a good thing to institute some sort of "probation" period. If you join and claim a territory, you have to have a webpage in six months time, maybe? Deiniol 16:21, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Occurs to me that rather than building a website for just Mariner I could build one for all the speculative shows in IB, from Traci the Vompire Hunter to Babylon 5, etc. Zahir 20:45, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

Sounds reasonable. I like it. I think that I must also stipulate that the websites do not need to be Flash or this or that special thing, but rather, something very simple will suffice, and most of the providers have some sort of WYSIWYG editor that makes everything simple and fast. I know what I'm going to be doing for the next few weeks... BoArthur 16:26, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

A couple of cents from a newer member :-) . I do believe that wiki is a good way to store information - the whole world actually - in a single place. It is easier to add new information (especially for those who are not good at creating websites) - one just needs to think and write, no knowledge of either HTML or WISIWYG editors is needed, it takes less time. After all, what we write is essential in IB, the text (and maps, flags, etc.) not the looks; and a wiki is a great way to be able to search easily as well, to understand what is QSS quickly (which is important when the IB became relatively big; even with the wiki and careful search it is sometimes possible to incidently contradict something that is established QSS and this would be even easier with many webpages when IB is as large and "deep" as it is now).

As for the articles, I believe it is still so that the one who writes them in this wiki *owns* them. I might do some edits to articles written by other people but I will never say that I have some right to those articles. I don't think this is a problem as people here are friendly and I hope no lawsuits will ever happen :-) . IB belongs to us all, but it belongs to us all depending on what we have contributed I believe, and of course if someone's only contribution was some minor edit it does not means that he/she gets an equal share of *everything* in IB.

Ill Bethisad is a kind of alternative world and as such it consists of the alternative history, construucted languages, constructed cultures and other things. It was so already when I've heard of IB the first time (I found Jan's website incidently when I was googling for something). Only later I've found this wiki, but on the webpage there was already much information on the alternative history of the Eastern Europe, not solely about the Venedic language. I like all the aspects of this and I believe that all together they makes an one whole. It is good when it is supported by the history why the cultures and languages developed differently in IB than they did in the real world. After all, it is history what has built the languages and cultures of the real world as well. I therefore usually work on several levels at the same time, that might include history, culture, languages as everything is closely related. I am a kind of perfectionist therefore I like when everything can be explained and not when something is different but it is unknown why it is so. Therefore I create long explainations - battlegame appeared more or less because of the longer Second Great War, the reasons for creating Reformed Lithuanian are also explained historically. In fact, everything I wrote on Ethiopia and the Second Great War in Africa started because I wanted to create a plausible explaination for why Ethiopia and China attacked Pakštuva in 1942. As someone who writes about many different issues I find the wiki to be a better solution. For example, I wrote an article about Ashanti - but I am not really a caretaker of it and I purposefully did not try to invent local cultures and define earlier history so that somebody who is interested in the region could come and write this. I only wrote about the Second Great War in the area as it was directly related to other things I was writting at the time. As such, it would be hard for me to create my own website as it would have to deal with many different subjects - from battlegame to Reformed Lithuanian, from Esperanza Rios to the Ethiopian Liberation War - and these subjects are little related to each other. But I like to complete things, make the IB more plausible, explain something that is not yet explained and such. For this I believe a wiki is the best solution. Also, my English is not the best and it is good that on a wiki other contributors may correct mistakes which would be impossible on websites.

I certainly hope that we will be able to use this wiki for long. If there is some risk however the copies of the entire wiki could be made from time to time (each month for example) and in case we would be unable to use it anymore then we could try to take our own articles and move them to separate websites, or, perhaps even better, create a single website. Or maybe it will be possible to add advertisements to the wiki and continue. Anyways, I hope this situation will not happen. Abdul-aziz 16:55, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

I will admit that I am not a huge fan of the wiki. I like the format, it's easy to find information, but my beef is that the majority of what gets updated seems to be bio pages, politics, or fan pages (think of the endless discussions on Traci the Vompire Hunter). Not that there's anything wrong with those topics, it's just that I don't see much about the various cultures in IB. What drew me in to IB were the cultures. Not some prime minister from the 1800's or a king from 200 years ago. This is why you don't see me creating such pages, It is not not interesting for *me* to create those pages. There are so many cultures to talk about in IB, but I think the most culture pages goes to Mr. BoArthur who has added a lot about Louisianne's culture. Of course, I have hardly updated too much about Alta California or even Montreiano culture either. I think the "old way" allowed questions and discussions to easily form, especially since it didn't get buried under tons of updates.

Some of my favorite people seem to have stopped, or rarely if ever post here as well. For instance, Roger Mills self admittedly said that he has a hard time figuring out how to use the wiki. He's only been here a few times that I can remember. He used to be one of the active participants on Conculture as well (this is why Mazapahit and Xrivizaya seem to have gone nowhere, as he was the caretaker). Kristian used to be very active on conculture, even with his busy life. Now, he hardly stops in. It just seems that this medium is less attractive to many of the "old school" contributors. I will admit personally, I *liked* the old way of having to have some solid ideas before being considered part of the group. If that made us a clique, so be it, I *like* being a part of cliques (just as long as you were fair about membership). I know for many of the new members it sounds grouchy, snobbish, and exclusive, but wasn't IB originally a bit like that anyway?

I have to say, I've lost a lot of interest in IB. It's gotten to the point where I feel out of the loop because a lot of what gets discussed are things I'm not particularly interested in (nothing personal), and a lot of what I am interested in, I rarely see get updated or added. Of course, Some of what i've created gets skipped I bet, so as the saying goes, turnabout is fair play. I'm sure I've come across as grouchy, and strict, but I really don't apologize. I think that maybe this is a sign that I need to develop my pages on Montreiano again. It's like I'm falling out of love. This doesn't mean I'm going to give up and let someone else take the reigns. Montrei *is* my baby, and I'm not about to let someone else raise it ;). Doobieous 01:47, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

A way to avoid discussions getting burried bellow tons of other edits would be to use only several special talk pages instead of using them at every article. For example, there could be talk pages like IB cultures, IB languages, IB history, IB people, IB popular culture, IB geography, IB flags. Then in each of the talk pages there would be separate topics such as ==Venedic== or ==Monteirano== in IB languages and it would be possible to add new topics, so for example instead of saying someting at Talk:Nea Illenicia you would add ==Nea Illenicia== topic in IB geography or IB cultures if that topic wouldn't be there yet (or perhaps one would add a topic in the respective talk page when he starts some major proposal). This way it would be easier to find the discussions than when they are spread accross many different talk pages and then people who are interested in those particular subjects would be able to check only those discussions. Abdul-aziz 02:19, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, but to be fair it'd be a lot easier to just go back to doing it on a discussion list. Traffic on conculture has pretty much dried up since we left, so it's not as if we'd be impinging on them if we went back. I'm not suggesting we abandon the wiki, but rather we make use of all the resources at our disposal and have the wiki return to being what it originally was- an archive, a place to store stuff before they get their own pages. For example, one thing I'm definitely going to do is pull the Cravethism page and put it on my website, because I don't think it serves much purpose here. For lists of general moderators and the like, hashing out some big stuff like GW2 etc. the wiki is ideal. If you want to present aspects of your conculture or conlang, it's dreadful. For example, I'd rather like feedback on my Arvorec pages, but won't get it here. I did want to leave feedback on Barry's grammar of Montreiano (which, by the way, I adore), but didn't really know where to do so, nor if it would be seen.

If people are really anti-list, we could explore other avenues, like a bulletin board or similar (these have the advantage of giving threaded discussion, easy topicalisation and don't flood your inbox). Deiniol 05:24, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Indeed such things as for example the grammar of contructed languages could and should have their own pages as it is easier to make your own page structure there so that it would be easier for the people to understand what the language really is. So in this particular case I believe the wiki should contain only the basic information about the language and where it is spoken, while the link to the official website of that language would be available for those wanting to learn it or to find out more.

Many other things are however (in my opinion) much better off in wiki. For example all the IB history, as any addition to history of one country or one event usually touches other countries in one way or another and it is good when you can change something about these additions in the articles about history of other countries. In general, I believe that history is something we all write together and it is quite hard to delimit where is one members' are and where is anothers'. Languages, on the other hand, are usually constructed by one or several interested people and changes in other languages or the additions to history usually does little infleunce to the constructed languages. Culture, religions and such I believe is somewhere in between and I think those are things that are perhaps better in wiki also. But if you want to write in long details on exact religious practices of some religion, or maybe a whole holy book of constructed religion, then of course a separate website with a link to it from the wiki is better. In general, I believe that the wiki should not be an archive, but rather a window to the world of IB, while the websites would provide additional, more in depth information about those subjects that are well known (that is, well thought-out).

