User blog comment:Faeyrin/Citations on guides./@comment-5939245-20140729061527/@comment-20355458-20140729082620

You're totally right about people making the lore convienent for them. Now, I'll be the first to admit to lore bends and logical assumptions. For the parts where there are gaps, there will always be some different interpretation, but I go with the one that would be most logical.

However. There is way too much divergence in interpretation for soldified lore and canonical fact. It is for two reasons. Ignorance and convience-bending. Should we cite our guides accurately, we can inform the ignorant with a page, and indeed be like 'Look here yo', because it'll be accurate AND proven. (I'm not saying the guides aren't already accurate, but...well...in a community as we presently have, it isn't the best idea to take heresay on here as word of god) And we can shun the convience-benders with facts.

The biggest hurdle right now, at least for someone like me who is mostly wiki ignorant, is implementing all the citation templates that the RS wiki has. That's not the fun part though shouldn't be exceptionally hard to someone who knows how to work wikia competantly. We get that out of the way, the real good work for the community comes then.

Though this magnitute of work may make a lot of people, even some known names, real salty. Hell, I'll take a further division of the community if it means returning to grounded roots in lore. I think it'd set the base for a better community to grow...as this would not be my only project for roleplay, though my other one is dependant on this one to be completed first.