[arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

1) I think it's a great idea to produce several whitepapers instead of
one huge one.

2) I also think the wiki is a great start to a different editorial
process. But I'm generally a fan of wikis (in the right context) so my
opinion may be colored. I'd be open to a different method, but I think
the one we already tried put too much work on one person's shoulders.
We can share the process more, I think, and make it less painful all
around. It was a learning experience, certainly.

3) How do you envision that we come up with a set of core values for
this group? In some ways, I think collaborating on whitepapers would
give us a context to discover our differences and work together on
concensus. I also think we can use the existing whitepaper as a
jumping-off point. Sometimes it's easier to edit than to create out of
thin air. I do think this list needs to find its identity somehow.

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com




> So I've been waiting to pop in some thoughts on this, but wanted to share

> a

> few perspectives as someone with a vested interest in helping people

> understand this genre. I offer them up as feedback and in no particular

> order:

>

> 1. I think part of the danger here might be the attempt to make one

> all-inclusive whitepaper and actually believing that we'll do a good job

> of

> covering all of the bases. Perhaps it makes more sense for the SIG for us

> to

> think of our task as requiring a series of more focused whitepapers,

> rather

> than one long and inevitably incomplete document. I could imagine that the

> first whitepaper might need to be "what is an ARG and what makes it

> different from other media forms that people are familiar with?" I can

> imagine another one just on business models. I can imagine another simply

> on

> the mechanics of developing content for group consumption rather than

> individual consumption, etc.

>

> 2. I think this group probably also needs to spend a bit of prep time

> thinking about what the right process is for developing a/each whitepaper.

> I

> know in the initial call for participants it was phrased as academic -- I

> read it, and then discounted myself as a participant because I'm a

> practitioner rather than an academic. Having a system for internal review

> and comment and improvement also seems critical before things get

> released.

>

> 3. I think we have to find a way to embrace some shared set of core values

> before any of the above really makes sense -- many of us approach ARGing

> from different perspectives. In one sense, that diversity of viewpoints is

> a

> strength of the genre (in the same way that two filmmakers might not agree

> upon the mechanics of what makes a great film ... or two web publishers

> might disagree on the mechanics of what makes a great online experience).

> But, in another sense, a discipline without a core shared set of values

> becomes too fragmented to build an effective external case.

>

> Given the above ... does anyone else think that perhaps trying to polish

> the

> existing draft hobbles us by skipping over some core essentials at

> building

> a unity and shared mission from this group? One eats a watermelon one bite

> at a time, rather than trying to stuff the whole thing in one's mouth.

>

> Best,

>

>

> Brian

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org]

> On

> Behalf Of Colin Gehrig

> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:58 PM

> To: 'Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG'

> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org

> [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Adam Martin

>> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:50 PM

>> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

>> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

>>

>> Unfortunately, very little of that is constructive criticism, and much

>> of it revolves around misunderstandings about the scope and basis of

>> the paper.

> <snip>

>> Adam

>

> Interesting, I felt that most of it was worth considering. However I

> don't know scope and basis for the paper. I looked back through this

> email list to see if I could find what the objective was, but couldn't

> see it. I read the paper, I couldn't see anything to say what it was.

>

> Then, I thought, "hey wait, don't papers normally have that at the

> start?", but I thought of Wendy's comments: "For one thing, a whitepaper

> in the IGDA sense isn't an academic or scientific paper." Maybe I was

> applying lofty academic standards to this lowly IGDA whitepaper. So I

> googled "igda whitepaper". The first result was the 2006 Casual Games

> White Paper, and on page 6:

>

> A. Background and Purpose

> B. Audience and Scope

>

> I'm afraid I can't accept the argument that it revolves around

> misunderstanding, and I'll add the lack of Purpose and Scope to the list

> of specious claims that need to be corrected, thanks for pointing that

> out.

>

> -colin

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>