I would prefer forums (bulettin board) over the list. I think forums might be a good idea for discussing and then what is agreed upon would be added to wiki or respective pages. The problem here is that this MediaWiki software is perhaps not the best for the IB wiki and it would be the best to have the forum and the links to IB websites well integrated into wiki (i.e. appearing on the left frame) and then there would be no need for the article talk pages at all perhaps but I understand that there are probably no free alternatives, therefore, we will have to search for solutions using the means available. Abdul-aziz 06:31, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Websites

I think it's really good we're having this discussion.

Like I said, I think it is an excellent idea to have a webring. Dr. Zahir, you are now a Knight In The Order Of The White Eagle!

I, too, think we need a reminder every now and then that this wiki is merely a storehouse of information. A repository of established matter, if you like. And a good place for discussion as well. But it should not replace our websites.

I have to admit that my own feelings towards these websites are somewhat mixed. Let's not forget one thing. Back then, we created websites because it was the only way to showcase our own work. It also was the only real reference material we had. It was either that, or your stuff getting buried in the Conculture and other archives). We did it because we had to. And whether we like it or not, thát situation has changed. What remains is two things. First of all, webpages look a lot nicer than wiki pages; as Padraic stated once, on a webpage you can not only show off what you have written, but also your own personal style, while a wiki page will always be a wiki page. But on the other hand, creating and updating wiki pages surely is a hell of a lot easier, and the ultimate purpose - easily accessible information about established facts - is achieved anyway.

What should change, I believe, is this: nobody should ever think that the wiki is the real thing and the websites are only some kind of external thing, or worse, a relic from the past. Dan is right, there has been a tendency to ignore them, and that is a Bad Thing. It should always be understood that the websites are at least as important a part of IB as the wiki.

That said, I agree that newer members should be motivated to make a website. But making it a hard requirement (or worse: a condition) for membership is a definite no-no to me. That's unacceptable. Not everybody knows how to write HTML, not everybody who does has the time for it, and not everything we produce is suitable for HTMLification. We've had several more than excellent members who didn't have website for their IB stuff. John and Kristian come to mind, as well as some others. I wouldn't want to disqualify them now! Apart from that, however, I would certainly like to see more IB related websites, also from the newer members. It would also help people focus! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 06:03, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

You have a point about people not having webpages, Jan. I think though, that we should all consider having them. I think we've become way too dependent on the wiki, and I would like to see some "Middle-Road" action happening. BoArthur 07:43, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Originaly I thought the IB wiki would be an encyclopedia of sort where we would put things that are official (in other words, no proposals) with the preliminary work being done being the scene. Of course it ended up being something completely different now being more of a clearing house for everything IB.

I don't think either apparoach is wrong quite frankly but it would probably be a good idea to decided whats what. Is writing something on a personnal webpage official ? (I'm thinking of some of the commonwealth members for example) or does it need some sort of officialization process first ?

the idea of the webring is probably a good way to go. Some pages could of course be personnal and related to a specific entities while other could be akin to FOIB and dedicated to multi-members contribution on a given subject: IB tv guide, the Louisianan National Geographical Society, etc...

Regarding the legalese, if ever someone goes on and try to make money off it, the question of money will depend on what element he use. For exemple, Barry writing a book that take place solely within Montrei would not owe anyone anything. And until someone trademark it, neither would anyone using the name "Ill Bethisad" (but use my logo in a mercantile pursuit without payement or permission and I'll break your legs).

As for newer members, about the only concern I personnaly have is with the creation of new countries. I whish someone would join and developt a province/state/region instead of cutting a bit of real estate. I'm not saying it should be impossible to create a sovereign entity but there should be a bloody good explanation as to what it would give to our little Bethiverse.--Marc Pasquin 10:06, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I occurs to me that in line with the above discussion, I should also restructure the Superhero area along these lines: The articles in the wiki giving an overview but with links to a page which would describe in depth the different characters and their histories. In particular it seems to me the wiki article should focus on how the history of superhero comics reflects the overall history of IB. Comments? Zahir 07:33, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

I don't think you ought to do anything. If you feel that the wiki is a better place for that information (easier to add new information, easier to link the articles to each other, easier to create wiki articles than webpages) then you don't need to move any information. It is a matter of what you like more - wiki or websites - I believe. Abdul-aziz 10:51, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

A few things

It is pretty clear that we have a dichotomy between the older members and the newer ones. We really should fix that. Padraic has more or less withdrawn from the project for pretty sad reasons, and if I understand you guys correctly, some other old-timers (Barry, Deiniol, also myself) feel alienated enough to be close to withdrawing as well. Let's not delve into the reasons for all that, but concentrate instead on how we can prevent that from happening. I think basically we all agree on two things: that we can't abandon this wiki just like that, and yet, that SOMETHING has to change.

It would be good if those of us who own one or more countries would make a website for it, and keep it updated. David's Oltenia page is a really good beginning! Subsequently, we should withdraw this information from the wiki (otherwise people will only look at the wiki stuff anyway and forget about the web pages). The Wiki should not replace the websites in any way, but merely serve as a repository for stuff that doesn't really fit on websites.

Secondly, I want to reinforce QSS. What I mean by that? Simply this: it seems to have become customary for some people to constantly question What Has Been Written. In the past, much of what we did was built on Mystery. Even very major events in the past of world history were vague and blurry. Now it's different. We know enough about GW2 to write a book about it, and as a direct result of that, several assumptions made in the time when things were still blurry are now hard to explain. And what happens next? Constant discussions over how things need to be changed (f.ex. which countries belong to the Commonwealth and which don't). While the arguments used in those discussions are certainly valid, to the original caretakers it gives the unpleasant feeling that they are constantly under attack. So here's the deal: from now on, QSS is QSS, with no exception for a while.

The third point is how we discuss things. Frankly, I don't really care. Abdul-Aziz' suggestion of talk pages like IB cultures, IB languages is nice but unworkable. What we might do, however, is concentrating all discussion here in Lla Dafern (and move items only to articles' talk pages when a discussion has been concluded. I'd personally welcome the idea of having more discussion outside of this wiki. In my opinion the Conculture List would be the right place for that. First of all, because that's where our archives are, and because we always used to have a good time there. The list is pretty silent these days. Those who always complained about IB stuff pushing other concultures away have been proven wrong: almost the only person who still faithfully posts there is Habarakhe, who never had any problem with IB. I'm definitely against picking Yet Another Place, especially a forum or a bulletin boards. Personally, I don't really like those, and they have several major disadvantages (for example, the possibility to add attachments). I'm sure that if we make such a move, we'll lose valuable members again!

As for Marc's remark about new countries: fully agreed. In fact, that has been our policy already for quite a while. I think we should just stick to it: no new countries (well, perhaps in Oceania), unless someone really has a damned lot to offer, along with a good explanation (which was the case with Xliponia).

A last remark: I would really appreciate it if people would stick to their own territories for a while. Always keep in mind that IB is a shared world, and that only parts of it are really collaborative. I'd say, let's give The World some peace for a while, concentrate on our own corners of the world, and lick our wounds.

—IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 12:21, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Amen. BoArthur 12:53, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

The reason why I have suggested several talk pages instead of the single Lla Dafern is because it seems (from what was said by Deniol and others) that different people are interested in different things of IB, for example, some likes to add information and discuss about popular culture of IB and others finds it to be uninteresting and prefers concultures or conlangs. So these people would probably still see Lla Dafern as being full of uninteresting discussions (that is, discussions related to the topics they don't like/don't feel they are the essence of IB). I personally see IB as a constructed world rather than alternate history or a bunch constructed languages/cultures and therefore I believe many things can be written about, so, from my own viewpoint, it might be as you suggest, everything discussed in Lla Dafern and moved to the respective talk pages when the discussion is complete.

Ok, the new countries might be not carved out, with the exception of the "terra incognita" regions - the only such region remaining is probably Oceania. I personally don't care much about it, but the main problem probably is that the number of countries increases but it does not decrease anyhow as occupations of one country by another are rare nowadays, something that seems would have to be otherwise with the relatively larger militarism in the Ill Bethisad than in the real world.

And I don't think information, such as the information about the countries or cultures, should be withdrawn from this wiki. Some information is indeed much better of in separate websites - like complete information about conlangs, galleries of the national flags, galleries of the uniforms and insignias, maybe pages like National anthems (if there would be more of those anthems) could be moved to separate websites as well (that is soemthing like http://david.national-anthems.net for the real world's national anthems in this case). But, however, not the common information about IB countries and cultures. Abdul-aziz 13:03, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Re your first point: while that is true, concentrating the discussion in Lla Dafern would keep it more central. One of the disadvantages of the current situation is the speed with which things are changing. Everything is só scattered all over the place that it is hard to keep track! Result: people lose contact with the whole and at some point don't feel connected to it anymore.

