[karajorma]

Actually it's just as much your argument as mine. You're the one insisting that the disclaimer needs to be changed if there is a problem. I keep saying that the problem is not at the level of the disclaimer.

Basically you're asking me to hack in a solution to the problem at one level rather than going to the source of the problem and fixing it there. 

[aldo_14]

I'd note the non-canon disclaimer is pretty useless for any campaign related wiki entries;  you essentially have to add a further line to explain what the entry is & put it into meaningful context, otherwise it looks like a guess at the FS storyline rather than an independent story.

[WMCoolmon]

Actually it's just as much your argument as mine. You're the one insisting that the disclaimer needs to be changed if there is a problem. I keep saying that the problem is not at the level of the disclaimer.

Basically you're asking me to hack in a solution to the problem at one level rather than going to the source of the problem and fixing it there.

No, I'm saying that if you have a problem with the way the disclaimer, you should be the one to suggest improvements to it. I don't even see a problem with it. It says it's non-canon; the article is definitely non-canon; the problem you're arguing will exist lies in some hypothetical person misunderstanding that the notice actually means that the article is accepted as canon.

In the interests of compromise, if I try to write the notice to try and answer your argument, all I come up with is:

"The following information has not been confirmed by Volition and is therefore not canon for the Freespace universe, nor is accepted as canon by the Freespace community."

Which just sounds redundant to me.

@aldo: Yeah, campaigns should have a different non-canon notice for their articles.

[karajorma]

I've stated about a hundred times that the problem is not with the disclaimer on the article. You insist that if there is a problem that is where it must be fixed and so we end up going around in circles.

The problem is not the canonicity of the article but the fact that it will look like the best attempt by the community to explain the subject at hand. Saying that the article is non-canon does nothing to change that. While we have a limited number of theories in the wiki the problem will still be there. The only way to write a disclaimer that works is to have something like.

"This article describes one attempt at explaining the Shivans motives. It is one theory amongst many and you could probably come up with one just as good if you sat down and thought about it"

Problem with the above is that while it solves the problem I'm describing it looks like a criticism of the article itself.

[WMCoolmon]

The following information is based on fan conjecture, and is not a part of the Freespace Universe

?


We could also stick a small blurb in there about it being created by Antares, ie "The Shivan Manifesto is a theory written by Antares..."

[karajorma]

Knowing who wrote it doesn't make it look any less like this is the one the community think is the best.

[WMCoolmon]

Right, but it brings it down to the reader's level, making it appear less imposing and more accessible because it isn't just this monolithic theory by the community, it's just written by one guy.

[TopAce]

The following information is based on fan conjecture, and is not a part of the Freespace Universe

?


We could also stick a small blurb in there about it being created by Antares, ie "The Shivan Manifesto is a theory written by Antares..."

...written by a community member. Not everyone knows who is Antares.

[BlackDove]

Voting closed, I win.

Delete that piece of **** from anything related to a FreeSpace Wiki please

[WMCoolmon]

Voting closed, I win.

Delete that piece of **** from anything related to a FreeSpace Wiki please

...I change my vote. Non-canon should be allowed in the wiki...

TopAce: GP.

[karajorma]

Right, but it brings it down to the reader's level, making it appear less imposing and more accessible because it isn't just this monolithic theory by the community, it's just written by one guy.

That still does nothing to prevent the problem I'm on about. The issue that worries me is that newbies are going to look through the wiki find only the SM and base their campaigns on it alone because they're unaware that there is anything else out there. I'd hate to stiffle creativity like that and explaining that just one guy wrote the theory isn't going to help with that.

[Grug]

Just slap non-canon material under a different section.

"Community Fiction" or something.

What's the harm? o.O

[CP5670]

You guys still arguing about this? I can't see why it's such a big deal either way. The wiki is mainly going to be used by the forum regulars anyway.

[aldo_14]

Right, but it brings it down to the reader's level, making it appear less imposing and more accessible because it isn't just this monolithic theory by the community, it's just written by one guy.

Except surely then you have the issue of 'who is Antares and why should we trust him'.  And we'd then have moved to the stage of not only placing partially subscribed fanfic in the wiki, but actually needing to quantify the level of that subscription.

[karajorma]

You guys still arguing about this? I can't see why it's such a big deal either way.

Mainly cause I'm one of the main people who then ends up having to post to correct bad information.

[Skippy]

Why not something like "Accuracy level" with 0 to 5 value, 5 being for "full canon", and 0 for "pure speculation" ?

[knn]

Who's to determine the accuracy of any theory?

[Skippy]

Who's to determine the accuracy of any theory?

Well, dunno, but at least anything different than 5 can't be considered as canon.
The accuracy can be discussed, or polled

Meh, I was just trying to find ideas to try to conclude that 

[Sandwich]

Do I need to lay the smack down here?

[karajorma]

Still seeing slow progress as far as I can see.