I have been thinking about how frustrated many of us are, but with how DA2 turned out, but also with how little any of us actually have to say. What is our chance for any of us to even mage one of the writers to communicate with us?
But then I was thinking, what if we had a spokesman or women, if we could empower someone with official endorsement from the dragon age wiki, we might actually be of real notice.
We know that David Gaider often answers question of fans on biowares official forum, so having a spokesman would mean that he would actually be able to communicate with the Dragon Age team.
Now the qualification to become a spokesman should be, that you are able to formulate yourself coherently and intellectually with few or no spelling errors. You must also be very active on the forum, and of course be willing to be just as active on BioWare’s forum once you are elected.
- We should elect a spokesman for a certain interval, like a year or 6 months. I do not want to run for the position myself, but I would, if no one objects, nominate myself as election coordinator.
- If we can conceive that there will be support for this idea, and that more then 2 people are interested in running, we would run into another problem, the problem called first-past-the-post.
- In order to get rid of that and make any election more proportionality and fair, it would be in our interest if we had an electoral alliance. We would need to positions: An spokesperson and an assistant spokesperson.
- Now if we conceive that four persons were to run, candidate A, B, C & D then A and B could nominate each other as their assistant spokesperson and C and D the same. It would then be the block with the most votes that would win, with the person with the most votes in the bloc that would get the top post.
With my rambling finished I would appreciate any comment on this matter, and hopefully lots of nominees.
Just one more thing though. Do not nominate anyone other then yourself, unless you have clarified it with them first that they are willing to run. I do not wish this tread to be a long list of people that nominates somebody else just for them to retract it later.-rphb- (talk) 20:29, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
If you want to run, sign your name below, starting with a *-rphb- (talk) 21:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea. If the admins approve, it'd be great if we could get our views across on a wider scale, as the devs check and contribute on BiowareSocial, but might not even give our forums a look in. I also think that you're right about the lengths of time. A memeber should only be allowed to be spokesperson for 6 months or less, the latter being the case if the community dissaproves. King Cousland (talk) 20:47, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a spokesperson is a good idea. But we'd have to make sure that it isn't someone is particularly biased against either game, or rather, someone who will tell what the wiki members think as opposed to what they think. It would be pointless to have a spokesperson who doesn't deliver the correct information.NegativeCity (talk) 20:57, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's alright if they're biased within the wiki, just as long as they don't let their personal feelings influence their position as spokesperson. If that's the case, I think they should be voted out, as I suggested above. King Cousland (talk) 21:02, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- My idea is that we would have an election campaign, so that the spokesman would be however the majority decides to represent them best. I have written the details with grey.-rphb- (talk) 21:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
The wiki is not a group of people who have the same views on the games and how certain things should work. If you were to create a particular group (for example) on "Anti-dialogue wheel" on the BSN, then yes, a spokesperson can fit the bill. This is not the case for the wiki. I do not think it should be used as ground for advocating certain things you want. If we start saying, "the wiki wants that feature out", it will appear that, because I'm editing on the wiki, I'm also endorsing these demands while I may not. Yes, you can vote on what should or not be said, but again, you're excluding those who do not take partake in these discussions, who do not check the forums for this kind of polls. As such, I'm against this idea.