Re your third point: but that is exactly the problem! As far as anybody is interested in the conlangs, people dó visit those pages. But who would look into my history of the RTC if it's all here in the wiki anyway? And where is my incentive to keep that page up-to-date if nobody cares to read it anyway? If you ask me, the only way to make those websites really alive is when they contain info that can't be found elsewhere but that is vital anyway. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 13:43, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

We could simply leave the basic: name, where it is, 3 lines on history, etc... --Marc Pasquin 13:40, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Precisely. And let's not forget to add a link! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 13:43, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Three lines would be way too little IMO, it should be explained more on why the country is like that, what POD's there were, the culture of it and such. Of course for example the history of the RTC could be shortened in this wiki if you wish so and integrated in the RTC article, then the website would contain whole history. But still however I believe there should be enough history in the wiki to be able to understand what actually happened, how did the RTC survived the partitions and such. But in general I believe the things such as that are better to be based in wiki. For example, you are taking care of Veneda, I am taking care of Lithuania, Follow by the White Rabbit is interested in the media of RTC (both Veneda and Lithuania), somebody else added information about the Czechs of Volhynia and so on. If we all would have separate websites, it would be harder for the others to understand; in the wiki it is possible to link to other articles very conviniently, while in case there would be separate websites, this would be harder. In cases where such collaborative work is needed I believe wiki is the best solution. The situation with the conlangs, uniforms and insignias and such, where usually a single person takes care of that particular thing, is different, and that can be moved to separate websites conviniently. Maybe for example "How to tell if you are (some nation)" articles could be moved to a separate website as well (although this would be hard, as all of those are written by different people), but starting to move everything and more or less starting to abandon the wiki would be a wrong move in my opinion. Abdul-aziz 14:05, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I like what Abdul-Aziz has to say about condensing, and not just three lines. I like the idea of having our web-pages be the in-depth, and the blurbs here much like Wikipedia's sub-headings with the small paragraph with the overhanging For more information on XYZ, see Full Information on XYZ. BoArthur 14:11, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

3 lines was just a matter of speech, not a strict limit. However, describing the culture and all is exactly what should be on the webpage, not the wiki. --Marc Pasquin 14:16, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Yes, I have understood that 3 lines did not meant exactly 3 lines but what it meant that still the wiki would become some catalogue of nations (i.e. like South America article is) instead of a place of real articles about various aspects of IB (well, I am sure many articles would remain, but then again some would be moved out, and then some countries and historical facts would have much written about them in wiki, while not so for others), and this is what I don't agree with as I have explained in my post above. Regarding the linking to websites as BoArthur proposed, yes, this is what I have meant. The only problem that is here is that the links has a habit to become dead links eventually. It is so now already, e.g. see the link from Commonwealth of Nations article to http://www.bethisad.com/commonwealth.htm - when I was trying to get a map of Commonwealth for my world map, I failed, as the link seems to be broken. Website owners would of course move pages and they might not know or not remember what links are where (and the links would not only be in wiki, but in other websites as well). This is one of the problems that does not exist if you use primarilly wiki. When you move article, a redirect is created, dead links are visible as red links, while dead links to other webistes are hard to notice unles syou click on them. Abdul-aziz 14:45, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I understand your concerns, Abdul-Aziz. What you are worried about is that this wiki might change its coherence. At present, it is a nice and fairly complete encyclopedia of what IB is about. And that effect would be gone.

Yes, it wóuld be gone. Because this whole discussion is precisely about that: because all that's really left of IB is its encyclopedia. It has essentially become a wikipedia project where not everything has to be true but everything has to fit in the whole. This shows up not only in the kind of subjects that are covered, but also in the way we discuss things now. Believe me, it used to be different. In the past, discussing things was at léast as important as the final result. Most members participated in every discussion, and you never knew were a discussion was going. There were always a lot of things of the type "hey, and what if...", "what would have been the effect on ...", etc. Now, we still discuss things, but from a completely different angle. A very result-oriented one. It's mostly about how an article should be changed to satisfy everybody.

Indeed, what I am proposing is essentially the unmaking of the IBWiki as an encyclopedia.

Contrary to what you propose, I am not in favour of condensed articles. The effect of those will be all the same: that people will merely look at the wiki for reference, and they'll stop caring about the details. If you say that all vital info must be in the wiki, you also imply that what's not in the wiki is not vital either.

As for the RTC: yes, we have a complicated situation here. Well, we have three options here:

I upload your and FBWR's stuff to my webpages as well (of course crediting your properly). If there's anything you guys want to see changed or expanded, you'll have to contact me. But what's wrong with that? It ís a collaborative project after all! Also, remember that there are several things on my pages which are not mine already, and that there are things of mine on other people's pages!
You and/or FBWR have your own pages, and we'll simply interlink them thoroughly.
You and/or FBWR continue using the Wiki.

All three are possibly, but my own preference would be the first option. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 21:57, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I am not implying that what will not be in this wiki will not be important. Take the uniforms website that was proposed by Marc Pasquin as an example. I agree that such website could be created. Then links to the pages of that website would be posted from the "Military" sections of the wiki articles of the respective countries (these sections are now in RTC and Riu de l'Argent articles). People who are interested in the uniforms would click, then check the other uniforms at the website, compare. I don't think the uniforms would become any less important. Similarly if you would want to write a holy book for some constructed religion, then you could do so at a separate page and post a link from this wiki. Some long information, such as History of the RTC could also be removed and changed to a link to your website.

If you want to have something personal in the articles you write, then I would rather prefer the decition you suggested yourself previously - everybody of us could make colourful unique templates as our signatures, with something like

"This page was made by IJzeren Jan.

Click here to visit his website about the Eastern Europe in Ill Bethisad"

written and sign our articles using them (a simple example of what I mean could be seen at Template:Abdul-aziz; of course, such templates could also include some pictures, a small list of what areas the person is a caretaker of, link to his/her website, his/her e-mail address or soemthing else). This, coupled with the requirement to discuss everything in Lla Dafern or separate talk pages or some separate forum and the withdrawal of *some* particular information (like uniforms and insignias for example) to separate websites would be enough of a reform in my opinion. At least we should try that at first.

Another suggestion would be to create a single website for Ill Bethisad where we all could upload information. This would solve some problems of wiki (WikiMedia software being not the best for IB; there would be a separate place for discussions in the website instead of many talk pages, different people could use different styles for their pages and so on) and some problems of having many different websites (interlinking/dead links, hard to find the information you want, contradicting websites), however, this solution would have problems of it's own (too much bandwidth probably if we use free hosting), therefore I prefer the previous solution. Abdul-aziz 03:42, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

The thing is, the older members are trying to move away from having a single IB website. Personally I want to put my Arvorec stuff on my own pages, ask for suggestions on sescam for a new flag design, and above all interact with the friends I've made over the past six years. I don't want to upload every thing to this wiki, signature or not, occasionally comment on a talk page and upload a gallery of proposals which sink without a trace. Dan posted the message above to conculture, where it hasn't gotten a reply because everything is here. If I had my way, I would only check this wiki as and when I want to refer to something. But doing that means cutting myself off from the rest of the project as there's no discussion anywhere else. Even then I've rather fallen out of the loop- I'm vèry saddened to hear that Padraic has withdrawn somewhat from the project (particularly as I had another minor war I wanted to run past him, as well as some questions about Brittany).

I think the webring idea could really "tip the pendulum back", as Dan says. And come on, it's not so difficult to get a website. Geocities is free, as is Google pages- for the latter you don't even need to know any html. And html isn't difficult- if you can use mediawiki markup you're halfway there already. Deiniol 12:29, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

I don't know. I don't think it is ever possible to roll the time back; you probably know this better as you keep in contact with those people, but I somehow don't think that moving back to websites would make all the members who have withdrawn (since IB moved to this wiki) to come back. Some people have lost interest to some extent maybe (but new people came - as with every hobby, for some it might last shortly, for some others it might take a long time before they abandon it and for a few it might last for all their life - but not so for everybody). And, besides for nostalgy and the belief that if we would go back to websites everything would be as good as in those old times, I don't see good arguements why this should be done; as all the other problems that were mentioned - many talk pages for discussions, people feeling that they don't own the information here as much as it was with websites and so on - could be solved through various other (IMO better) means than (almost) completely switching back to websites.

HTML might not be the biggest problem (to me at least) but however everyone will probably agree with me that creating websites is harder and more time-consuming than writting articles here. You could see the difference between [[Ethiopia]] and <a href="http://ib.frath.net/w/Ethiopia">Ethiopia</a> (especially knowing that the latter requires you to find out what exact path is that might be long and depend on website and such). Not to mention the troubles with dead links if for example someone to whose website I am linking to decided to alter his pages a little and combine some into one, etc. And I prefer to spend my time writting information (or drawing maps/flags) - the things that makes IB what it is - rather than creating style for my website, writting the links correctly and so on. But, of course, it is a matter of opinion probably. Abdul-aziz 15:53, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

Look, this is not about putting back the clock and acting as if this wiki has never existed. I've always believed, and I still do, that the wiki is an excellent resource. Nobody is seriously considering closing it down altogether. It's merely the way it has been used that has been alienating almost the whole bunch of core members. And that is bad enough. It simply means that just a little restructuring is simply not an option.

