New Talossan History Project

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Okay guys, I have edited the absolute hell out of GV's text and added my own thoughts in several places. Feel free to make your own edits, or discuss what you see here, or on the talk page.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Given how my initial efforts to contribute were received as an attack or attempt to take control of what seems to be a specific vision of this project's outcome, I think it would be best if you guys did your own thing. No judgment... Just think this is for the best.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial]

Is there a copy of the Talossan Book of Names anywhere?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Is there a copy of the Talossan Book of Names anywhere?

For obvious reasons it's not online, I'm sure @GV has one.

I encourage everyone to read through what GV and I (with a little help from Sir Tamorán dal Nava) have nailed together so far. The problem is that several vitally important and/or hilarious events in our history have not been included yet - for example, the ESB affair. Who better to write about that than @ESB himself?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Perhaps the best way in which non-members of the Project can contribute is: what event in history, or aspect of Talossan history, are you particularly intrigued about, that you've heard others discussed, but you don't know the real story on?

[C. M. Siervicül]

A suggestion: it might be helpful to put together some content and methodology guidelines for the history project. For example:

* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?

* I’ve done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a “neutral point of view” rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?

* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

A suggestion: it might be helpful to put together some content and methodology guidelines for the history project. For example:

I've actually discussed these issues to some extent on the NTHP talk page. My basic arguments are:

* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?

I am following GV's lead for now, on the basis of the right to privacy of especially ex-Talossans.

* I’ve done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a “neutral point of view” rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?

I would say "to the greatest extent possible" - the biggest problem with former Talossan history has been partisan bias. I have tried to move GV's value judgements and personal reflections into quotations, or removed them altogether when they seem irrelevant to the broader story. I do recognize that the current text is slightly politically tendentious, as it tends to reflect something of a "Republican Whig" notion of Talossan history, i.e. that it's just gotten better and better since Ben left and the National Schism ended; but that's why we need a whole range of editors of differing politics who can correct such bias.

* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?

As far as possible. The current document has personal reflections from both GV and myself (and Sir T. dal Nava) which should be dated, I suppose.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I should add that GV's "Talossan names only" policy, including editing classic Talossan history texts, has some negative consequences. One is that GV's scanned and name-replaced version of the 1992 Big History is not searchable, whereas the earlier scanned version with "street names" is. (I found this out when I was searching for a source on D. Lauriér calling himself "the gadfly".)

I also found out that the two versions have different paginations, GV's being more faithful to the print version, so my references based on the earlier are probably inoperative, lol.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Seriously, @Eiric: are you interested in writing an account of the ESB Affair for this project?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd prefer you please not use my writing for your project, Miestra and GV, if you don't mind.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Thanks for confirming you only ever wanted to be involved in this project to derail it and spoil our initiative.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I was interested by the idea and began to enthusiastically contribute some of what I'd written already. You said I was trying to take over, so I immediately stopped. Because I'm not involved, I'd prefer you not use my writing. I worked hard on it for my book, which I have resumed and intend to publish. While I suppose it is possible to read malice into these things, none was intended. Thank you.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Yeah, keep going with the justifications for why you stopped being involved when we said you couldn't take over. Makes you look really good. Totally owns the rest of us.

[Eðo Grischun]

AD, did you not lead a heavy handed campaign and win a court case that set precedent that said once you put something on the Wiki that it stopped being yours? (I can't remember the specifics.. please remind me @Viteu )

And for any naive onlookers; it was not a case of AD being accused of taking over the project, rather he tried starting his own alternative and competing project. He had zero interest in rolling up his sleeves and taking part in the history project that's going on, instead opting to start his own in an attempt to derail GV and Miestra's project.

Here's an idea, AD.  Why don't you just stop playing the 'hard done by' game, apply for membership in the history project then take part and contribute?  I predict you won't though, because it seems you are only interested in taking part in projects when your name is attached to the front cover.

Prove me wrong. Please. Prove that it's really not a case of you only being interested in participating in things where personal glory and political gain is the driving factor and that you are actually interested in the building up and betterment of the community.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, Etho. The first excerpt I put up was submitted by me to the wiki, which means that I voluntarily ceded copyright restrictions to my own work to the extent that it can be uploaded to the wiki. So while you could not take that text and put it somewhere else, such as a PDF or other book, without my permission, you could legally use any portion of that text in whatever article you plan or any other article on the wiki. The case isn't exactly the same, but most of the basic principles are very similar to the extent that that case established the force of copyright law in our country.    :-).  That's why I could not, for example, simply forbid you to use that first chunk of text, but rather was politely asking.

I recognize that you guys think I was in some way trying to sabotage the project by jumping right in and creating an associated page and getting to work by contributing some of my own writing. I'm not entirely sure how that would have seized control or prevented you from setting up the stuff you wanted to set up -- to structure it around GV's perspective -- but I think the idea is that I was trying to get other people interested and involved before you had set up that structure, thereby undermining you? Or something along those lines. Couldn't you have just said, hold on, please wait to start contributing until we all agree on a framework? Or something else along those lines, rather than immediately jumping to accusations that I was sabotaging you? I don't really know how to convince you that that wasn't my intent. Honestly, it doesn't make much sense for me to start irrevocably contributing the product of a considerable amount of effort on my part to your project if I wasn't interested in helping.

I'm a doer. If I am interested in a project, I leap right in with both feet and start getting it done. in my experience, that's the best way to actually get a large initiative all the way done... Get enthused and get into it immediately, and let your momentum carry you forward and interest others in the cause. I have completed several enormous projects in my time here, so I think I can speak from considerable experience on that front.

Since my first contribution was met with accusations that I was trying to undermine the project by contributing enormous chunks of well-researched history, I honestly don't think it would be possible to work together with you guys. I mean, how would that even work, given how even this extremely minor dispute is playing out? Like, I understand the "I bet your ego is too big for you to rejoin us" taunt, but I think in practical terms this wouldn't work. I would do too much and hijack it or do too little and drag my feet, or whatever the problem might be. Not to mention that we haven't even started discussing content disputes. I'm just not interested in nasty fights or being called names because I have a different opinion about some historical event, and you just know that's going to happen. I don't even know why you would want to urge me to rejoin you, for that matter... Why not recruit other people who you don't personally despise quite so much?

While I appreciate the thoughts and wish you nothing but the best success, I think it would be best if we went our own separate ways on this one. Thank you.