Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:09:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
You can't trust the fan sites. And
there's so much being produced that
it's difficult for even a site that limits itself to one genre to keep
up. We have chosen to comprehensively attempt a documentation of all
genres to the point where many would see us as leading the pack in such
things.
Hmmm. Not what we're supposed to be for, though, is it? Leading the
pack in documenting things? I thought we were supposed to collect
information from reliable secondary sources? Without novel syntheses?
I prefer to avoid preconceived ideas about what we're supposed to be
for. Very recent material and ideas are the history of the future, but
it's difficult to know which will last.
Other, more
"serious" subjects are still doing respectably
well, but our greatest success is in what many people see as trivial.
We still demand NPOV on these articles, but can be more relaxed about
original research.
But we shouldn't be. Unless we want to change our mission to being
the *first* secondary source to document things neutrally from
*primary* sources?
Whether we draw from primary or secondary sources shouldn't matter.
The good
secondary material is just not there, and
you don't maintain a lead by waiting for other sites or books to put
something decent together.
Who needs to maintain a lead in doing what is, after all, primarily a
job of documenting a heavily commercialised fad largely aimed at
extracting money from gullible kids?
I agree that much of these materials were designed to extract money, and
not just from kids. It would also be nice to have articles on the
economics and marketting of entertainment products. What would you
think of a warning to kids on each of these pop articles telling kids
how badly they are being ripped off. ;-)