From SFTropes
Jump to: navigation, search

Labeling Drafts

I'm having an idea that might make our wiki a better representation of our knowledge as a class.

For those that simply submit their drafts as additions to the analysis, leaving the aggregation for editors later, why don't we label our drafts in a way that makes it clear which question we are referring to?:(I promise this will make sense in a second.)

For instance, when beginning a paragraph that is being tacked onto the end of the analysis, we could say: (Regaring question 1.) or (Regarding questions 1, 2, and 5.)

     I think adding (Regarding question 1...etc.) to the beginning of each response will make it too clunky.  I do agree however that there needs to be some sort of distinction between

     which question is being answered.   

I think this will make it a lot easier for editors to come back and aggregate our responses into a more cohesive unit.:Even if they are not aggregated, I think it will allow for easier navigating.:What do you guys think? --Ben

I know that we didn't like to put the responses under individual titles but maybe for each question we can make a header and then answer the questions. After the class discussion the editors can put these questions in so that it looks organized. jpham7
That sounds like it would work.:As long as you can quickly navigate from question to question, it'll accomplish the same goal. --Ben
This sounds like a great idea; however, I think our wiki should resemble a normal analysis that anyone can find online. A good analysis is organized into paragraphs without referring to mentioned questions. -Ross
I agree completely that we shouldn't leave the question reference tags on there.:However, right now our wiki doesn't read like a normal analysis that anyone can find online. It isn't so much organized into paragraphs, as much as we all toss our contributions onto the wiki, and they are landing in paragraphs.:Not that there's anything at all wrong with tossing our contributions in, only that they should be aggregated into several solid paragraphs so that the analysis flows well, as opposed to jumping from topic to topic. --Ben      I've noticed that some contributors just add their analysis on to the end of the existing analysis regardless of which question is being answered.  It would help the overall       flow of the Wiki as well as make the editing a lot easier if the aggregations were placed in the appropriate paragraph that deals with that specific question.  
I also think it might be good to have a themes,and plot section that all of us can contribute to. Also Ben has a good idea the wiki seems a little too clustered to fully read everyone's responses. -Sriram
Most of the articles already have plot summaries but themes will be a good idea. It will give people more opportunities to gain Wiki credit. jpham7

Do you think we should add an allusions section? Also, I'll start on the plot if noone else wants to. Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;-- 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


On another note. I was thinking of adding pictures to all the pages we have been working on, but I don't know if I want to put the book cover or the author picture. Which would be better for what we are doing?jpham7

I think that eventually adding a picture of the author would add functionality to the site more than a cover of the book because you can link the picture of the author to his own page, where we are already here talking about the book. - Jeff
I personally think a picture of the book cover would aid navigation more than a picture of the author. --Ben
If a picture of the author was also added later on in the page, it might be a nice aesthetic feature to add to the wiki. Or even another picture of a different book cover.--Punnava3 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that a picture would be an excellent idea for this page they are always very inviting when looking at wiki page full of letter.

             I agree that having images throughout the Wiki pages would aid navigation.  The book cover is a good idea; I can make additional images as well.  Any ideas?

Covers of the books are helpful to visually remember what the story was about. However, I was also trying to think of any other picture we could use because just adding cover of books it's getting boring and too predictable. Maybe adding one related to themes?

Cover page is very important to attract the audiences or not.

The cover of the book would be interesting to see at the top of the site. But when we begin summarizing the book or going into detail about the book, maybe a picture that pertains to it would be fitting. I typically like to see pictures from a setting within the book so I can get a sense of what's going on and what things could look like if the book was real. Ccarlson8

A picture of the author is great so that people can get an idea of who wrote the book but the cover of the book is about as essential as the Title of the wiki in my opinion. - David


I am confused about the sundogs, can someone explain them a little more? - Sri

As far as I understand, (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong,) "sundog" is just a generic term for criminal in Schismatrix.--Ben
To elaborate further, "A nomad, without strong group affiliation and the permanent residency it affords. The label probably arose as the circumsolar asteroid belt would be the main territory inhabited by these itinerants. Criminals, Refugees, political exiles and the disadvantaged would adopt this lifestyle out of necessity, criminals may prefer its anonymity." I got this from the Wikipedia article of Schismatrix -- ltolentino3

Unnecessary Sections

I have notice that many people are adding their own section but put nothing in those sections. This gives the wiki a look disorganization. We should delete these sections. jpham7

People are probably expecting others to elaborate within these pioneer pages. I don't think deleting them would be best. (sgilmore7)

It might be better to leave the sections, just so people can gain wiki credit. If the section isn't there they might forget about that section, even though it looks disorganized. - Sriram

             You gain wiki credit from the wiki history.  So even if someone went and erased every contribution you've made, you'd still get all the credit you've earned. --Ben
              I agree that we should leave the sections there.  At the end if there is still nothing in that section then it can be deleted.  If it fits into that section then it can stay there, but                otherwise it can be moved into a different section.  

