On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
But, better than just saying "oh yes, it's such a shame that some of our articles are complete crap" and doing nothing, we need to look at /why/ this happens. Here is a short true/false quiz which you should fill out and submit (and pass!) before you will be allowed to continue this thread:
- Red Dwarf and Doctor Who are cooler than Star Wars and Gundam
<snip>
Speaking for myself, most of those comparisons are true. The "perspective" one is closest to the truth, probably, as Red Dwarf and Doctor Who don't take themselves seriously. It's hard *not* to notice the continuity problems in Red Dwarf, and hence it's hard to really believe in the fictional universe. Whereas the Star Wars universe "exists" to a greater extent.
Which doesn't mean that Wikipedia exists in the Star Wars fictional universe. And I don't see a good reason why the same approach should not be followed for both: Liberal use of "According to the film X, Y is a ..." and especially "Between series A and B, the producers chose to introduce...".
I'm undecided on whether it's generally better to say "X happened because of Y (an explanation invented to cover the real life death of Z)" or "Z died. This was explained by the scriptwriters as Y happening".
Steve
Steve