Like I said, I'm not in favour of making a website an obligatory condition for membership. I think we should at least leave open the option of being a wiki-only member. We could do that by compartimentalising the wiki a little, so that you or someone else could create it here. Others, who dó have websites or consider having one, should be allowed to move out there stuff.

So, instead of being a real IB encyclopedia, the wiki in a way would become something like an extended version of the ancient Minor Countries Page, mixed with lots of miscellaneous stuff that doesn't fit on websites either, and some material that actually shóuld be on a website but was written by a person who doesn't have one.

It also means that nobody should even thínk of editing an article written by someone else, and that nobody should just start writing articles for the wiki, not even with a proposal tag. We've worked with proposal tags over a year now, and I think we can safely conclude that it doesn't work. How many people really go over the proposals list once a week or so? How many real discussion has it caused? Deiniol is right: one of the nicest and most charming elements of IB used to be this interaction with people who become close friends over the years, and much of this interaction is gone. IB has become a machine, a factory. So here's the deal: when you've cooked up something, you simply describe your ideas in a message to Conculture. We'll have a vivid discussion about it, and the final result - on a website or here in the wiki - will be the ultimate result of that. That would be better for anybody, even for you. Because let me tell you one thing in secret, Abdul-Aziz: there are a lot of IB members who haven't got a clue as to how on Earth Lithuania ended up in Africa, notwithstanding the fact that it's all described perfectly well in your articles!

You are asking for arguments as to why all this should be done. Well, if almost the entire backbone of the project is leaving or at least losing interest, that is a pretty heavy argument to me! Don't forget that IB has been around for ten years now, and that the wiki era was nothing more than a short intermezzo. It was an interesting new approach, we tried it, it didn't work the way we wanted it to, so we go back to how we used to work before that.

I think we should at least give it a chance. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 22:52, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

A Reply to the Discussion

Well! I see this topic has generated a lot of good discussion, and has raised a lot of concerns, many of which I must admit have been getting to me, even, since the Wiki has been utilised to the near exclusion of all else. Jan and Dan, fellow powers that be, have convinced me that this is not the time for leaving (and leaving is what I was considering!) A lot of the issues my good friends, both old and new, have brought up have also been vexing me. It seems that this is a time for changing a fundamental way we go about creating Ill Bethisad.

Wiki Issues

There seem to be two major themes here: problems with the overall project (excessive detail, every gap needs filling) and problems with the IB Wiki itself (it has become the end all, rather than a place for discussion). The basic choices are between Conculture and the Wiki. Frankly, I see no reason to move the discussion back to Conculture, as we've already seen good arguments against is use: crappy archives and discussions are hard to keep track of. Here on the Wiki, we can create any number of discussion pages we like (this is why I like Abdul Aziz's idea -- it would be in effect little different from chatting on Conculture, though it would still alienate those who don't want to deal with wikis). All the discussions are automatically archived for future use. But a major drawback of the Wiki is that it has become all there is to IB. Once the discussion is concluded, the information needs to be organised and moved out. Not everyone likes to make webpages, but enough do so that information doesn't have to languish here. The other problem inherent to a Wiki is the incessant twiddling and fiddling with stuff long since established. Of particular recent note are complaints about Commonwealth member states and the status of Jamaica. The Wiki's nature invites all sorts of tweakage that IB has hitherto not had to endure. When the information was stored solely on a webpage, there was no problem. The list of member states is old and established, as is Jamaica's status. Now that it's an available target on the Wiki, all of a sudden there are problems that almost seem to demand radical solutions. In this regard, I see the use of more permanent web pages as a stabilising factor. If minor details (and even major facts) get ignored, fiddled with and trampled upon on a daily basis, IB can not really grow sensibly from a set of established facts and explanations. All it can do is continually remodel itself as we struggle to explain and reexplain and threeexplain and then rehash the same datum all over again. I think at this point in time, we're going to have to declare a moritorium on tweaking of established facts. Let's keep in mind that the whole concept of QSS was established in order to protect facts and establish a base on which future work can rest secure. Certainly, new facts about IB should be welcome, but we need to return to the more traditional ways of dealing with old facts. If you really really really really think an old fact is simply "bad", a really really really really good explanatory proposal needs to be offered to change it.

A minor theme is the fact that, since settling in the Wiki, all of a sudden the gaps in knowledge that we used to savour now MUST be filled in. I don't understand why this need be so, as the gaps can be every bit as interesting and even inspirational as the known facts. Part of this is due to the nature of the wiki: it wants to be filled up, and it seems that people active on wikis tend to do just that. This isn't a traditional wiki: even though we're using the software that makes IB matieral look like a wiki, it really shouldn't be confused with a wikipedia. While new insights into our collective world are welcome, filling up gaps for the sake of filling up gaps is not really a good idea.

I am in support of the creation of a webring in order to host established information about IB (keeping in mind that the Wiki and even Conculture would be the place for continuing discussion, proposals, introduction of new facts, etc); I am also offering (again) to open bethisad.com to those who want to make a page and don't have a place. Jan and Dan have access to it. I also want to say that I do not support the idea of making a webpage is a requirement for membership in good standing. It is an ideal that not everyone has the time, inclination or talent to deal with. Abdul Aziz has made clear that he is stronger in this format, and I think that's fine. But at the same time, someone else could work with him at getting his work onto the webring (excellent idea, David!).

I share with Jan and Dan that there has been a tendency to ignore the webpages. I can't recall how many times I've seen queries about something that has been archived in a web page for years. Worse are occasions where new information will contradict established facts that, once again, have been around for years on the website. The wiki is very convenient and, I must admit, that it is very easy to ignore the website and rewrite ad whimiam when a lot of its data has been copied to the wiki. Basically, the web sites are intended to be a repository of established, base-line fact (stuff that should be most resistant to change). The old page on the Commonwealth was a good example, as is the Page of Brithenig itself. Long established facts don't really need to be hashed about here. They should also be the place where pictures are stored, ideally, though Muke has been very gracious in letting us upload squintabytes worth of images and sound files to this wiki.

I don't fill gaps for the sake of it, I do it out of interest. IB will never be completed. There is something that always can be added, whether it be the telephone system of the NAL or the road-signs of Florida Carribea. Filling gaps isn't necessarily a bad thing; but when filling gaps means simply confirming QAA by copying and pasting from Wikipedia, that's when we have a problem. --Quentin 00:20, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Legal Rights

This has been an issue quietly hiding in the wings for longer than there has even been an "Ill Bethisad" to speak of. It was clear in the early days that Andrew owned the rights to Brithenig and Kemr as the creator of same. The rest of us were commentators and suggestors. As things got progressively more complex, the idea of intellectual property crept into the mix. It was decided long ago, via "gentleman's agreement" as previously described, that work done on the project was common property, be it a concept (Jante's Law), a person (Santos Dumont), an article (NAL-SLC) or a webpage. Our operational principle is "if you don't like it that way, don't contribute your intellectual prowess". Individuals can claim copyright for their publksihed works (like a webpage), but with the understanding that the content is part of the group's materials.

The situation gets a little dicier when it comes to "physical" and in particular "lucrative" products. I know several of us have long had plans to write stories and novels based on IB. I have one story written (though not published as of yet), and I know there are other works being written. Here it is clear that if someone is willing to make the effort at writing a quality story and get it published that he should get the royalties. Our gentleman's agreement doesn't infringe on anyone's right to make money, even off of the project. It would certainly be an honourable gesture to offer a percentage to "the group", but quite frankly, this would open a whole new can of worms that we're not really set up as a group to handle.

Isn't IB a collective authorship? I wouldn't want this to go too wiry. Royalties? Isn't that taking things too far? --Quentin 00:17, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Membership issues

The nature of membership is now pretty well established (interest in the project, desire to contribute, understanding and abiding by such rules as we have). We've decided to introduce the categories of "candidate member" and "interested bystander". Basically, the one is the category new members fall into until it becomes clear that they're going to become regular members. The other category is simply for those who don't want to bother with the commitment but still want to pass comments from time to time. It was once suggested that new members should be "mentored" for a short time as a way of bringing them up to speed on How Things Work and all that sort of administrative stuff -- might be a nice idea to revisit that. Lastly, one of the most serious drawbacks of the Wiki is that it has essentially destroyed everything that being an IB member was all about. Anyone with a logon id can make edits (and thus usurp for themselves the rights and priviledges that used to be reserved for those of us who asked to join up), which makes them defacto members. Not a Good Thing! I've seen calls in this discussion to return to the previous mode of admitting membes, namely introduction via Conculture. This way we can gauge the interests of the prospective and what his ideas for IB are. We can weed out people who just want to create lists of everything under the sun or people whose ideas simply won't fit and of course spammers. The other valid way to become a member is to be invited. Several of us contacted a present member with questions or ideas and were later invited to join.