     I also think we should leave the sections there.  It's okay if it looks disorganized for now; it's still under construction! --Ben

I feel like there has been a major overhaul of this page and many peoples thoughts got deleted. It looks better organized, but I feel that it defeated the purpose of have the discussion in the first place. --Jpham7 16:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Has no one used quotes from the novel or outside sources of information on the analysis contained in this page? I'm surprised to see no "References" heading--Tswihart3 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a reference heading and a Schismatrix citation. Ismith30 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To Do

Expand on the Shapers segment and tie it in the the Human Consciousness discussion.

Also the plot summary is lacking information on the later parts. This needs to be added.

Regarding the movement of the Discussion/Questions block:

Hey all, just wanted to explain my reasons for moving the individual responses to another page. The goal of this is that the main Schismatrix page will contain an overview analysis of how it contributes to and ties into the themes of our class (Cyberpunk, the anti-hero, etc) in a readable and easily parseable format. While looking through past pages on this wiki, I've noticed that the majority of them seem to be easily accessible (as in, the content or analysis isn't obscured behind miles of text and individual response). What I plan to do is go through all the individual responses and questions and bring out the points, arguments and prompts most applicable to the ideas of this class and present them in the Analysis section both for our reference and so that in later years students can use our pages in the same way that we are using the pages of classes past.

What do you think? --Tswihart3 19:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This could be useful to future students who look through the wiki. I think that what you really want to do, though, is make a "Summary of the Class' Analysis" section. A good number of us put a lot of effort into our analysis answers, and I think keeping the original writings while have a summary could be very useful. I just wanted to make it clear that I think what is already written needs to stay on the wiki, in my opinion anyways. - Andrew

This is a great change overall but some of the questions have no responses in the analysis section which I feel takes away from the overall appearance of the page.  Also, one of the sections has 17 discussion questions, which I feel is overwhelming to any reader.  Does anyone feel we should somehow condense these? -gstearns3

Yes, perhaps we should eleminate questions from that section, although what is going to happen the questions themselves. It would be unfair to the authors of those questions to simply remove them. Perhaps a section for "Further Thought Provoking Questions"? - Andrew

      This is a great idea, but I wonder about the specific implementation, if only because it doesn't really grab the eye.  That is, I wonder if someone, when skimming the wiki, might miss the page entirely.  What if we had a section on the wiki titled "Analysis by section," or something, with links to multiple pages, one holding each part of the discussion.  A list of links like that would be prominent, and grab attention from someone skimming the wiki.  Just a thought.  --Ben

I like Ben's idea.  I would recommend that any revisions you decide to make are uniform across all of the pages for the class.  I would also make it clear where the analysis section is because it took me awhile to find it on the site - Grant

I don't think it is a good idea. All of us contributed to this page when it was our time to. I don't appreciate someone taking things I wrote and picking out what they believe is applicable. People posted analysis for different purposes, not always to connect to class readings. If you're going to "filter" this information (since you took it all off) could you at the very least make a page where the raw and untouched discussion was? At least that way all the information is available if someone wanted to go through it, and not just your personal interpretaion of our discussion. --Crossi7 05:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this reflects one of the main downsides to organizing all of this data on a wiki. There are those who wish the wiki to look formal, factual, and objective in every aspect, and there are others who wish to leave any injected personal voice because it adds flavor to the articles and discussions. If we're going to be making significant edits to other peoples' work, we should probably try and leave some "original form" somewhere, be it on a separate page or wherever (this mantra excludes editing for grammatical and coherency errors, of course). Msmith312 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Crossi7: I did keep a page where every single bit of it existed, raw and untouched. I would never simply delete all the work the class did. All I did was move it so that these main pages could be used in future classes, as parsing an enormous wall of text in the form ours was is an deterrent to someone who is trying to reuse information. The goal was to eventually prune all of the analysis and, factoring in the opinions of everyone who chimed in on a topic, reincorporate it into the main novel's page in a useable format. --Tswihart3 02:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's this warning everytime you edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If one wanted to view the raw, unedited text, then he/she could just pull up history of the wiki. For subjective writing, people should post on the discussion pages. --ltolentino3

@ltolentino3 makes a good point. Grouping the responses on the main page does a good job for organization, but the page is still much too long. Multiple pages for the different discussions might fix that, but more pages means more fragmentation. I feel like I now know what it feels like to manually defrag a hard drive after working on organizing this wiki. --Jmicali13 16:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I solved this problem mahself. Just look how pristine it looks now on the main page :D. No more redirection to find what you want. - Sean

I wouldn't call what you did "pristine" or "solved". We tried this on one of the other Analysis sections and it failed horribly when people tried to add more to it. Yes, people aren't adding info anymore, but there's still the problem that the page is ridiculously long and impossible to navigate. No, I don't know a good solution, but I think the implicit weakness of a wiki like this is that everyone wants to add their own opinion (like they're supposed to), but there is no easy way of organizing it, especially when the individual people are not following the same set of rules. --Jmicali13 06:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that before this wiki is used again there should be a clear idea on how it should be organized. Popular themes hit on to answer each discussion question should be organized. - David

I actually really like the idea of separate introduction page and discussion page which make audience easier to get overall view at the material as well as to focus on discussion the questions--Mc 19:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools