Discussion in 'Literature' started by Le_Sammler, Jul 10, 2005.
2nd April... and I see that god awful layout is still up. Meh.
Well, the layout is back to normal. Got a question on the consistency of the admins, though. I made four brief ship articles, with sourcing and conjecture tags, since they had no names. Two from TCW episode Nightsisters, two from the novel Deceived. Now, they're all gone:
I've noticed the administrators, in particular this individual, deleting valid articles or reverting edits that tried to remove actual fanon from articles. I guess "Unidentified Endor frog creature" was more important to keep, but come on. Why aren't they consistent about this? Or has Wookieepedia become a tumbling ground for big egos? I've been hearing similar complaints elsewhere, including on the official site forum (like how they deleted proposals for fixing the dating system and instead stuck with a flawed one, even ignoring a statement by Leland Chee on how LFL viewed the dating system, apparantly).
I don't know how you all have patience with the system they have in place. It just strikes me as not worth the effort. Cudos to everyone who can stick with it.
I tried it now for a couple of years, since it seemed easy and fun. If this keeps up, however, I'm just going to quit. If I can't trust administrators to run an encyclopedia properly, what's the difference between this and fansites that make rpg stats?
Egos I hear someone say? Tzizvvt you got it in one.
Cases like yours are why I don't bother contributing to wikis.
A few years back, I helped on a wiki for an RPG group I'm in... but Exact Same Problem. You had the same autocratic attitudes with (often new) admins coming along and basking in their little bit of power. It's just sad really. I run a business; RPGing is just something I do to unwind, whereas you got some twit still in high school who had never been in a position of authority to run anything before that it all went straight to their head.
What always used to irk me the most was when I'd written up an NPC's history... and found some ass had deleted the entire article overnight for the most minor continuity liberty I may have taken (we try to stay inside the EU itself as much as possible) which I could easily have tweaked or reworded a touch to satisfy whatever objection they'd had. I have a strong dislike about anyone burning books so I grew tired very quickly when I saw something I'd written purged without any backup for me to rewrite things. From a philosophical position, it went completely against the grain. Ever since then, I've just let the wiki dry up (as have most other people) and stuck to keeping my RPG characters in my head, rather than bothering to write up the stories anymore.
In your case, I'm guessing maybe they just felt you hadn't sourced it right or something - not being able to see the deleted article anymore it's obviously now impossible to know! But therein demonstrates the point shared by my own wiki experiences: why not initially enquire what your source was or advise on how to improve the article? But no... much easier to press the delete button. I appreciate it's a voluntary work being an admin, and that discussing every new article would be very hard, but then, the same applies both ways: you now having to rewrite the entire article is also hard, and your contribution is also a voluntary contribution to the wider fandom. Thus, stalemate. In business though, you don't just go and fire somebody without first calling them into the office and hearing their side - for one, it'd be illegal.
Of course, since I have to deal with such things in real life, that is likely why I don't have the time for the same grief on wikis.
I only make small edits on Wookieepedia, and try to avoid making new pages. Way too many rude users and admins with big egos that might get offended somehow. It isn't as bad as some other wiki's though. The Mass Effect wiki is very strict, with a few admins deciding what deserves an article and what doesn't. However, that doesn't excuse what has been going on there for the past week.
The only wiki I regularly contribute to (Gears of War) is basicly me, another admin, a few editors who contribute something small about five times a month, and some helpful anons who spot some errors and fix them. No big egos to deal with, thankfully. Makes everything run smoother.
I've noticed the same thing, in an ongoing argument I've been having with the Wook over the Luke/Palpy duel in Dark Empire. It's somewhat ambiguous in the comic itself, but the audio drama version makes it explicit that Leia doesn't join her Force power to Luke's until AFTER Palpy lost a hand.
Their argument? The end notes stated that it took Luke and Leia together to 'defeat' Palpatine. Well, having seen the part of the endnotes in question, it's talking about how Palpatine had grown beyond the type of enemy you could defeat in a lightsaber fight. Which is actually depicted in the comic itself- Palpatine laughs at Luke for thinking that the win in their duel defeated him, then whips up a Force storm. The end notes aren't talking about the lightsaber duel itself, they're talking about how the win against him in a duel ended up being essentially meaningless to defeating him. The entire section is about how the only way at that point to defeat him was to cut him off from his dark side nexus.
