Talk:Revanche/Policy:Essays

Non-Canon Submission Council

LRichardson, maybe you and I can craft some sort of submissions 'council' for essays, home rules (which could incorporate custom equipment), etc., where the submission had to meet a certain minimum standard of involvement (registration, maybe?), storage (on a user page, until approved) and formatting (by the poster). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So, if I am following you correctly, the idea behind a council is to have a sort of "moderated" area of the wiki for such things. In pondering things for a bit I sort of hashed out some talking points. The fundamental question such a council would be asking is "Should this item be included in an encyclopedic style reference about the canonical Battletech universe?" More to the point, is the material of the sort that the people who seek out Sarna.net as a reference are going to be interested in reading? If it is not in line with what people who come here are looking for then it probably ought to be moved or deleted.
In trying to sort through what sort of rubric to apply to non canon pages a few attributes to examine come to mind:
  • Nature - What basic kind of article is it? Essay? Opinion? Rule? Design? Reference? Of course this implies the question "Is this kind of article in keeping with Sarna's goals and character?
  • Tone - Is the item written in a "scholarly" or at least encyclopedic manner or is it a narrative or anecdote?
  • Voice - Similar to tone but has to do with how apparent the author is in the writing. Is it clear whether it is a single author or is it simply direct statements.
  • Quality - Firstly, is it reasonably well written? Also, is the item something that a reader of Sarna is likely to consider using or adapting? Does it add to the readers understanding or appreciation of the games or the universe contained within it?
  • Format - Is the article at least reasonably closely formatted to conform with the rest of the articles here or does it require significant editor attention before it would be a useful item?
I have a lot more detailed notions of what each of these things mean and what desirable characteristics in each of these attributes might entail, but at the least I would say that a non canon article should have to meet a basic threshold of suitability in each of these areas to be considered for inclusion. Most of the observations someone might make when evaluating the suitability of an item here fall into one of those categories, so this would sort of be the top level of the rubric. Before I go too much further with this, I just want to ask if is this the sort of thing you were thinking of? -- LRichardson 00:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you not only followed me, but ramped it up a step.
First off, before we get too far, I think it would be good to port Frabby's addition to the fanon discussion -the 'Definition of Fanon' section- to this discussion. Added here:
“ Because it is a recurring issue in the discussions, here's an attempt at explaining what we suggest be removed from BTW and what will not be affected:

We seek to migrate (only) original Fanon. "Fanon" is synonymous with "Fan Fiction" in this context.

Fanon/Fan Fiction affected by the move
  • Fan Fiction stories and IC articles with purely fanmade content
  • Custom designs ('Mechs, vehicles, fighters, etc.)
  • Custom rules, House rules, fan-made weapons
  • Custom merc or house units
  • images belonging exclusively to such articles
Not affected
 ”
Me again.
Ok, in the first section ('Fanon'), I've struck out items I think are clear do not fit into our (your's & mine) idea of what is keep worthy, such as fiction. In the second section, all items starting with 'articles' and the download section are outside the purview of our 'submission council' project. That leaves two items:
  • Custom rules, House rules, fan-made weapons
  • Essays (grey area)
So...you can see we have some work cut out for us. We have to argue that custom rules, etc. are valued additions and/or essays have their place here. I believe we can fold custom rules, etc, up into essays, as long as we can properly defend the intent to apply clear and appropriate requirements to submissions, as well as the process.
The process discussion is not yet necessary. Your guidance, the "rubric of attributes", is the appropriate place to start.Keep in mind, a large majority of posters on wiki are not self-described writers and/or do not turn out completed products that meet our minimum standards here. For that reason, we'd need to expand upon your basic descriptions of those five attributes. Each of those attributes, when discussed in a policy, can be expanded upon and have examples provided (both sample examples and links to 'live' essays).