Which is exactly why I'm not a member myself. It's hardly supportive for bystanders and new members. What do you mean by "Lists of everything under the sun"? Was that directed at me? --Quentin 00:26, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Shrinking Quantities of Real Estate

Marc brings up a good issue here, that of too many people wanting "their own country". I have to say, that I've been ill at ease with the number of individuals who claimed a country for themselves for a long while. Early on, our assumption (as far as foreign parts was concerned) was that *here* and *there* were pretty much the same. That of course changed, and it seems that everyone that joined got a country handed to them. I truly understand the underlying reasons: most of us were conlangers and conculturists: what better place to show off our languages than with an independent country of our own! I think it's safe to say that there isn't any room for new countries. Even Oceania is well carved up, and Africa has long since ceased to be terra incognita. Anyone newly arrived should not expect such independence: they're just going to have to accept suzereinty of another. It's not hard: Dunein has always been part of Kemr, and I like to think Andrew and I got along pretty well, apart from my never getting the hang of Brithenig mutations! As Jan said, it's pretty much a de facto policy and it is worth sticking to.

The reason I'm here is to get away from the "Design your own country" mentality of places like Vexillium, because they discourage interlinking history and allow everything to just fall away. I actually like the QSS nature of IB because it means we don't forget things. There is more to IB than countries! There are TV programmes, Books, Pop Music, Classical music, Languages, &c &c. We aren't just a "maps 'n' flags" institution. --Quentin 00:23, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Build It and They Will NOT Come

Abdul Aziz is quite right in saying that just moving back to Conculture won't bring back everyone that has left -- though it must be said that several of our members dropped out specifically because we were shifting to the wiki. It's happened before. We lost prominent members when we moved from private email to a now defunct Celticonlang list. I'm sure we lost others when we moved first to Conlang and then Conculture. We'll certainly lose a LOT of folks when we're done sorting things out now. At least we'll be able to get rid of a lot of spammers!

The point of this discussion, AA, is not to get "lost members" back but to correct certain problems in the way the IB Project is currently running. The fact is, a lot of us do NOT like what has become of the project since we came to the wiki. We know how it was on Conculture and even given its shortcomings would not find it so difficult to move back entirely.

Now, I'd like say that I don't favour returning entirely, as I think that the wiki offers many benefits. But the fact remains that it has problems, and quite frankly we intend to sort them out. If that means losing some of the newer folks because they don't want to suffer change, that will be a shame indeed but not unprecedented. As for not seeing the arguments in favour of returning to Conculture, well, you're fairly new here and this format is all you know. Quite frankly, it is nice! But it has clear drawbacks and serious fundamental problems. It's our aim to correct what is being perceived as wrong with the underlying principles of the project as a whole, while hopefully maintaining what is truly good and nice about the Wiki. Certainly hope you'll hang around! -- I think you've offered quite a bit of good insight into IB!

As Jan said, the Wiki has been an interesting experiment, but ultimately we're finding it to be not so great an idea in application as we had hoped. This whole thread indicates to me that we need to rethink this aspect of How It All Works.

Elemtilas 15:08, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

One of the biggest short-fallings of the mailing list is you can't find anything there. I've spent hours trawling through that seeing if my ideas conflict with QSS and finding faux returns. Even if you do move to the mailing list you must keep the Wiki for a few admins to put info on. --Quentin 00:28, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Responses to Quentin

Before going on, I want to take a moment to respond to your concerns in particular:

Re filling gaps for interest. No one can fault you for taking interest in lots of different things! This wide ranging (almost vagabondish) nature of yours has gotten you into some bad graces, but quite frankly, that can be forgiven. I think it is a trait to be encouraged, but also directed. You're flitting around like a butterfly -- while I wouldn't want to dampen your keen interest in all the minutia, it would not be inappropriate to increase your focus. It is very true that IB will never be completed (it IS a secondary creation, after all), and quite frankly, you bring a lot of interesting things to our attention.

Re IB being a "collective authorship": yes, it is, and that's what the "gentlemen's agreement" addresses. When we accept membership in this community, we accept that our work is not our own, in the way it would be if we had devised our own fantasy world. The issue of royalties is not at all out of whack. In fact, we've discussed it a couple times over the last few years. You may not realise this, but some of us have written stories (intended for publication) and others are working on novels that are set in IB. A short story takes a bit of work, and a novel takes a whole lot more. IB is now at the point where a novel could be plausibly written -- and the issues of royalties and similar are right at our doorstep. The material contained in the novel comes from a collaborative work; it may also have been written with the help of one or more members. We're all a bunch of nice fellows, a family of sorts, but due credit and remuneration for our work done here is not an invalid topic or consideration!

I understand that you aren't a regular member yet. You haven't been around very long yet, after all! I hope it's becomming clear that signing on to the IBWiki is NOT all it takes to secure membership. Frankly, I am very much in your corner regarding membership. I know you've had a rocky history here -- can't ignore that! -- but all in all, I think your contributions have been worthwhile and quite worthy.

Re the "lists of everything under the Sun" and "can't find a damned thing around here" - - no, that isn't directed at you in particular. Mind you, it wasn't so long ago you went on a recategorisation spree! What I was thinking of more was a whole load of needless files (I think it was South American countries or something like that) that had no content. Ended up deleting the lot. As for not being able to find anything in Yahoo's useless "archive", I fully agree with thee. It's the Wiki's major saving grace. I am not dead-set on returning to Conculture, but will certainly participate in any IB related discussions that go on there. All members and interested parties are certainly invited to join that list and participate as well.

Re getting away from "design your own country": I couldn't have said it better! I am very pleased and honoured that you have found a place here and are persevering. The present discussion may seem pointless and confusing to you as a newcommer, but believe me, to the rest of us these are issues that have been bubbling away for a good long while. We can't lay blame on you and Abdul Aziz and other new folks; but neither are we going to sit around while our shared project and years of loving labour go to bits.

Elemtilas 18:54, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

I am lost in a supermaket

Pardon me guys, but I am not fully getting the problem. Honestly, it is because I have lots of off-IB thingies and participate sporadicaly. I am the middle IB-generation (no.26), jumping onto already running train, but it still was not so rolling machine as today. My interests are rather limited and well-defined. As far as I understand the problem, some people are not satisfied with wiki and with the aspects of wiki-powered IB. My two groats: IB is the hell most ambitious and megalomaniac enterprise I ever took part in. It is lot of fun, but once you try really seriously think about it, you might easily get spooked by the giantic amount of work it demands to go on. Times on conculture were nice, but it was difficult to track anything back; wiki for me was a good tool to sort things out and be able to discuss directly the topic (in a discussion page). I never honestly plan to convert my IB-related web-pages into wiki-pages, I only planned to wikify the infos and put them here. These are two different things, the web- and wiki-pages. Different purpose, different instruments: web-page is a sum on particular realm, wiki is encyclopaedia and common discussion tool. I would go for IB-webring to connect IB-related web-pages and leave IB-wiki as a procesed data storage. It needs to have strict rules and ways. What I see as more pounding problem, it is long-term absence of many important players, e.g. Ferko and Kristian. IB is based on unique people. Could I today say: Bohemia and Nassland are free to take over? (want not to boast that these two are SO important ;) Who would take them? And, if no-one, is it important for IB? I like IB-wiki as IB it-self, we may need to come with better discussion board and some rules regarding the creations (appart of QSS and QAA). The "youngsters" should be able join with possibility to track back the QSSs and QAAs. I've joined IB only after I saw a gap in Bohemia conculturing for *there*, being unsatisfied with the suggested solutions. Let me finnish my scream out of dark with a silent wish: let us do it in a way, the IB will go on. I am a compromiser (in a positive sense ;) and easy going man, so what ever would be constructive, I'll go for it. Jan II. 01:39, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Answer

Hello. I am on holiday now logging in from an internet cafe, so I don't have time to address everything but I have read through the new posts and will make several comments here.