Which, again, only happens after the lightsaber duel is ended, as I'd plainly shown via the audio drama.
It all comes together as a cohesive whole- yes, Luke had grown so great as a duelist that he could beat Palpatine, the guy who stalemated Yoda. So what? That didn't mean Luke alone could defeat him- he was, as the endnotes say, a foe no one Jedi could defeat alone. As the comic itself AND the audio drama show, Palpy laughs at Luke suggesting he surrender and whips up a Force Storm, showing he's the nexus that can't be defeated alone, and then Luke, Leia, and the unborn Anakin Solo join together to cut him off from his power, causing Palpy to self-destruct.
Yet, for some indiscernible, pedantic reason, when I edited the Luke and Palpy articles and pointed this out, they kept being changed back. The only reason they gave me was that they had decided that the end notes stated Luke hadn't won the lightsaber duel itself on his own, when the end notes say no such thing- they, along with the comic, the audio drama, and basically everything with DE on the cover all say that, while a testament to Luke's skill with a blade, it ended up being meaningless as far as actually defeating Palpatine.
I just don't see the justification for them deciding Leia was helping Luke in the lightsaber duel. As far as I can see, they gave Luke the win there to illustrate that Palpy- as their personification of the dark side, to stand for the darkness itself- couldn't be beaten by a single Jedi, so cue Force Harmony and heartwarming bit about how the strength of the light is that you're never alone and such. I mean... really? It seems so perfectly logical to me, but apparently, they've had some big panel discussion umpteen years ago and will brook no disagreement or dissenting opinions even if they actually fit the dadgum subject matter better than what they already have up.
...I have never previously even considered Leia helping Luke before the end of the lightsaber duel.
Isn't that even pretty explicit in the comic itself? Luke initially whips Palpy's ass but then Palpatine goes psycho, conjuring the Force Storm to expose how Luke still knows nothing of the true darkness of the dark side and how foolish he was to ever believe he could conquer it from within... however then Leia joins with Luke in that beautiful image of the two glowing with light as Palpatine is swallowed by his own storm.
It was one source per article. I thought I'd wait until there were two or more to do that. I noticed someone else had begun sourcing one of them right before it was deleted. Meh.
Wookieepedia's run by a bunch of edit-Nazis. As much as I love the site, I never update any of the articles anymore, because I've run into the EXACT same problems you guys have been bringing up. The two straws that broke the camel's back for me was when I deleted a completely fanon article (fanfic of the worst kind) and one of their admits reverted it, and not long after I accidentally forgot to sign in and changed the GRAMMAR of a sentence in an article as an anon, and they SWITCHED IT RIGHT BACK!
Er... apologies. I don't hate Wookieepedia. But their behavior during the short time I tried to help at their site drove me absolutely nuts.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Even a decade or so since the last time I've had a chance to read DE, the sequence of events and the art is seared into my brain. It's just so dang memorable. And having had some helpful posters quote the endnotes and the audio drama, and with the stuff on the Wook itself image-wise, I'm convinced they're wrong. But they keep changing it back, and made me look like some random crazy who didn't know what he was talking about on some bizarre nit-picky agenda. Just saying, "Our evidence trumps your evidence, we decided that a long time ago, kthxbye".
I sometimes wonder why I still bother with the place.
They've become very alert around unnamed users. I can understand wanting to protect against random people's vandalism, but things are getting too excessive with the double- and triple-thinking. I especially don't like when admins who apparantly do not have a specific source themselves, revert something simply because they haven't heard of it (and then make the article themselves weeks later, very classy).
Wookieepedia is extremely helpful in many cases guiding to source material - but for the reasons you outlined, I don't trust a single word of it that I can't verify myself. Some of the articles clearly are the work of people with particular axes to grind, and not surprisingly often ones dealing with 'controversial' (relatively speaking) issues. Unfortunately, I think part of it is that some SW authors mentioned using it as a resource, and some editors believe that can use it to make canon (or as they would have it, establish what they already 'know' to be true) without mean old Leland Chee and others spoiling everything.
Some of the more amusing incidents are present in the thread - the "Mars (planet)" fiasco is one I still find grimly hilarious.
