Do we know everything of the world?

[kestal]

Are things left unknown?

Do we have the point of view of someone external to the world? Or someone inside? A scholar?

[fahriel]

It seems to me that Jebus (ridiculous name) could have some writings about the dwarves or the general population of his area.

[kestal]

My question was more abstract I think.

If you build a world for the sake of say having an environment in which a novel takes place, then it makes sense to place yourself as someone omniscient, external to the universe.
You describe everything, build your world, and take what you need for your novel.

Another example: tolkiengateway.net. If you describe a universe from only canonical sources of the author; the simple fact that only what has been written by the author can be considered true already filters the content.

If we describe this universe with the "omniscient" stance, then reading it is somewhat less fun, because you don't have as much mystery and one-sidedness. But the goal would more be to have a basis on which to do other content, so that it should be reasonably complete.

My point of view now is that the "wiki" should have a somewhat omniscient perspective, and anything that doesn't would be written as "content", on a separate folder for instance.

[lord-koko]

I guess that it would be the easiest thing for the moment.
We can resume the problem with creating :

• A product in itself
• A tool for others to create things

The product in itself could be, for example, to choose the perspective of an historian that writes an encyclopaedia. A difficult thing about this is, that all the articles should be written in a specific way, respecting the subjectivity of this Guy. It would allow us to put some interesting secret/shadowy places in the world though, also undecided things that could be revealed in fiction.
In that way, a subjective encyclopaedia, could open more this world for further creation, external from this specific project, when creating a closed one, or somehow a "finished" one, could be harder to adapt to a fiction. The tool for others is easier to write down. As long as we consider it as never really over, it is easy for others to use, countering the argument written some lines higher.

I dont think that we should make these two categories kestal. If it is an omniscient point of view, we are only creating a corpus of texts, giving a general view on this universe. Then, fiction and content are just the same.

[kestal]

New strategy:
It seems overly complicated to force ourselves to have an of objective, all-knowing, scientific stance, in my opinion.
This forces us to never use things like "It is said that […]", or, as you said, to leave space for unknowns and mysteries.
So, I think we could have the following hybrid approach: We do not particularly specify if the "author" of this wiki is omniscient w.r.t the world or not. We try to keep a relatively neutral writing style (i.e. we don't take sides) but allow leaving some (not too many) open ends.
In short, the status quo.