I do agree regarding the easiness to find information on the wiki. IB is now much larger than it used to be and even with the current situation it is hard to find everything and easy to violate the QSS incidently.
IB will *never* be complete. Therefore completing something one is interested in is, in my opinion, not bad at all. In the real world there are thousands of languages, hundreds of countries, many cultures, movies, musical bands, currencies, flags, cities, historical events, famous people and so on. It is so in IB I assume. There will always be place for a new one. I agree about the countries however. But, although the world is carved out, there are *many* countries that have little or nothing written about them and has no caretakers. Anyone is invited to develop them. Regarding Oceania, please say at Talk:World map what countries are not marked there (if any) - as according to the map of Oceania on which I based my map, quite many islands belongs to no country. There will always be place for new movies, new people, new conlangs, new cultures, new historical events.
I don't think the talking about the royalties is in the right place really. At least I don't edit IB because I expect money. If someone would want to write a novel where for example some of the action goes on in Free Lithuania it would be nice of that person to credit me for the creation of the idea of that country at the end of the book or at the start (and similarly about Veneda and Jan for example). But I seriously hope IB won't go to the lawsuits or something if someone decides to make money of it. After all, that money would be made of his own creativeness (i.e. novel). If someone would be selling a printed version of IB wiki then it would be another issue of course. But generally I believe IB is a collective property of us all. of course I have more rights to Free Lithuania and Marc Pasquin has more rights to new Francy for example, but IB as a whole is a collective property. If someone wants his own alternate world then IMO he should create it. Prior to IB I have created such world myself. but what is nice about IB is that it is not my own. The fact that there are many people creating it could make and does make it more complete and more diverse.
From the above comes another opinion. I don't agree that one should not be permitted to edit pages of other people. I think everything is going on well here - we respect each other and this is what matters. Nobody is going to make Free Lithuania a part of Scandinavian Realm for example or make the Veneds talk German rather than Venedic. But minor edits to add new QSS facts that were agreed upon (i.e. some GW2 history that is relate dto the country) is good I believe. Similarly, it is good to correct mistakes of others (I am very glad that my mistakes, of which I do much as English is not my native language, are sometimes corrected by others) and so on. Also, as it was said, some people leaves the project, but the IB progress continues. We could not leave those countries as a forgotten realm and must update to new historical facts (GW2 facts as an example), but, of course, QSS must not be violated and what was once created by some person must be respected. If you want to edit my pages you are welcome. I do of course reserve the right to remove the changes if they are radical, but minor changes, QSS updates of what was already decided elsewhere, mistake corrections are welcome.
I don't believe the ones who wants to create new information during this time should be prevented from using the wiki.
As it seems it will be hard to reach agreement here, perhaps a vote on various proposed projects of the continuation of IB would be the best way to solve it once, unless some compromise is reached.
Old members will always go but new ones will always come. What the members who have left has written will always remain as QSS, as a part of IB. So will be with what the new members will write. The more people will touch IB the more diverse and "realistic" (as diverseness is realism in case of con-worlds probably) place it will become. However, even now it is quite hard to join and get info of everything what is QSS. With some proposals that would be nearly impossible. So, the old members will continue to leave for various reasons, while the flow of the new ones might be severely restricted and IB might become a dead conworld. I am not wanting to be a pessimist, but everything needs to be considered. And the outcome of radical changes - even when it is a "change back" is always harder to see in advance than is the outcome of relatively minor changes.
Of course, I don't want to attack anybody or such - I just needed to type everything quickly so it might seem to be somewhat rude or such and contain many mistakes. Abdul-aziz 03:50, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Before you are leaving the Internet Café you're in, Abdul-Aziz, one short question: would you be so kind to give me your e-mail address? <see page history or your talk page> —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 04:11, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

I agree with all what you wrote, Abdul-aziz. I'm just feew months old around here. I discovered IB by accident when I was searching for something else. First I found the Commonwealth of Nations web site and then the others while I was exploring it. It was a wonderful surprise indeed. Sometime after I was being just "audience" I decided to start co-operating, and hopefully I will stay around here for a long time.

My first proposal (The Thousand Emirates) was placed under dispute, not exactly the best start, but I sugested on IBwiki a way to solve that dispute (merging it with other artivles which I think can partially fit on each other -United Arab Emirates and Yemen. I agree perfectly with the system QSS. I've been making articles using what the others already wrote (either in Conculture discussion so as on IBwiki) as a basis and used the lack of information and gaps on certain articles to find the place for my creativity. For example, in some article it was said that there was a certain war (I'm thinking about the Perso-Iraaqi War found on Persia article) but it wasn't told how it happened, so here is a space for everyone's creativity (in my case I described it on my proposal Saddaam Hussayn which was also based on Iraaq article. So I think what older guys wrote isn't a real restriction for further articles as long imagination doesn't end. But hopefully always respecting QSS. It might not happen sometimes, so please, everyone who finds any violation on QSS on my articles are free to correct them, discuss them and to make sugestions. And of course everyone is allowed to make articles having as basis what I wrote (this already happened with COPEN article which has much of what I created about such subject). This honours me, you "older" guys using my ideas for creating your own articles. Guess it means my articles are good enough.

Resuming, I think everyone here should be allowed to edit as long they all respect each other (and each other's ideas) so as respecting the QSS principle which should include what former members might had written.

It is true the wiki is now the axis of IB, in fact other IB web sites might become a bit forgotten by everyone so as they might not be updated regularly. It's much easier (and perhaps more fun) to update directly on wiki. Also wiki permits guys like me, who don't know how to make web sites, to contribute. I sugest everyone who want to have IB web sites to do so. I also sugest these web sites have information not found on IBwiki and QSS stuff so everyone who wants to make a new article will have to visit those web sites.

--Pedromoderno 05:33, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Some further thoughts and responses

Firstly, I think it would be apt to mention that this discussion is getting extremely long and difficult in some ways to follow. This wouldn't be such an issue if the discussion were taking place on a mailing list. Food for thought, there. Additionally, everything that I am about to write should be read as if it had a big fat IM(NS)HO in front of it, and please recall that it is not my intention to offend or hurt anyone. :)

New and Old Members

First off, I would just like to put a very firm stop to the blazé attitude that "old members leave but new members always come". Sorry, that's not good enough. Older members, by sheer dint of having been here for longer, have a lot more invested in the project than newer members. Have a quick gander at the List. Of our active members, I've been a part of this project for six years, Ferko for eight, Padraic for nine. All of us have devoted innumerable hours of time to our own corners of the world. The language and culture I've added to the project are the two which are dearest to my heart and not something which I will readily abandon. For many of us who have stuck around for as long as we have, this simply isn't a project like Wikipedia where one stops by for a couple of months, adds one's little details and then moves on to a new project with nary a thought for what has been left behind. And, quite frankly and quite personally, it hurts when somebody new comes along and dismisses your contributions with "everything changes but you've always got QSS".

Additionally, "new members turning up" is all very well. But a couple of things- we have thirty-three active members presently. Why, exactly, do we anxiously await the arrival of more people to start clicking on the edit buttons and automatically become members? As Padraic pointed out, back before the wiki you had to tell us your ideas before being accepted into the group. Also, if we get many more members we'll get to the point where *everyone* gets lost in the crowd.

The differences of attitude between pre- and post-wikification members (with the exception of Dr Zahir, who has been something of an Interested Observer since long back) has through this discussion become more evident than it was before. Not only in philosophy but also in understanding of How It All Works. Put simply, our post-wikification members seem to be of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They want things to stay as they are, which is understandable since they've not known anything but the current setup and it works well in how they understand Ill Bethisad to function (unrelated, but interesting nevertheless, post-wiki members seem to be exclusively referred to by their nicks, while older members still call each other by our real names- BoArthur and Deiniol are still both called Dan, Elemtilas is still Padraic, etc).

Pre-wiki members seem to want to recapture something of what we have lost and how it worked before. This, I think is not just a difference in understanding of How It All Works but also a difference in understanding of What Ill Bethisad is and what it isn't. Which leads me nicely to my next point.

Ke gos es Ill Bethisad e ghe gos es-ys rhen

When you get right down to it, to the heart and soul of Ill Bethisad, you don't have conlangs, a shared world or even a creative outlet. You have a community. And thát is what is in danger of dying. The compulsion generated by this wiki to fill in the gaps, write up QAA and "have your say" is changing it from a community into a group of editors. That is not a Good Thing. Barry made a good point about how IB has changed. It used to be that being a member of Lla Societad di'll Bethisad was something special, almost slightly cliquish. I like thinking of membership as something special. Now I'm in danger of becoming just another editor of the Ill Bethisad Wikipedia, a cranky editor with an attitude problem at that.

Not being a Power that Be, I can't say that my opinions on what IB is and what it isn't can be taken as group consensus or having the force of law. Nevertheless, I've been here long enough to know what I'm ranting about. Ill Bethisad is not an alternate world colouring book, where you just fill in the blanks as you go along. Ill Bethisad is not just a place for you to put the cool ideas you've had for an althist. Ill Bethisad is not a place where it is your absolute right to add anything you please as long as it fits in with QSS. Ill Bethisad is not a wikipedia for an alternate universe. And finally, it is nót open source.

What Ill Bethisad is, on the other hand, is a group of like-minded individuals (note that! A group of individuals, not facts!) who enjoy one another's company (within reason, of course- I'm not saying we all always get on like a house on fire, far from it) in the process of elaborating on an idea. Something where everyone gets involved in all discussions (to a degree) and a consensus decision is reached.

