[Self-Pity] Why can't I find more Contributors to the Arcana Wiki?

Jürgen Hubert · #1 08-17-2009, 10:36 AM

[whine]

The Arcana Wiki is now more than a year old. It's beginning to show its potential which I had envisioned in the beginning. We are rapidly approaching 2,000 non-stub entries (only 40 entries to go). By most standards, I should be happy about how the wiki is progressing.

Yet the one big problem is that almost everything in it was written by only three people. Three very hard-working people, to be sure - we tend to make new additions daily, or nearly so. But three contributors do not make a self-sustaining wiki. Oh sure, there are a few other people out there who have contributed some material as well, and I am glad they did - but most only add something every three weeks at best.

And I don't understand why I can't find more contributors. I mean, by now this wiki has something to offer to pretty much every gamer, and it supports all that free-wheeling association, speculation, and inspiration we see on so many RPGNet forum threads here. Why is no one else interested in being creative on the wiki as well?

And this wouldn't be nearly as aggravating if I didn't know exactly how many contributors RPG-related wikis can get. I mean, take the DDI Wiki. I founded it less than three weeks ago, and despite the fact that it has a far smaller target audience - subscribers of Dungeons & Dragons Insider and users of the tools offered by that subscription - it already has six registered users who have contributed significantly, and this isn't even counting the numerous anonymous edits by Guest users. Why is the DDI Wiki rapidly attracting new active contributors while the Arcana Wiki is stuck with having only the same three active users for many, many months? What am I doing wrong?

You tell me.

[/whine]

Caldorian · #2 08-17-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

I mean, by now this wiki has something to offer to pretty much every gamer

I can speak only for myself but I find the kind of information gathered on the wiki pretty much useless for me. I just don't use these kinds of information in my RPG campaigns. When I develop adventures, I do so with very abstracted plotlines that are contextualised by the player characters. For this, I either create fluff myself (according to the needs of the PCs) or do very directed searches on wikipedia etc.

In any case, a wiki such as yours doesn't really appeal to me at all. I wouldn't use is as inspiration (because I don't need to) and for everything else I do my own web searches...

DJorgensen · #3 08-17-2009, 10:57 AM

As someone who writes about similar subject matter, I can tell you this:

It tends to be a lot of effort. People just don't want to commit to the effort of going to these places or doing the necessary research. Though the gaming community seems like it has a huge number of creative individuals, fact of the matter is, it is still vastly composed of consumers rather than content creators.

And those of us who do create content, usually prefer to get some sort of return on their effort, preferably in the form of pocket money. Writing wiki entries just doesn't do that. Maybe you could sign up for some google advertising and come up with a profit sharing scheme? That's what I've got planned for a zombiepocalypse fictional blog site thing I'm developing.

FigureFour · #4 08-17-2009, 11:02 AM

Sorry to get all negative here, but for me it's because I didn't find the site that useful. When I first saw it, I thought "Cool, a wiki full of esoteric lore aimed at use in games. That could be sweet." However, after looking for a specific topic for a few minutes I realized it was easier to just use Wikipedia.

I'd say that's your big problem. Wikipedia has more info in more detail and only lacks the specific focous on games. However, I didn't actually find any articles with useful information about how to employ something in a game so . . .

It's probably hard to get people excited about your tool when really what you're asking is for them to build it. Especially when there are other tools out there. I think you really need people to be excited about USING the wiki to get them into contributing.

However, looking over it a bit now, it's looking a bit more interesting again. Maybe I was just looking at the wrong articles? I'll probably poke around at it for ideas from time to time and if it kicks a lot of ass, I might start dropping cool ideas I find into it.

Just keep on working and you'll generate more buzz eventually.

Jürgen Hubert · #5 08-17-2009, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FigureFour

Sorry to get all negative here, but for me it's because I didn't find the site that useful. When I first saw it, I thought "Cool, a wiki full of esoteric lore aimed at use in games. That could be sweet." However, after looking for a specific topic for a few minutes I realized it was easier to just use Wikipedia.

I'd say that's your big problem. Wikipedia has more info in more detail and only lacks the specific focous on games.

One way I'm trying to distinguish myself from the Wikipedia are the numerous news articles which I have collected for further information and ideas. Those would be far too specific for the Wikipedia - but I thought they were useful for gaming nonetheless...

Greg 1 · #6 08-17-2009, 11:44 AM

Jurgen, thank you for putting up your page. That's a lot of work and a service to gamers.

I think that one thing it is important to realise is that the internet if full of projects that are supposed to be collaborative, but attract almost no collaborators. In fact, there are many collaborative projects on the RPGnet Wiki and I can't think of single one that has pulled in many people. Not one.

As FigureFour has pointed out, you are also competing with Wikipedia, where it is just as easy to look for stuff. The D&D Wiki you point out offers monsters, traps and characters, material you can't find on Wikipedia.

Sorry to be a downer. I sympathize with you and applaud your project but the internet is the graveyard of "collaborative" game wikis.

four willows · #7 08-17-2009, 11:44 AM

Be more interesting?

Jürgen Hubert · #8 08-17-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by four willows

Be more interesting?

How?

FigureFour · #9 08-17-2009, 11:50 AM

Yeah. That's actually one of the things that caught my attention. I could totally see myself visiting the site to poke through things like that for inspiration and finding the site useful.

The first time I saw the wiki I thought "Wow, here's a cool site for some research," and it seems like that might not actually be the strength of your site.

I think you might actually be on to something here, so I would like to at least show some encouragement here. I think you've got a good idea, and the more work you put into it the better it'll get, and as it gets better there will be more people who want to use it and contribute to it.

At least, from what I've seen, it's more interesting than it was a month or two ago. Give it another month and I might be contributing myself.

Jürgen Hubert · #10 08-17-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FigureFour

At least, from what I've seen, it's more interesting than it was a month or two ago. Give it another month and I might be contributing myself.

OK, I guess I'll just keep at expanding it. I do have some vacation time at the moment, and there are lots of interesting links from the archives of the Delta Green Mailing List which I haven't added yet...