It's a shame, though. I would like to see it get to the point one day that I *could* use as a full resource like an actual encyclopedia. A majority of the people there, I think, are genuinely interested in cataloging SW information just for the fun of it.
As a Wookieepedian, I do it as a hobby. I spend my nights making really minor edits and slaving away on some larger articles (after going on an exhaustive source hunting-and-gathering). When it comes to anon edits... the most I do is take a peek to see what was changed, then just move on. Most anon edits are legit and quite helpful. The only ones I roll back are the obvious vandalism/fanon/nonsense/page blanking, etc. If I had in error rolled back someone's edit and it was legit, I apologize.
Agreed. And it often allows misrepresentations/mistakes to persist for some time. For example, on the Street of Shadows page it says: Vader confirms of his murder of PadmÃ© and Anakin.
You know, when I first joined the Wook, I had an issue with the exact same admin. While I was the one that had made a mistake, when I asked him about it(mainly what I did wrong and what not) I was ignored. I knew he was there because he had continued to make edits on other pages, so I just went to another Admin to ask why I was being ignored, to which he said just wait and be patient for a bit. Which I did......only to get berreted by on how Admins are not here to eb on the beck and call of users and he has his own life and so on.(I'm pretty sure from reading some of his past talk page messages and what not he would have just ignored me had I not went to another Admin but that's just my personel opinion) Then he told me what I wrote was incomplete and couldn't be left in such a state(mind you I had seen articles created the same way over the past couple days that didn't get deleted and figured it was okay, but didn't bother argueing it becuase at that point I was annoyed by the whole situation
Trns out the article I wanted to create would not make it due to "lack of importance" but there was a section to reckonize it in that I could add it too.(and I did go to a completely different admin to handle it with.)
Since then I've edited a bit here and there and have had no real problems. some of the stuff I write gets changed to something that sounds/looks a bit better, but I have no issue with that.
I can no longer bring myself to contribute to Wookieepedia because of this:
I can observe that all over the place. It is written in a strict, encyclopedic style and has probably passed several reviews by respected users. But that doesn't mean squat as long as the articles doesn't have what's most important - COMMON SENSE. Unless Wookieepedia community as a whole gets some, many of its articles will continue to be laughable to read because of the blatant ignoring the obvious.
That's a bingo.
We miss you over there, Fourdot.
I created an account there a while back, but I never use it. With the way my personality can be about things like that, I figured that's one depth of fandom I really didn't want to reach. Seeing as it likely would've all but consumed me for a long period of time.
Quite the wise decision you've made. The Wook's consumed my life for four years now. =P
Bad, bad, bad! Trying to waste important Wookiee space!
You should know that the information the people want to know is like Malachi described! We want to hear about the nameless animals that may or may not be banthas but which nobody knows either way! That's vital information, not to be diluted with your needless filler material!
The site has been up for five years. The point of the site is to add information over time. Why are they in such a hurry to fill out everything, then? Especially with things that don't have more than one source or have scarce information in general. One of my pet peeves is when they put a "stub" tag somewhere and there isn't any information left on a subject. Why not check things out before you declare that something needs filling out?
I just read an article the size of a small novel that speaks about "unidentified Endor creature #543434" and it damn near psychoanalyzes a creature that did little more than jump around a bit, then was never seen again anywhere in canon. Guess someone really loves those Ewok cartoons.
I regret hearing the bad experiences many people here are expressing. I am a long time user and administrator of the wiki, and agree that there are problematic elements in some of the Wookieepedia community. However, it has replaced the JCF as my primary fandom outlet, because I enjoy researching and writing Star Wars. You can diss articles on random, minor, unnamed subjects if you like, but I have no problem with them. I have written plenty of them myself, and I do it for fun. So what if no cares about an unidentified fruit tree on Biitu. If you're not interested, don't read the article.
I also wouldn't over-estimate the extent to which authors rely on the Wookieepedia. From the interaction I have had with authors, it is clear that they are aware of the same limitations on the content of the Wookieepedia as you are all discussing.
Huh. I thought Leia was aiding Luke during the fight too, honestly. When he asks her to join her power to his she says "I already am"... and I assumed that meant she had been from the start.
That said, if there's evidence suggesting otherwise (per Dewback) then there's evidence suggesting otherwise.