As a PTB, I think Dan has hit it right on the noggin. BoArthur

The Cumaean Sybil Speaks, or, Dire Predictions

Well, what might happen if things don't change and we just carry on as we are? The older members, the "backbone" as Jan puts it, will probably withdraw completely over time. And, the majority of us being conlangers and possessive types, I fear that the Fiat of Rhiemeier will be repeated. And where will that leave us? With an Ill Bethisad which is no longer Ill Bethisad and QSS shot to hell. Alternately, if the rift between old and new members widens, things could get nasty. If discussion moves back to Conculture rather than here but newer members stay solely on the wiki, we'll have a dual Ill Bethisad, almost a fork. Either way, I can see bitter recriminations and the end of Ill Bethisad. Rember that it's not the accumulated set of Known Facts which makes up Ill Bethisad but the people.

So, why the dire predictions and gloomy warnings. Just as a reminder that this is serious stuff we're discussing here, not a few minor grumbles a few of us are taking too seriously. And as something for us to avoid rather than plunge into merrily.

Quo vadimus?

Finally, where to go from here? Well, the webring is a good start. Everyone has made good points, and if we combine some of them, we should have something to go on:

A more formalised membership system. We've gotten a wee bit big to just clear extra spaces at the table and slop out more Helvetian joschel d'etscheile (offal stew to the Uncultured).
More restricted access to the wiki. Again, I'd like to raise the suggestion of closing registration if we can. You only get a login if you're a member and by the consensus of the group you've earnt that right.
Discussion and proposals go by way of a mailing list for people to dissect. That way everyone gets a look at the proposals which are going through and they don't languish uncommented upon.
People pull a lot of stuff off the wiki and move it to individual websites. There is no reason not to have a website. If you can't code html or would rather not "waste" your time doing it, virtually all word processors have "save to web" functionality or Geocities has a WYSIWYG html editor. Webspace can be gotten for free. If you prefer the using a wiki because you can go back and edit things at any time, you're looking at it the wrong way. Established stuff should go on a website, discussion on a mailing list and minor facts and archives on the wiki.

Padraic has offered to host IB material in his www.bethisad.com domain. I'm sure text files akin to our wiki pages will be gladly hosted, and I think a number of us would be willing to help that move. BoArthur

Persuant to the last, we might want to set up the position of Archivist, who archives IB mailing list discussions either here on the wiki or on their own webspace- preferably annotated so people can find what they're looking for. If we decide to do this and nobody else volunteers, I'd be willing to take this on.
A central "link repository" or "Index to Ill Bethisad" in order to make finding QSS'd stuff easier to find for our newer folks.

And Finally

Finally, and most importantly, I'd like to wait for Andrew's input before we make any final decisions. It is, after all, still his sandbox. Deiniol 09:10, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Comments by Jan

Well put, Dan. And Padraic, too. My own state of service may be a pitiful four years, but I feel exactly the same way. Actually, I'd like to add one thing. Me, and I'm sure most of the other "oldies" in the project too, like to think of our contribution to the project as a work of art. A consistent, solid construction if you like. Not just a number of edits. Let me tell you a little secret: I have been working almost fulltime on Wenedyk and the RTC for a considerable amount of time. To such a degree even that it jeopardised my paid job and my family life, oh yes! Now fortunately things are better, but I still like to think of my corner of IB as some sort of life's work. Not something I'd like to see disappearing in a wikipedia-like sort of thing, where only articles matter, and where it doesn't really matter anymore who wrote what, when and why. Of course, you are right about people being more important than stuff. And there used to be something exclusive about being an IB member. I still vividly remember how honoured I felt when Padraic invited me to make an proposal for Russia, and thus become an IB member.

There's a lot of things I'd like to add, but unfortunately I have to go now. Until then! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 11:18, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

This is me again. There's one more thing I'd like to add, and that is about the "members come and go" thing. This is precisely what is not the case. If you look at The List, you will notice that some members are more active than others, there's no point in denying that, but that only a very small number of them have ever retired. And in addition to that: of the six people who díd retire, only one or two of them have ever been really really active contributors to the project. Therefore, I think it is worth the effort to point out that almost all our old members are still active, or have been active until a year or so ago.

And believe me: we can't lose them! These people have laid the very foundations of what IB has become. They are the only ones who réally understand what the places they created are about. To give you an example from the past: when Andrew was more or less retired in the years 2001-2004, nobody ever dared to touch Kemr - the very heart of the project - even though he had formally handed it over to Padraic. It was a dead spot, except for its place on the map and the things that were still on Andrew's website. Just try to imagine what would happen to the Armorican Islands, should Deiniol ever choose to retire! He is the only one who knows the language, who really understands the gist of the religion and culture, the role that Armorica has played in European history. Obviously, anyone can read what he has written, but there are undoubtedly a lot of things that he has not written (yet). Not even an official junior manager of the islands would be able to guess those!

Fiats of Rhiemeier or not: without him, Armorica would be dead. Without Barry, Montrei would be dead. Without Ferko, Dalmatia would be dead. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And with those and other places dead, IB as a whole would be dead, too. No matter how eagerly people continue editing the wiki.

For the record, that does of course nót mean that new members are not welcome anymore. If somebody has something substantial to offer, we will always be prepared to make space for a newcomer. But to get things straight: it is not like we nééd new members. You can't judge the success of this project by the increase in membership (or the number of wiki pages, for that matter).

Therefore, I'm sorry to say, the opinions of the older members carry more weight to me than the opinions of those who joined very recently. Surely, the wishes of the latter are not to be discarded. But it is obvious to me that just some minor redecoration of the place is not going to solve anything. Whatever solution we are going to pick, it will have to be further reaching than that. And it will have to be satisfactory to the older members. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 02:52, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

Bully-That-Be's Opinion

As it seem to be the thing to do right now, I'll also give my opinion (which I share).

Mailing list vs Wiki: Back on conculture (where I first joined), you did get a different type of conversation: in between talk of salty scandinavian lollies and the latest variation on Tolkien, someone would come up with some idea to play around that usualy revolved around developing his own IB related conculture. As other have said, there was rarely talk of filling in the blanks (which for obvious reasons was most of the world) and it was more about making a stronger more complex culture for each individuals.

Eventualy, some idea crossed culture and we started to developt more of a cause and effect history where those who fled SNORist russia ended up in the CSDS (or Alyeska, no one's sure). The problem then was to simply have a *semblance* of plausibility and these collaborative discussion were what, to me, IB was all about.

Not to paint to much of a rosy picture however, the same discussions often splilled into the realm of the true world and resulted in some rather strong arguments (part of which were due to me in all fairness)

You and me both! You know very well I like to play with matches; and I know you've always got a couple litres of lighter fluid or jet fuel hanging about the place...it's natural that we tangle every now and again. Elemtilas

as well as called by the non-IB posters to go start our own list instead. This, to a large extent (though not always) has been avoided on the wiki for the simple reason that discussions tend to be more limited which brings us back to what it is that a member is looking for most of all: Camaraderie (with the potential for agravations) or Intelectual Endeavour ("I show you mine, you show me yours and thats it"). Neither exclude the other one per say and neither is better then the other but one has to ask which is most important to him.

Archiving: This was to me as I mentioned before the whole point of the wiki, setting up a sort of reference work for our little Bethiverse. Going through archives, even if collated by someone, is quite a chore and doesn't guarantee you will find *all* the relevant informations. This to me should be the future role of the wiki. Basic informations + links to entities with a webpages, miscelaneous pages ("what is IB", "Advices to the beginners" and such) as well as some proposals for projects that have no outside page or that relate to no specific entities. And speaking of proposals....

I think this is a very smart solution. There's been some private discussion about what's going on between Jan and Dan and me. I think we're more or less heading in this same general direction. Elemtilas

Proposals: I have no problem with the inclusion of proposals but, and I'm realy repeating myself here, not every prosals need (or needed) to go beyond that stage. Either because a person didn't want to lose some work they did or because others maybe feared to offend the creator, it sometime seemed that every single proposals were somehow integrated into IB. If there was conflicts or multiple proposals, they were tweaked to fit in (that "square peg in round hole" thing comes to mind). The seemingly exponential growth in proposals probably comes from the fact that its so easy on a Wiki whereas through a mailing list (or on a webpage) you usualy need to put a lot more work before you feel ready to present it. Sometime, you might even realise at that time that the whole thing is pretty pointless and not worth it. If we are to lighten the wiki, a good idea might be to delete some proposals (after a vote of course, not arbitrarely). And as we are all grown up and/or (at least I assume) mature enough, no will get upset if on our own proposals is thrown out. I know that in my case, I will simply reuse my discarded stuff in some other personnal projects.

Memberships: More stringent (but not anal-retentive) prerequisites are a good idea. Instead of "Log in / start a website" I think it would be perfectly normal to ask prospective members what they think they can bring to the party. It might even be a good thing for the person himself: someone thinking members are meant to act as in a game of "Diplomacy" (conquest, alliance and backstabbing do happen but usualy by accident) or someone wanting to developt an insular vampire nation worshiping Great Chuthlu off Newfoundland would probably end up wasting his own time. As others, I don't think said contribution need to be a conlang or (saints preseve us) a nation. The prospective member could simply want to work on the ramification of certain historical events (Neo-Cambrian Architecture), describe a defunct religion (bound to be even more heresies then *here*) or just help someone else with their culture.

