Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.

Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.

Comments on How can Worldbuilding successfully support creative exploration?

Parent

How can Worldbuilding successfully support creative exploration?

+4
−0

The Worldbuilding proposal currently includes this bullet:

We would accept a fairly broad range of question types. Within reasonable limitations, questions that require focused brainstorming or fishing for ideas, as well as questions that elicit well considered opinions and concept analysis would all be welcome here.

"Focused brainstorming" can work well or poorly depending on what "focused" means. I'm not sure how "fishing for ideas" would work. There is a spectrum. At one end are questions like "I have these constraints and have worked out X, Y, and Z but am not sure what to do about W". The question about how a fire-breathing creature safely breathes (air) seems like a good example of focused scope -- we have a set of requirements, a good level of background, and a clear goal. The question already has two good answers. And then, at the other end of the spectrum, one could imagine questions like "how do I make a fire-breathing dragon?", which sounds like the start of a discussion with friends or a Quora thread, but it's quite unbounded. When the question has 57 answers each addressing a different part of the problem and making different assumptions, that's pretty hard on the reader. It's probably even hard on the person who asked the question.

I want Worldbuilding to be able to support the kinds of creativity that don't always have a full set of starting requirements; sometimes you don't know what you don't know, and you can't specify what you don't know. Collaboratively fleshing out a problem space seems like something this community will need to be able to do.

How do we support that in a responsible way?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+2
−0

Building on this answer, maybe we add a category -- maybe called "Workshop" -- with Wiki posts, where the object is to organize and bring together all the aspects of a larger project like, in this case, designing a fire-breathing dragon. The post could contain placeholders for aspects not yet worked out, and links to the relevant questions that exist. If you (generic "you") notice something needs to be addressed but you don't want to ask the question yourself -- maybe you're a passing chemist who doesn't much care about dragons, but you're contributing your knowledge that the stability of the chemicals involved is an issue -- you can edit it into the post. People can tell at a glance how fully baked the project is, and anyone interested can pull off outstanding parts to ask in Q&A.

There will probably be lots of discussions. Fortunately, threaded comments with thread names make that not a complete disaster like it would be on some other platforms.

In other words, use this wiki category to organize, and keep it separate from the Q&A.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Is there an example wiki? (2 comments)
Is there an example wiki?
Antares‭ wrote about 1 month ago

I am not too sure how the Wiki pages work on Codidact. Is there a working example page to look at somewhere?

Would it be possible that a question like "How do I make a fire-breathing dragon?" is directly posted into the Wiki section and opens up an article about that? How are comments and "voting" handled in such case?

Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 1 month ago

The posts in the Descriptions category here use the wiki post type. Wiki posts don't have votes; the idea is to collaboratively edit a post (think article). You wouldn't ask a question but instead start a post like "design for fire-breathing dragons", and then in the post start identifying the sub-problems to be solved. As questions are asked about those pieces, you would edit in links to them.