Thread: Creative Writing Wikia

A creative writing wiki that anyone can edit.

I created it a while ago, but just filled it with articles over the past two weeks.

That looks like a cool idea with a lot of potential.

Whatever happened to the tried and tested method of learning from teachers who had half a lifetime of experience in their field on which to base their instruction?

Sites like this, any wanker at all can put up his ideas, and all the mud-headed robots will swallow them as gospel.

Phooey I say.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Whatever happened to the tried and tested method of learning from teachers who had half a lifetime of experience in their field on which to base their instruction?

A lot of the tips are from published writers. I've read through tons of sites/blogs over the years all suggesting the same stuff, so I've just aggregated it all into one place.

And you can show alternate views, like in show, don't tell I added an "Exceptions" section because Orson Scott Card isn't so fond of it.

Don't take him too much to heart Stardog, notice his title, and I am sure I have seen him quote wikipedia, he picks and chooses to suit his argument, the only constant is argument.

I have a friend who plays with Wikipedia as a hobby. Every day he goes to a few random pages and edits little bits of information like birth and death dates. He inserts 'facts' that aren't so farfetched as to be obviously false. He keeps track of the edits and goes back regularly to see how long it takes for misinformation to be corrected. He considers it harmless fun because he believes that no one who is a serious researcher ever would rely on Wikipedia for information.

Will not the wiki for writers suffer the same fate? In these forums the opinions of different people are kept separate. But if nonsense, deliberate or otherwise, is mixed in with solid advice, how will the beginning writer be able to separate the two?

The Backward Ox - Half a lifetime hell. I'm 70 years old and I've been writing and selling what I write since I was 14 years old sending stories and pictures about scout trips and my mother's garden club to two local newspapers in my hometown. I've written about and photographed wars and revolutions and hurricanes and droughts on three continents. I continue to sell, though today I mostly write rather boring reports for NGO's and government departments. It's not exciting and dosen't pay much but it keeps me writing and redefines the word 'retired'.

Interestingly enough, last week I met up with the nephew of one of the more notorious rebel leaders from the civil war in El Salvador. I still have a picture I took of him during an interview in the bush 25 years ago, squatting against a tree holding a SAW. He was killed in Mexico about 20 years ago. The nephew is a university student and I've hired him to do research. He will one day make his way as a teacher and writer. He has the gift. His uncle, a much-feared guerrilla in his day, would be proud. He had a PhD himself.

But really I started out to say, in answer to your 'whatever happened...' question, that no one wants advice from old farts like me. That's what's happened. And you can't blame them. Every generation has to find its own way. I can sell what I write, but I think I'm no good at passing on writing skills to anyone else.

Originally Posted by garza

I have a friend who plays with Wikipedia as a hobby. Every day he goes to a few random pages and edits little bits of information like birth and death dates. He inserts 'facts' that aren't so farfetched as to be obviously false. He keeps track of the edits and goes back regularly to see how long it takes for misinformation to be corrected. He considers it harmless fun because he believes that no one who is a serious researcher ever would rely on Wikipedia for information.

Will not the wiki for writers suffer the same fate? In these forums the opinions of different people are kept separate. But if nonsense, deliberate or otherwise, is mixed in with solid advice, how will the beginning writer be able to separate the two?

In many parts of the world, in many languages, young men and women are squatting against trees, doing research with global political implication, based primarily on access to internet resources like wikipedia. They look to people like your friend for guidence. They are deadly serious.

Yeah, frankly I think that friend needs a butt kicking and some broken fingers. That's just informational vandalism. If nothing else wasting time of the people that try to clean it up.
And proving what? Accomplishing what?
What a jerk.

But he's not alone. There are probably jerks like him all over the world, which is why I never go to Wikipedia at all. There are hundreds, thousands, of legitimate sites on the Internet today on any given subject. Why use one that can be tinkered with by anyone who comes along? And how do I know the difference between 'informational vandalism', useless graffiti sprayed on the wall of the World Wide Web, and useful, usable facts?

Unfortunately, because of the way Google is structured, Wikipedia is in the top ten of almost any search result. This will give people who do not understand how a wiki works and how Google works the impression that Wikipedia is a solidly reliable source of accurate information, and it just ain't so.

I find it extremely useful, actually. It's always the most basic and inclusive listing and provides a base of links and keywords to get into things deeper if you need to.
Sometimes you're just trying to find out what something is, you google it, Wiki tells you.
Anybody doing serious research would know what to take and what to check.
It's a valuable resource and it's a shame people mess with it.

The idea that historical data exists, which has not been subjectively edited, is a myth of the credentialed, perpetrated to keep their livelihood robust. The process creating society's foundational information is more justly distributed by using wiki's. The process of making money by copyrighting ideation is, unfortunately perhaps, impaired thereby. The small and unimportant details, which nobody manages to care enough about to notice and correct, will become small in-jokes for the amusement of urchins. Creation of the big important things will be transparent.

I am quite impressed by Stardog's compilation. I easily found notions worthy of personal implementation. I'm not at all worried about the vandalism-bogey-man in that connection. I hope he finds collaborators.

Before we had the Internet, we had bulletin boards. Some of those bbs could be edited by anyone who dialed in with the right code. (Everyone who was the proud owner of a 300 baud Hayes Smart Modem raise your hand.) I belonged to two groups, both in university towns but privately run and not connected with the universities. We were small groups, we all knew one another, and when we posted anything or edited something that had been posted then anyone reading what was said would know who said it.

The wiki software as it is normally implemented does not require that the 'vandalism-bogey-man' identify himself or leave any evidence that he has been at work. The graffiti 'artist' with a spray can will write rude words in the underpass, then go to a 'net cafe and mess about with Wikipedia, and leave no tracks in either place. I prefer not to become a part of his world.

There is the implication that either information is free for everyone on Wikipedia or strictly for sale otherwise. The information is all out there for free on legitimate sites for anyone who is willing to spend a bit of time looking for it. Perhaps what is needed is more education on how to use the Internet properly. There's more to it than a Google search.

Some of us figure out how to use it by ourselves.

...that's experience talking.