User blog:Krayfish/The Wiki Identity Crisis

This is another one of those important blogs that everyone needs to read. The question I'm asking in this blog is this: What is Galactic Crucibles Wiki?

As you can tell by your scroll bar, this is rather lengthy. If you are in a hurry, skip down to "Summary of proposed changes". Otherwise, sit back, relax and enjoy the read.

Introduction
As many of you know, all of the wiki's material, especially Dark Prophecy, has gone through countless iterations. Understandably, these changes are likely for the better. If an author is unsatisfied with his/her work, he/she has the right to change it. However, because of these changes, work on large scale projects such as Dark Prophecy have been stalled...for at least three years.

The Problem
Not moving beyond our big three story arcs has kept us in the same spot. Personally, I've been having to write around these delays, making 2142 AD a rather eventful year in galactic history. It's become almost impossible to move on to new ideas with the lack of progress on these older ones. The near constant retcons as well as classical procrastination has also further delayed progress.

We all know that there is no cure to procrastination. At this point, the best way to deal with this problem is to reassess the nature of the wiki, to redefine what our goals are.

A bit of history
The original purpose of this wiki was just for Spore Fan Fiction. There were no real stories and each creation was self-contained. When Nra, Suppy, Panthean and I got together, we thought of the idea of a shared universe as an opportunity to expand. I honestly never imagined this wiki lasting more than a few months, but as you can see, GC has become something more than just fan fiction.

Dark Prophecy was not intended to be a novel when it was first conceived in 2010. It was a originally a series of loosely connected stories with no central idea. In fact, the stories were made up as we wrote it, and none of the authors knew how the story would end until we actually finished it. The idea to actually make it into a novel with a great deal of planning didn't come around until two months before GC Wiki was founded. It's been rewritten from scratch at least four times.

Retcons were inevitable. In order to make GC's storyline more cohesive, we undoubtedly had to change things that defied willing suspension of disbelief. (In the first draft of The Meeting, the EIT and FMASN thwart a plot to blow up the galaxy in the ridiculously short time of three days.) You've all seen my rants about the later drafts of Dark Prophecy, so I don't need to get into those.

The proposed change
Remember, this is my opinion of what we should do. I will not make this effective immediately until we get some feedback.

For a while, we've implied that GC is some sort of database by the Galactic Senate or some other organization, but it was never made clear who wrote it all in-universe whether it be omniscient beings that know everything or graduates from the University of Krar. These proposed changes will hopefully eliminate confusion:

The stories and content articles will have to be treated differently from one another if we are ever to move on to new ideas for this wiki. With a shared universe as large as the one we have, there are going to be inconsistencies. We will have to accept that.

What I propose is that we view the pages of Omni 01 in the same way we view the history of our world. That is, it is not quite set in stone truth, but it alludes to the same basic principles. For example, we know that the EIT and FMASN had a brief conflict known as the Aldaris Incident. That's a known fact written in galactic history books. What is still particularly nebulous are the smallest of small details. We have a general idea of what happened, but was there ever some sort of conspiracy or terrorist plot involved? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's all about perspective and what the in-universe historians say.

With this in mind, I'm essentially saying that we leave the definite truth unwritten as a means of flexibility. This also means that stories are interpretations as well, being based on what's written on this wiki. Besides, for many civilizations in our shared universe, it's the search for truth that keeps them going.

What does this mean for Dark Prophecy?
I hate to say it, but I do not think that a story on the massive scale of DP is fit for this wiki. I'm not saying we can't do it, but I've failed to see evidence that we can coordinate such a massive, interconnected project. I'm sure this is more than understandable. Most of us here are likely editing this wiki on our spare time, not because it's our day job.

From what I see, Dark Prophecy's biggest issue is that we have yet to agree on whose perspective it should take place from. With so many authors working on the story arc, it's going to be problematic by simply picking and choosing. If anything, it has proven that we've gotten nowhere because of it. I say we divide DP into episodic parts and have them loosely connected. That is, each of the smaller stories in DP can be self-enclosed and have their own beginning, middle and end - written in a way so that they are understandable without having to read the other stories.

Am I saying we should disband DP entirely? Not exactly. With the proposed changes I've stated above, anyone should theoretically be able to write their own version of DP from their own perspective, making it exactly the way they want it to be. This will solve the issues of DP's character focus: I may want to write from Ahrganot's perspective, but Nra may want to write about Etah's. But now, we can have our own versions of DP taking place from the perspective of the characters that we want.

What does this mean for contradictions between stories about the same event? Well, if we are going with the approach to write it from the perspective of certain characters, there's a good probability that they will remember events differently than other characters. This will justify why dialogue may not be the same or why another individual may act unusually from the norm. That's because it's through the character's eyes, not the omniscient narrator. If there is a significant contradiction (i.e. completely different outcomes), then the content articles will be used as a frame of reference.

Am I saying we should stop tandem writing? No, not at all. If anything, the wiki would not exist if tandem writing never became a part of it. We should just be more realistic about it - only write with as many people as you feel comfortable with: two or three at the most. More than that, and you get coordination problems. But if you can write with more than four authors, that's fine. All I ask is that you do what's best within your parameters.

Lastly, if you, the users of this wiki, truly have the dedication to commit to writing a story that is more than 50,000 words, I am all for it. It can be among the interpretations of the event in history known as the Dark Prophecy conflict (or to in-universe historians as the Chaos Crisis).

Summary of proposed changes

 * All stories will be written from the characters' perspective. That is, any style except for third person omniscient.
 * Stories are interpretations of events written down in the content articles. They are not necessarily set in stone truth.
 * You will be allowed to write multiple stories about the same event, but from different perspectives.
 * Any user can write about Dark Prophecy's events however the way they want.
 * In the event of a significant contradiction, the content article detailing the events of Dark Prophecy will be be considered primary source. From there, the contradiction will be sorted out.

Conclusion
That was only my opinion above. We ought to get to know what each of us had in mind when writing for this wiki. Please post your comments below. Why did you join this wiki? What were your intentions from the beginning? Any and all feedback is appreciated.