ConRunner.net will be developing policies on various topics over time, to make it clear to users what would, or should, happen as events here unfold.
In general, article contributions belong to the contributor. However, once they are here at ConRunner.net they are covered by the Creative Commons license for reuse. See the ConRunner:Copyrights page for the details of the license.
There is no way to guarantee that multiple contributions to the same article will remain separate. And in fact keeping them separate is counter to the concept of a collaborative wiki. Everyone is expected to help improve every article, if possible. That might be by adding a new section, a paragraph, or only a few words. In general there is no individual credit, nor is there intended to be. There is no sure way, short of forensic use of the History function, to determine who is the definitive author of any particular chunk of text.
In conjunction with contributions, all users can and will edit other articles. Only a few articles and pages are locked. This means the vast majority of the pages are open for change. This will require some judgement to be exercised on the part of the editor.
- The vast majority of edits should be of the grammar, punctuation, and spelling variety. To help your fellow Conrunners be more clear in their information presentation. Don't change the meaning of the article, just make it clearer for those that follow.
- If you find yourself in a situation that seems to call for a major rewrite of the article, please discuss your concerns on the Talk pages first, or contact the original contributor. It may be that there really is a reason that article was written the way it was, or even that some missing or mis-phrased word(s) have destroyed an otherwise good article. Find out first, before doing major alterations.
- Some edits will be to correct simple errors or to update information in articles. As long as this can be done without destroying the context of the article, then editors should go ahead and do it. The wiki should have information that is as factually correct as it can be. If the meaning of the article would become unclear or the context of the article would be lost, then the new information should be added in a different way. For example, a new paragraph or two could be tacked on to the end, stating the changed situation and perhaps the date of the changes and its relationship to the original.
- Lastly, some edits will be to add new content that is different or contradictory to the point-of-view of the original article. Again judgement is required here. When new or diverging opinions are placed together, it is most important to make clear to the independent reader that 1) yes there are differences, and 2) what the differences are. It is not necessary to harmonize the philosophy of an article. There is not necessarily only one correct way a process, procedure, or goal can be accomplished. However, here in the wiki, it is necessary to acknowledge the other techniques without attacking the proponents of those techniques. Advantages and Disadvantage should be stated without attack or denigration. In the worst case, for lengthy or complex contributions, articles can be split, and new pages and links established to show the divergence and rejoining of the information flow.
If, for some reason, a user adds obvious nonsense, spurious advertising, non-conrunnig oriented links or images, or attempts to destroy information on the site to no obvious purpose, this will be considered vandalism. Vandalism will be dealt with by blocking that user and IP (or IP range) from the site. Appeals will be handled on a case bay case basis.