[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Jesse W]

On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Michael Hopcroft wrote:
> As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there
> are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well
> beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why 
> is
> this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do 
> they
> discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of
> the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do 
> those
> who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those
> reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed
> signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The 
> same
> can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was
> Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital
> questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially
> scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
This is very true and correct, and is exactly the sort of questions we 
look for in better Wikipedia articles.

<snip sensible paragraph on pop culture not being different from 
Shakespeare in terms of these questions>

> Meanwhile, many wikipedia writers seem to be letting relatively minor
> things occupy more of their attention -- not because those things 
> should
> not be included, but because they stop with them and do not go any
> further.
I agree; I can only explain this as finding sources than answer the 
questions above are harder than finding sources for the more minor 
aspects.  But we certainly should have both.

<snip sad, but common, example>

> To partly answer that question: Burr matters because he was one of the
> first true "TV stars", because he had a knack for combining gravity 
> with
> subtle humor which brought to vivid life one of the seminal characters
> of the medium of television, and his charisma enabled him to trancend
> the mold of the "leading man" stereotype of the era -- helping prove in
> the process that the new and not-well-respected medium WAS worthy of 
> the
> attentions of a serious actor. In short, if you want to understand the
> way mass media developed in the United States, Raymond Burr is VERY
> important. Yet only his sexuality was considered important by whoever
> did his wikipedia article (unless it has been edited further since I I
> read it).
That's a *great* explanation!  Please don't give up on Wikipedia - if 
you can do such writing, and are willing, we are delighted to have you 
- don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

> When writing a pop-culture article, even a stub I wish would be
> completed by others, I have made a practice of showing, as best I 
> could,
> exactly what about my topic is significant. Because anyone who
> approaches editing cultural Wikipedia with any degree of serious should
> realize that they ARE scholars -- even if they're scholars of the
> Collected works of CLAMP rather than The Collected Works of George 
> Orwell.
And we greatly thank you for doing that.  Please keep up the good work.

Jesse Weinstein