LR, I think we can start working on a policy here, jointly. There already exists the BattleTechWiki:Policies, Essays, Procedures & Projects 'policy' page, but I think this project of our's deserves its own page (if accepted by the community). Do you mind starting the shell of the policy here. We can collaborate there and discuss on this talk page.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, good, you made a page here for this. I will fill in more of my thoughts on those main attributes soon, probably tomorrow. I have a fairly clear idea of what might work, I just wanted to make sure we were thinking in the same direction before running with the ball. -- LRichardson 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubric

I'm going to start this off as a sort of wiki article of it's own and leave my own comments in italics like this. Go ahead and edit the text and comment on the changes made.-- LRichardson 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, the base notion here is that for something to be approved for submission the Fanon work would have to be at least satisfactory in each of a number of categories. As mentioned above:

  • Ownership - Author's (or submitter's) level of involvement.
  • Nature - What basic kind of article it is.
  • Tone - The manner in which it is written.
  • Voice - The authorship of the article.
  • Writing Quality - Overall level of literacy shown in writing the article.
  • Content - Whether or not the subject is desirable on the BTW
  • Format - Whether it is up to Sarna standard.
I've added 'Ownership' as a base requirement. It fails to describe the article itself, but I think addresses a necessary requirement for acceptance.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. I've also split writing quality and content up into two dimensions. The reasons for rejecting an article for either would be quite different from the other. All of the dimensions really discuss whether it is a generally desirable item or not, "content" is more specific as to what we mean. -- LRichardson 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ownership

Ownership indicates the level of activity the submitter has in the submission process. While the initial author may not be a part of the BTW submission process, the actual essay submitter (acting with the author's approval) must demonstrate a certain level of involvement to ensure a submission meets our standards.

A submitter would first post his/her candidate essay on a user's sub-page (i.e. the submitter's own), and then notify the council of the intent to submit on the council's page, with a link to the candidate essay. As the submission process progressed, the submitter must be able to show continual involvement in the process by meeting certain discussion expectations, such as timely responses (within 15 days?), a willingness to provide edits where the council deems necessary, etc. If the submitter is not the original author, he must be able to either show or indicate approval from the author. If the submitter is the author, a statement to that effect must be made. Either indication will be included on the essay.

Submitters must also be registered members of the site, to provide at least one level of responsibility for an article.

I'm trying to prevent 'dump & depart' articles, where the submitter is non-responsive, non-responsible and leaves it up to others to make the required changes. Registration also allows us to contact the submitter via site email.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nature

This addresses the basic type of article it is. The fanon item must fall within the following categories:

  • House rules or rule changes
  • Essays

Items that do not fall in these categories are covered under other Sarna policies.

This seems like it is pretty straightforward. We can add more items to this part of the rubric if they come up. -- LRichardson 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that house rules, custom equipment, etc., be presented in essay format (see my initial comments regarding this here). I feel that doing so more clearly allows them to be included following the 'no fanon' policy being crafted and allows them to easily be recognized as following under the submissions council's purview. Therefore, I'd suggest that 'Nature' would either be defined solely by the term 'Essays' or that 'Nature' be replaced by 'Content' (or 'Subject').--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That seems workable. I would say that leaving "Essay" as the sole criteria under "Nature" to be best for two reasons: It allows other unanticipated items to be added into qualifying fanon as future consensus forms and it provides that the defining rubric for this section to be able to define what an "Essay" is. -- LRichardson 18:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Tone

This dimension addresses the extent to which it is in keeping with the nature and character of other acceptable articles on Sarna. Articles that pass this dimension:

  • Are professional or neutral in editorial content.
  • Are laid out in a direct expository manner.
  • Are consistent with the general type of article it is.
  • Show consideration or thought put into the articles content.

Articles that fail this dimension:

  • Exhibit strong and/or unsupported bias.
  • Have broadly emotionally founded arguments or positions.
  • Do not separate matters of opinion from matters of fact.
  • Include harsh argumentative fallacies such as ad hominem attacks.

Voice

Articles on any Wiki are intrinsically assumed to be written by multiple and/or anonymous authors. Typically they do not exhibit a clear individual voice. The Sarna BTW has some peculiarities in voice in that most articles are written "in character" when possible with other items being written "out of character". The inclusion of house rules and essays adds a third layer of complexity to these traits in that they intrinsically have their own source or voice. The author of a house rule or essay may or may not be comfortable in others adding to or changing the content. It in particularly important that there be clarity of voice in articles.

Articles that pass this dimension:

  • Clearly are either an individual voice or a general statement in a given passage and have obvious separation between them when both are present.
  • Are consistent in whether they employ first person or third person point of view.
  • Are consistent in the use of past and present tense.
  • Clearly stay in-character or out-of-character in a given passage and have obvious separation between them when both are present.