Agreed on both counts. Demanding of prospective members some kind of detailed proposal / set of ideas was how we used to do it. I really think that all of our newer members and prospective members would not have had difficulty with this requirement (though I think we might have avoided some headaches in the process had we kept the earlier rules in effect). Elemtilas

About all I can think of right now, going to be bed.--Marc Pasquin 18:37, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Amen to all that, Marc!

As far as proposals go, we should really consider how to go along with them. The Cycle of Proposals has been an important element of IB for a very long time. Shortly after we moved to the wiki, we introduced the Proposal tag. Looking back at the sixteen months of our existence here, I think we can safely state that this approach has failed. People faithfully add the proposal tag to their newly written articles, and most of them remove it after a certain period of time. But it rarely evokes any real discussion. If they are commented on at all, it is mostly something along the lines of: "nice idea", and that's it. And thus, things are being QSSified without most people even taking notice of it. That must change. My idea is that nothing should become QSS unless it has been discussed by the group. Except for additions to one's own culture, of course, but they wouldn't even count as proposals anyway. So no matter what we will pick as our primary place for discussion, be it Conculture, be it Lla Dafern, be it a bunch of sub-Daferns, ideas and proposals should be submitted there first. And preferably nót in the form of readily written articles, but rather in the form of "What do you think of writer _____ having an IB equivalent _____? My idea is _____. Or alternatively, _____. What do you guys think of that?". Questions like that will usually evoke at least some discussion, and the final result may or may not be an article, either in the wiki or on a website. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 03:15, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

Webring?

Here's a file I worked up for the Webring, once we get it going:

http://www.geocities.com/bo_arthur/ibwebring.gif http://marcpasquin.iquebec.com/althistory/ibwebring.png

Questions/Comments? BoArthur 23:02, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

One question and one comment: is it possible to get one with a clear background (it'd look better against the background colour of my site) and I really like it. :) Deiniol 01:05, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I like it too! Frankly, I think it's a truly excellent idea to start a webring. I'm all in for it. One minor nitpick though: the image still uses the old dragon. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 01:22, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

To Deiniol, I'll make the transparent gif when I get home. To Jan, I'll have to save the wiki logo and adjust it when I get home as well. (so I won't be doing things in the order listed here, as I'm sure Deiniol would prefer the new lion... BoArthur 07:23, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

I like it. Especially how you chose blue for the ring :). It reminds me of those ads for Earthlink a while ago where the actors had "comet" rings circling their heads. Doobieous 11:42, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Sadly enough, that's somewhat along the lines of my own thinking. Great minds think alike... I watch waaay too much television, I've decided. BoArthur 13:53, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

If that is possible, I suggest making a kind of "gate-page" to the webring where the World map would be posted and the map would be clickable, that is, if someone would click on Veneda he would be directed to Jan's page for example and so on. As well bellow the map there could be list of special websites, such as maps websites or uniforms websites. I am not sure if it will be possible to make a clickable map however. Abdul-aziz 03:55, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

That's a good idea. And, even better, it's possible to do! And, when we get round to it, can I recommend alt-webring to host it? Deiniol 05:18, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

This is not just about a proposed webring. I am a relative newcommer to the world of IB, but I like to think my efforts have been essentially within the parameters of the project--given the fact I am not in any sense of the word a conlanger. For the record, I view my efforts as being too widespread and to some extent frantic--but there are personal reasons (if not excuses) for this. Quite simply, in the wake of my beloved Colleen's passing, to some extent I buried myself in IB as an emotional escape.

I agree the IB wiki has generated some problems. One is the relative lack of discussion about proposals. Another is the gradual withdrawl of many original participants in IB. Both of these seem to me genuine problems on many levels. Yet the wiki has been valuable and continues to be so. Its major usefullness, IMO, has been and continues to be as a central information point, where "facts" about IB are put into something approximately organization.

I am going to make specific proposal. I would suggest that editting of the IB wiki be solely in the hands of certain persons. Articles for inclusion should be proposed in the conculture group, a specific IB proposals yahoo groups or maybe a message board. Discussion needs to follow, genuinely hammering out specific ideas. And the actual proposal must be handed to the edittors in a specific format (the easier with which to input them). This should be in conjuction with an IB Webring to bring all the websites together and at the same time we should strongly encourage the development of new websites for the webring. Zahir 12:36, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

I definately wouldn't want that. It would significantly put off new members. --Quentin 00:15, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

I have added my Eastern Europe page to the Webring: http://www.geocities.com/wenedyk/ib/index.html For the occasion, I completely rewrote it as well. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 11:19, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Okay. The webring exists now? Cool! I'll join it later today... Zahir 12:11, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

But how? The Home/Join link just brings up Padraic's bethisad.com, not instructions on how to join. Deiniol 12:59, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Eep! You're right. I'm not sure where the error is in our html....but if you go to http://www.alt-webring.com and choose to join ring 199707, that's ours. BoArthur 13:46, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Because it's not immediately obvious *how* to join- the url to follow for other joinees is http://www.alt-webring.com/cgi-bin/newsite.pl?ringid=199707 :D Deiniol 13:57, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Jan, you'll need to re-copy the source code, either from my page or from alt-webring...I had to change it. We need to get Padraic to add it to his page, as well. :) BoArthur 15:12, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Alright, it's in there! Elemtilas 05:35, 1 July 2006 (PDT)

Proposal

About all of the above discussion.

I propose that we;

Make proposals on conculture and not on this Wiki

Keep the wiki, but only allow a few admins to put info in here

Make conculture the main location for posting news stories, but make sure that the stories go to the respective websites

Not posting news such as TéléLouisianne and the various RTC newspapers which already get posted on Daniel Hicken's and Jan van Steenbergen's websites.

Split bethisad.com into two websites; one of which is a directory of IB related stuff and contains stuff like explanations of QSS, QAA, What IB is and aint &c and the other of which is stuff related to the FK, commonwealth, the BBC news, and stuff which is Padraic's domain

I am (more than) amenable to that. The News Page is not just for BBC news; indeed, it is the main repository for all known news stories, even those otherwise housed on other pages. Elemtilas 19:06, 29 June 2006 (PDT)

Encourage new users here (eg. Willjbot) to come to conculture instead

Replace all material here which are simply copy and pasted stuff from other websites, such as the History of Russia, and most of the CoN page with links to the respective page on, say, Jan's or Padraic's website. (I have noticed that a lot of pages on Padraic's website, such as the CoN and India pages, have mysteriously dissapeared.)

They disapeared because I felt there was increasingly no need for them. For the most part, the information was either being copied over to the Wiki, ammended or increasingly disagreed with (QSS status notwithstanding). Coupled with an increasing dissatisfaction on the whole, it seemed the best place for all that information was here where it could be chopped to bits as seen fit. Elemtilas 19:06, 29 June 2006 (PDT)

I want to stress that this wiki and bethisad.com should not go; however the place for making proposals should definately be Conculture. Just my two farthings. --Quentin 04:30, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

All good and useful ideas! I don't think anybody is seriously considering abandoning this wiki altogether, though. It is a highly valuable and easily searchable source of information about IB and should definitely remain so.

What you propose here is pretty much what I would consider "the radical solution". Much as I don't want to alienate the older members, who used to have a good time on Conculture, I also don't want to alienate the newer members, who use to have a good time here. Let's just accept that we have two places where discussions take place: here and on Conculture. It would be ideal if all IB members were present on both places. It doesn't really matter where we discuss things, after all, as long as all participate in the discussion. The only danger I see is that once again one place will become predominant and the other will be neglected by most. —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 07:43, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

I agree--good ideas! Methinks also the "Rules" website should probably be the homepage of the webring. In practice, I believe what you're suggesting amounts to protecting most pages in the wiki save for Lla Dafern. I am not opposed to that idea, btw. Zahir 08:06, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

I wouldn't want to see talk pages protected, so that error correction would be easier For instance in the article on Republica Conchesa it says that it would be mainly Latin Rite due to Castillian influence rather than Isidorian, so it would be useful to keep the talk pages to notify of errors. There would, perhaps, be the danger that proposal discussion would go rather wiry, but if we discuss proposals before putting them here rather than after that would be good. --Quentin 08:30, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

Small correction: Any country with Castilian influence should be Isidorian rite, as that rite originates from Iberia. Doobieous 23:50, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

My point exactly; Talk:República_Conchesa#Rites. --Quentin 00:35, 28 June 2006 (PDT)

Input from Sikulu

Good day all. Been a bit busy lately, what with all the work I've done on the althist wiki (thanks to BoArthur for his help by the way).

I've been having a look around the webring, and I like what I've seen so far (especially the spinni