Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Amaril 05-08-07, 09:46 PM	I just thought some people in the Eberron forums might be interested... A few of these ideas don't make strong book titles (too niche for our core audience). However, we could field more information about Eberron, its history, and its noteworthy villains in an official Eberron wikipedia. What if such a tool were included along with our new online offerings? Would that appeal to anyone?
Lucas_Garczewski 05-09-07, 07:32 AM	Definately. There already is an Eberron wiki at Wikia (http://eberron.wikia.com/), although it's close to empty right now. If Christopher (or WotC in general) would be interested in making this site official, I believe I can facilitate contact with Wikia staff.
Rechan 05-09-07, 11:16 AM	An Eberron Wiki seems like a good place for Dragonshards, really. They're so niche and specific that they could be one entry.
garner_adam 05-09-07, 03:02 PM	It would also be a great place to "taste test" new material helping potential buyers make more informed decisions.
Tom McCarthy 05-09-07, 03:55 PM	I think an Eberron Wiki is an excellent idea. I know I've wanted one just to keep straight/cross reference minutia like noble family names and answers to commonly asked questions (neighbourhoods in Sharn for sites in published modules, which issues of Dungoen and Dragon have Eberron material).
davethebrave371 05-09-07, 08:19 PM	This is an awesome idea.
Meloncov 05-09-07, 08:28 PM	That alone would almost certaintly be enough to convince me to sign up for the digital initiative, so long as the price was reasonable.
davethebrave371 05-09-07, 08:33 PM	That alone would almost certaintly be enough to convince me to sign up for the digital initiative, so long as the price was reasonable. Seconded.
mhacdebhandia 05-09-07, 08:35 PM	I like the idea of a repository of bite-sized official information, but as a wiki it might be a little bit prone to well-intentioned, entirely mistaken "corrections" from fans with off-base ideas. Unless, of course, the only authorised editors were Wizards of the Coast staff and perhaps freelancers.
davethebrave371 05-09-07, 08:36 PM	I like the idea of a repository of bite-sized official information, but as a wiki it might be a little bit prone to well-intentioned, entirely mistaken "corrections" from fans with off-base ideas. Unless, of course, the only authorised editors were Wizards of the Coast staff and perhaps freelancers. Just make Keith Baker's edits final, and only changable by KB. That way when he has time to peruse, things can be laid to rest in an instant. :D
Amaril 05-09-07, 11:00 PM	Guys, don't post here. Post in the other thread so that Chris knows!:)
davethebrave371 05-09-07, 11:02 PM	Guys, don't post here. Post in the other thread so that Chris knows!:) We would if you had linked us!
Amaril 05-09-07, 11:18 PM	You don't see the little arrow icon next to his bolded name in the quote?
davethebrave371 05-10-07, 03:17 AM	You don't see the little arrow icon next to his bolded name in the quote? I do now!
Thrincold 05-10-07, 08:48 AM	I like the idea of a repository of bite-sized official information, but as a wiki it might be a little bit prone to well-intentioned, entirely mistaken "corrections" from fans with off-base ideas. Unless, of course, the only authorised editors were Wizards of the Coast staff and perhaps freelancers. Given some of the material that has entered "official" books, I'm not sure if that is a good idea either.
Amaril 05-10-07, 09:22 AM	Given some of the material that has entered "official" books, I'm not sure if that is a good idea either. I don't think an official Eberron wiki is a bad idea. If one doesn't like the content, one doesn't have to use it. It's a better option than having nothing of this sort at all.
Thrincold 05-10-07, 10:49 AM	I don't think an official Eberron wiki is a bad idea. If one doesn't like the content, one doesn't have to use it. It's a better option than having nothing of this sort at all. I'm not saying I don't like the idea. I was just stating that assuming that the content will be correct, well researched, or even edited properly, just because it only comes from WOTC is a fallacy. I am all for a sanctioned WIKI, I just expect less from it than I do their current books, which is saying less and less with every new splat that hits the shelves it seems.
davethebrave371 05-10-07, 11:13 AM	I'm not saying I don't like the idea. I was just stating that assuming that the content will be correct, well researched, or even edited properly, just because it only comes from WOTC is a fallacy. I am all for a sanctioned WIKI, I just expect less from it than I do their current books, which is saying less and less with every new splat that hits the shelves it seems. Well, if it's a true Wiki, editable by anyone with a subscription a) vandalism would be fairly well tracked to anyone who has a subscription, and then that individual might lose their subscription as per the ToS without their money back and b) any errors we catch we can fix. I know I had to fix the actual Wikipedia entry on Warforged. They had it simplified to "Merrix d'Cannith invented the Warforged." so I had to plop in the stuff about Aaren d'Cannith to make it more accurate.
mhacdebhandia 05-11-07, 01:40 AM	I am all for a sanctioned WIKI, I just expect less from it than I do their current books, which is saying less and less with every new splat that hits the shelves it seems. Just for the record, you're using "splat" incorrectly here. Unless you simply mean it's a splatter of crappy material! A splatbook or "splat" is a supplement focused on an existing character type. Complete Warrior is a splatbook, Faiths of Eberron is not. Races of Eberron, yeah. Tome of Battle, no. (The first splatbooks were World of Darkness clanbooks, tribebooks, et cetera . . . the practice of referring to them collectively as "*books", using * like a computing wildcard, gave rise to the name, because the asterisk symbol * is called a "splat" in certain computing circles.)
DragonReader 05-16-07, 03:25 PM	Most definately I would find this useful.
RogueElement 05-17-07, 11:29 PM	I hate to sound pessimistic, but I've seen way too many wiki content wars to feel optimistic about an Eberron wiki being useful for long. I'll give you a brief timeline of the Eberron wiki based on all the other wikis I've seen: in the beginning the fans will be very excited and post a few articles. Then a few people will come along and "monkey" with the content, "ruining" the articles. The original posters will become enraged and overwrite everything the new guys just wrote. The new guys will become enraged that all their hard work just got erased and will never waste their time contributing again. Then first comers will get bored and frustated that no one appreciates their work and never contribute again. Two years later, no one has posted anything on the site and browsers realize they're wasting their time for going to the site because the content sucks and never visit again. A couple of years later the wiki is taken down and only a handful of people even notice. Here's an idea that might work better than a wiki: a fan site where user's can submit articles under different categories and users can comment and vote on those articles. Only the original author can edit their articles although anyone can post comments and vote on the article. Original authors get to keep their work intact, other users can feel like they're contributing, many browsers return often because they find useful stuff on the site, and advertisers are happy because lots of people keep visiting the site.
SSj3goblin 05-20-07, 12:47 AM	I wouldn't pay for that though, I mean, I already pay for the books, why should I pay for a website that complements the product, do game companies make you pay to download patches?
Twiggly the Gnome 05-20-07, 04:00 PM	I hate to sound pessimistic, but I've seen way too many wiki content wars to feel optimistic about an Eberron wiki being useful for long. I can about guarantee that there will be a "revision war" over the issue of subraces. :banghead:
DBlizzard 07-04-07, 03:19 AM	I wouldn't pay for that though, I mean, I already pay for the books, why should I pay for a website that complements the product, do game companies make you pay to download patches? No, but they make you pay for expansions.