Articles that fail this dimension:

  • Have neither a clear sense of authorship/ position nor a neutral encyclopedic voice or jump between the two.
  • Jump from first to third person indiscriminately or inconsistently.
  • Are unclear on the past or present tense that the article is presented as.
  • Are unclear whether they are in character or out of character.

Writing Quality

Writing Quality is the overall skill and care that has been put into the crafting of the article. This is basically a measure of how readable the article is. An article could pass on Voice and Tone but still be an atrocious piece of material.

Articles that pass this dimension:

  • Are free of spelling and obvious grammatical errors.
  • Flow in a logical and understandable form.
  • Are clear in what information or ideas that are being presented.
  • Show evidence of thought and insight in to their writing.


Articles that fail this dimension:

  • Have clear spelling mistakes and obvious grammatical errors.
  • Lack a coherent structure or are difficult to follow.
  • Are vague or unclear in the information or ideas that are being presented.
  • Show little evidence of care into their crafting or insight into the topic being addressed.
I may just be reaching the end of my editorial capabilities right now, "but I know it when I see it." We'll need to work on this. We may be able to lean on various other existing policies, including those within the Manual of Style.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I've split off Writing Quality and Content into separate areas so that the needs of each can be more clearly and directly addressed. -- LRichardson 22:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Content

Content is a general estimation of the desirability of the article to the overall body of work presented in the BTW. As this is the fundamental question of "do we want it here?" this dimension has the most ground to cover.

Articles that pass this dimension:

  • Are directly related to and address some aspect of published canon.
  • Enhance the readers understanding, appreciation or consideration of some aspect of the canonical BT universe.
  • Elucidate the connection between non canon material presented and canonical material referenced.
  • Are self-critical of any original ideas or propositions presented.
  • References made to outside information or ideas is clearly marked as such and linked to where appropriate.
  • Are of use or interest to an audience that is primarily focused on canonical BT information.
  • Either do not directly contradict or provide strong and clear basis as to why they contradict, published canon.

Articles that fail this dimension:

  • Fail to address any specific aspect of published cannon.
  • Do not provide the reader with a greater understanding, appreciation or consideration of some aspect of the canonical BT universe.
  • Are unclear in the connection between non canon material presented and canonical material referenced.
  • Lack self-critical discussion of any original ideas or propositions presented.
  • References to third party information, research or ideas are lacking, vague or nonexistant.
  • Are of little applied use or interest to an audience that is primarily focused on canonical BT information.
  • Contradict accepted canon in a manner that is substantial or not supported logically in the articles text.
I originally had this stuffed under quality, but felt it was substantial enough to merit its own dimension in the rubric. Non canon material to qualify in this rubric still has to be about canon material in some way. A new weapon that is simply a boom-gun that doesn't have any relation to canon rules or history, that doesn't address some need in the game or quirk in the rules, doesn't show any effort to make the weapon useful to people who actually play the game, doesn't explain how its stats were arrived at, stands in the face of accepted cannon and doesn't provide a critique of its own ideas is of rather dubious value as a BTW article. If this article was also of rather poor construction, filled with canon errors, factual errors and spelling/ grammar errors it certainly does not belong on the BTW. If the BTW's purpose is to illuminate the published BT universe then fundamentally any non canon article should still be about that universe as opposed to merely set in that universe.
For example, I wrote an article about stuffing the insides of battlemechs with packing material so that they might absorb critical hits. (see Anti-Spalling Buffer) While the article does add some gizmo to be used in someones game it also illuminates an interesting quirk about how the critical hit system in the original game is set up. The fluff in the article while specific and not at all mentioned in canon also does not contradict canon either directly or by implication. As such that article would still be considered to be about BT rather than just be in the BT universe. To be included as a future article however, it ought to have at least made at least some comment as to potential problem issues with the idea. The requirement that the author complicate his own argument is not so much because the complication is itself of great value (though it might well be) but as a sort of quality check to see if the author is paying attention and actually thinking about their thoughts. -- LRichardson 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Format

More later. Feel free to tweak what I've put up.-- LRichardson 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Revanche/Policy:Essays&oldid=182728"