If people want to endorse this idea, then so be it. I will simply not partake in any of the discussions of this project since it is not something I believe in. --D. (talk · contr) 21:09, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with the spokesperson idea. But you could alternatively just have a Journalist/Writer slot. Over at RPGWatch they seem to have pretty good luck getting interviews from devs and company spokespersons. I get the impression that they put together a written series of questions and send them to the individual in question. Then maybe do some follow up questions. So you could start with a series of questions -- and the Q/A would be published here as a featured article. Just a thought. I'm good with the original also. WarPaint (talk) 21:14, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion WarPaint, and I actually think that you would be a good person to the job, the question is, do you have the time and the desire?-rphb- (talk) 21:47, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I think your best shot at a response would lie in a series of pretty open ended questions. Gently exploring subjects like the effect of the EA/Bioware merger on game development; timing of the next game; the target gamers, have they changed? Will they change? The shooter/RPG aspect of future games. Digital delivery questions. Really to make it work would require many days of research -- everything, and I mean everything, anyone could identify with published info about BW and the individual in question. Could probably come up with good questions. You, rphb have lots of background knowledge about past games. That type of input would help. I think Futon has a great deal of knowledge. I'd propose a group to gather data and outline questions. Would need to get a Wiki blessing. Would need a timetable as things just don't get done without deadlines. WarPaint (talk) 22:10, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- I know I have some knowledge but I am not comfortable in any position of authority, I could be persuaded to be part of a team, but it would only be as support.-rphb- (talk) 22:16, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Got any ideas on whether the Wiki people would go along? Any reservations/limitations they might have? Promises for a featured publication spot? Seems to me that's the place you ought to go next. -- And I'd really love to hear Gaider talk about things like the differences between putting together Baldur's Gate vs. DA:O vs. Where we are today. We can ask. The worst that can happen is he says "No." But with the right questions, and a good spot on the wiki, maybe we could make it attractive... Dunno... But I'd be willing to be part of the team to give it a shot. WarPaint (talk) 23:19, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help with the journalist aspect as WarPaint suggested, however, due to weekly commintments, I'd likely only be able post information on a Saturday/Sunday, but could definately do research during the week. *King Cousland (talk) 23:48, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
I kind of agree with D on this one. The administrators have stressed time and again that this is an information repository first and a forum second and anything that is decided should be done with that in mind. Appointing any kind of representative would conflict with that potentially making the wiki look more like a discussion forum than a place for information.....IP no. 59.95.169.10 (talk) 05:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a interest in the subject. I think this Wikis' purpose is to act as an online library for Dragon Age, not to act as a voice of a group of people. Besides I have my concerns regarding whether the suggested spokesman able to carry the actual ideas of the Wiki members. This is just my personal opinion. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 12:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with D and Snfonseka. The wiki is not the place for this sort of thing. It's a library first and foremost. Apolitical in nature. Anything from a forum (opinion and/or views on topics) is secondary and not really important to the stated purpose of this site, and your stated venture would be political in nature, thus divisive at some point. My advice would be to try to take it to the Bioware forums, where the people you wish to see your opinions look with frequency. You would also, potentially, get a more positive response I think as the sheer number of people active there is far greater than here, and many, if not most, share your concerns in far greater numbers. You would likely have to create a website of your own at some point no doubt, but you would get more traction, and a potentially larger audience, as a result. But the wiki is not the place for it. It's an online encyclopedia, and needs to stay as such. I only post here, and not on Bioware's own forums, due to the impartiality present. If that impartiality were not present, I would not be present. The Grey Unknown (talk) 13:36, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I am not a leader, and I am not technically skilled enough to make a website. I understand your points and though many vote "yes", the fact that non have volunteered shows the truth.
- I had hoped to find someone that I could follow. I cannot take more initiative then I have already.
- It is easier teach yourself not to care, then to put in the necessary effort and dedication and still fail due to lack of charisma.
- I don't have what it takes, it's that simple.-rphb- (talk) 15:21, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Slow down there rphb. First the institutional definition of leader is inaccurate. Really, a leader is nothing more than someone who walks in a direction and others follow. People at the front of a crowd often aren't there because they are trying to lead. Indeed, many people at the front of the crowd are uncomfortable with the fact that others seem to be following (see, for example, the impostor complex, a very common condition). The fact is that many have followed your lead in many different cases here on this wiki. Admit it or not, and like it or not, that's the way it is. As to things that you try not working, the only alternative is to try nothing, or only very very conservative things. Many ppl say that if you aren't unsuccessful at a few things here and there, it just means you aren't trying new things. Stated differently, risk taking is an absolute necessity for reaping rewards. But risk is risk; which is to say that every risk taker, and I do mean EVERY risk taker, gets burned some portion of the time. Nevertheless, the payoff can be huge.
- [EDIT] Just one other thing. It's ppl who care deeply who often end up going in directions that others end up following -- the deep caring helps in identifying beneficial directions, and is often seen by others as a reason to follow -- but deep caring doesn't go away when things don't work, it just becomes more poignant. You can't and won't stop caring; it's who you are. So just start walking again, watch the ground go by slowly and listen to the rhythm of your footsteps. Next thing you know you'll be somewhere else [perhaps at the edge of a cliff <grin>]. WarPaint (talk) 16:24, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- No but there are things I care more about then the future of good RPG. My greatest dream is to unite the fragmented nations of the North into a single federation, but that seems impossible. A grassroots movement seems like the natural first step, but I can't seem to get anyone else to care.
