"Phil Sandifer" wrote
This is not, to my mind, a bias towards Wikia, but towards free content in general. I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to provide prominant links to other free content resources - particularly ones that cover substantially different types of material from Wikipedia.
The 'general interwiki' problem used to be unsolved.
I imagine it still is. I mean, the general thought of integrating wikis into some sort of uber-structure. The way WP handles its own inter-language and other links is exemplary for not being fussy, and for ensuring that interwiki links number in tens of millions.
But it sounds as if it is beginning to be more pressing, to revisit the older issue.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
The problem is that this is, yet again, being framed in the most unproductive way possible, by those who have little to no knowledge on the way these editors think and the way these articles tend to work. If you did, you'd realise that the problem with so-called "in-universe" information is not the information itself, but the tone. You wouldn't bat an eye if it was written from the proper persepctive ... but instead of attempting to spearhead a campaign of rewriting articles, which would be rather simple with a little research and a little work, the goal is to get rid of them and start anew.
The point of Wikia (and I speak as a bureaucrat on one and the founder of another, both based on a fictional universe) is less to give an "in-universe" tone (not all "fans" are droolingly obsessed with fictional details, despite the way you want to frame the issue) than it is to give them an outlet for /detail/ not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Granted, the tone may vary amongst articles (Memory-Alpha has templates for this), but it's not the main focus.
In essence, I suppose the point is that, yes, articles on fictional characters and the like need to have analysis and context, etc. but that without "in-universe" information, that analysis and context is meaningless and valueless.
~~ Sean
On 21/11/06, Sean Black smblac@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that this is, yet again, being framed in the most unproductive way possible, by those who have little to no knowledge on the way these editors think and the way these articles tend to work. If you did, you'd realise that the problem with so-called "in-universe" information is not the information itself, but the tone. You wouldn't bat an eye if it was written from the proper persepctive ... but instead of attempting to spearhead a campaign of rewriting articles, which would be rather simple with a little research and a little work, the goal is to get rid of them and start anew.
The point of Wikia (and I speak as a bureaucrat on one and the founder of another, both based on a fictional universe) is less to give an "in-universe" tone (not all "fans" are droolingly obsessed with fictional details, despite the way you want to frame the issue) than it is to give them an outlet for /detail/ not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Granted, the tone may vary amongst articles (Memory-Alpha has templates for this), but it's not the main focus.
In essence, I suppose the point is that, yes, articles on fictional characters and the like need to have analysis and context, etc. but that without "in-universe" information, that analysis and context is meaningless and valueless.
I entirely agree. These policies seem to be an attempt to move so-called "fancruft" off Wikipedia. The problem *is* that they are written from the wrong perspective and in the wrong tone and this can be changed.
It is my opinion that, since Wikipedia is not paper and is large enough, the greater the depth of information we have the better. This information simply needs to be factually accurate, verifiable and non-vanity.