- I simply cannot get myself to (care is not the right word, but I don't know what else to call it) enough to lead a movement in this, when my greatest passion must go unfulfilled and neglected. The reason why I made this tread was so that I may find someone that could lead it, then I could merely follow.
- And WarPaint, there is a very big difference between "leading" a discussion, and leading a movement, and you know that, you are too intelligent not to.-rphb- (talk) 18:00, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- [EDIT] Just one other thing. It's ppl who care deeply who often end up going in directions that others end up following -- the deep caring helps in identifying beneficial directions, and is often seen by others as a reason to follow -- but deep caring doesn't go away when things don't work, it just becomes more poignant. You can't and won't stop caring; it's who you are. So just start walking again, watch the ground go by slowly and listen to the rhythm of your footsteps. Next thing you know you'll be somewhere else [perhaps at the edge of a cliff <grin>]. WarPaint (talk) 16:24, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Well I can't help with political endeavors, other than to say that pragmatism is perhaps the most fundamental requirement for success, and idealism is probably a sure fire guarantee of failure. Seems like as ppl lose their idealism in politics they get confused and start losing their grip on ethics instead... But back to RPGs, a much more pleasant topic. WarPaint (talk) 19:00, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- @WarPaint. I think I understand what I was thinking about earlier. It is like "stage fright" just much more powerful. I'm not the first to have that dream, but every time we have been close, there have always been something that have ruined the chance. First the Germans, then the Germans and then the Germans again, so the Russians and now? I don't know it's complicated, but something with EU. -rphb- (talk) 21:45, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, ppl should note that this thread changed. The original goal was a spokesperson tasked with giving input from the wiki to BW. Subsequently the goal became a Q&A publication for the wiki; specifically, a set of apolitical questions would be put together and sent to BW, probably David Gaider, to elicit responses that could enhance everyone's understanding of what goes into the DA games, and perhaps give a few hints on where things might be headed. I think that would mesh well with the goals and purpose of the wiki. Your thoughts? WarPaint (talk) 17:44, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
To the original question: No, the wiki does not need a spokesperson. As stated before a wiki is, first and foremost, an information depot and not a journalistic/political entity.
If you want to go make a website dedicated to changing how EA and BioWare do business, go ahead and do that. Nothing but time and resources is stopping you, but do not expect -- or demand -- to receive any directly from the wiki itself however. If you want to start a movement, go right on ahead, that's your business. Just don't go thinking that just because you can contribute to the wiki, that you are entitled to make it into something that which it is not. DeltaEcho (talk) 19:23, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- That horse is dead. Been dead for quite some time actually. No reason to beat it any further. WarPaint (talk) 19:36, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I do not want to create a website to change EA's mind, not only can't I make it work, but I also know a futile case when I see one.
- The idea behind my suggestion was that the people of this sight might benifit if they had a spokesperson as such a person, as a person that speaks for many is always more important to hear then a person that speaks only for himself.
- I fully understand your objections, and see your points. A library is first and foremost the purpose of this wiki, but I do still think that WarPaints idea of having an official "journalist" would be a good idea. The question of who if any would be willing to take on such an unpaying job.-rphb- (talk) 21:45, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Don't care, and judging by the number of votes in this thread (less than 100), this idea has been a complete failure. Look at the other polls (favourite character, class, etc.), the average number of voters is over 300. I'm sure that if people would be forced to vote in this thread, 99% would vote 'don't care'. People on wikia do not care about politics. This is supposed to be a place for discussion, and not representation. --Udinbak (talk) 23:31, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Why not make a group on the bioware forums that is not officially affiliated with this wiki. Create a stated purpose of wanting to improve the wiki and such, but make it clear that the objectives of the group do not "represent" this website in any manner. That way it would be easier to nominate a "spokesperson" for such a group that has any "official" power on this wiki. Balitant (talk) 02:44, May 9, 2011 (UTC)