Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Wiki Project => Topic started by: Goober5000 on June 28, 2009, 02:23:50 pm
-
Posting this on Mobius's behalf, since Mobius tried to sneak it under the radar as a "minor" edit without discussion.
Do we really need such a template? As opposed to the canon/noncanon template, which is necessary to differentiate between various campaign continuities, it's generally pretty clear whether an article is written as a factual reference versus as an opinion piece.
-
We did have a discussion a bit ago, in this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,63816.0.html).
-
I see. I overlooked it because it was buried in a discussion about veteran comments and Mobius's rants about being blocked.
EDIT: Moreover, that discussion was focused on Mobius's Table Inconsistencies article, as opposed to Mobius's proposal for a new template. So the point stands.
-
Well, the way I see it, we *might* need such a template, just to prevent people from arguing about subjectivity and factuality (as it recently has become a fashion).
Most importantly, let's discuss exactly what kind of articles belong under this template, who are intended to edit such articles, and who is to decide who these editors are. Of course I'm talking about content-altering edits, not minor typo-fixing edits.
And least importantly, I'd recommend a new name, though. All Wiki articles are technically made by fans.
-
I say we keep it. It helps defuse the automatic air of authority that articles have.
-
I apologize for the absence of a dedicated topic, but when the subject has been (partially) discussed in the other thread the idea has been kind of accepted and the new template seemed necessary (to some extent, at least).
As for the utility of the article itself - as I stated elsewhere, the result of research based on canon might not be shared by the community as a whole. Who came out with the "Apocryphal" and "Pseudocanon" terms when analyzing the potential validity of jump nodes that don't appear on the official node map, which is even supposed to override any other canon source? I don't agree with that analysis, and I obviously can't edit that article according to my own opinion.
Inconsistencies article are only an example. There are major assumptions in "Retconning in FreeSpace" and "Post-Great War era contacts with Sol" whose validity may be questioned by many community members.
The Non-canon template, IMO, should be used for articles of ambiguous validity: non canon planets, stars, historical events, ships, weapons and such should all go to that category. In other words, it's to be used when the content of the article may be interpreted as canon if the much needed explanations aren't provided. Without the non-canon template, for example, it would be impossible for the average Wiki user to know that the Tegmen system isn't canon. Additionally, I think that pure non canon info should not be debatable: if I say that the SSJ Gigas first appeared in the INFR1 mission "Gigas", no one can complain about my statement and no one can claim that Gigas and the SSJ Gigas are canon. IMO, the non-canon templates is for facts, not opinions, based on custom-made campaigns, models, weapons, etc. etc.
The template is redundant when the nature of the article is obvious: we all know that Shivan Theories (most of which have a community member's nick on their name) are not canon, so what's the point in adding the non-canon template? The same principle can be easily applied to the Shivan Manifesto: considering it "non canon", IMO, is not enough giving the number of critiques (which were enough in quantity and quality to have their own article). It means that many members of the community don't agree with the Manifesto's writer and obviously can't edit the writer's original article according to their critiques. That's why we have a "Criticism of the Shivan Manifesto" article. "Non canon" means that Volition is not behind the creation of the article, but it doesn't mention at all what other fans may think of the article itself.
Specifying that an article has been created by one or more fans and therefore does not represent the point of view of Volition nor the point of view of the FreeSpace community as a whole opens a new scenario. It allows contributors to make major (and hopefully reasonable) assumptions on the FS universe without having to deal with people who don't share the writer's opinion and point it out as trash (it happens on the forums so imagine what might happen on the Wiki). When it comes to this kind of theories, pointing them out as "non canon" is not enough: "non canon" defines info which haven't been confirmed by Volition, but somewhat implies plausibility and proximity to canon.
There are many articles on the Wiki that should, IMO, have the new template instead of the more specific "non-canon". The idea behind the new template, is not new at all (as seen in the "Shivan Manifesto" and "Criticisms of the Shivan Manifesto" articles, which clearly show how "non-canon" is not enough). It's just that, IMO, it needs to be applied even more...
I agree with TopAce: the template may need a name change. I created it following the result of the other discussion, so the template's name and the displayed text may and should be easily changed if needed.
-
I really don't want the wiki to turn into a bureaucratic nightmare where everything must be assigned a label as to whether it's an opinion or fact, or whether it's sanctioned by Mobius or not.
As long as it's clear whether something is research, or fact, or opinion, or editorial, it should be fine. The only reason this became an issue in the first place, AFAIK, is because Mobius was taking his own opinions and presenting them as fact. As long as we can identify and prevent those sorts of edits, this shouldn't be an issue.
-
Oh please, not again. You're pretending to read my mind for the Nth time... how many times do I have to tell you that your explanations to my actions aren't anywhere near to the truth? I think I know myself enough... :rolleyes:
One example that should have been added to the previous post: Zarathud's BoE article and other similar articles. IMHO, many of the statements we can read on that article are a bit outdated (I posted several modifications here on HLP a while ago, but I've never added them to the Wiki) and, of course, I have no intention of editing Zarathud's article because a) it's a lack of respect towards Zarathud himself, b) it will mess up the whole article, thus leading to the presence of several contradictions and c) people looking for the original article would find an edited version instead of the original one.
-
I agree with Goob's interpretation of Mobius' actions, but I also agree with Mobius that those articles would be good places for the fan-article template.
Mobius does a lot of stuff wrong, sure, but he also makes some valuable contributions.
-
Mobius does a lot of stuff wrong but he also makes some valuable contributions.
...
-
Wut? Seems sensible to me.
-
Oh no, I was supporting your opinion. I don't know where those dots came from.
-
I think the whole conception here is off.
The only articles in need of this sort of thing are, well, Zarathud's, some of the other FRED stuff (the Pirates And Campaign Design one comes to mind). The Shivan Theories are already under the non-canon template and there they should stay.
I also think the conception of the Table Inconsistencies article is off too, since the only actual "Table Inconsistences" in the game are those of the stealth fighters. Everything else is a clear case of Gameplay and Story Segregation and already covered in the respective veteran comments and not in need of rehashing. (For that matter, the inconsistences of the stealth fighters were covered in the same places.)
And just to top it off, you went ahead and made this template when the last thread where you proposed it didn't have a clear consensus it was needed, and you present that thread as evidence of a consensus. Your duplicity is not welcome.
-
Hrm...that's not a bad point, and I like that title more than 'table inconsistencies.'
-
I agree with Goob's interpretation of Mobius' actions, but I also agree with Mobius that those articles would be good places for the fan-article template.
Mobius does a lot of stuff wrong, sure, but he also makes some valuable contributions.
Psittacumimus.
The only articles in need of this sort of thing are, well, Zarathud's, some of the other FRED stuff (the Pirates And Campaign Design one comes to mind). The Shivan Theories are already under the non-canon template and there they should stay.
I'd also like to mention FRED topics like Karajorma's top 10 list of FRED mistakes. Articles like that (no offense to the creator, of course :)) represent the POV of a single community member, so the other community members are not supposed to share that opinion.
There are many, many articles that represent the POV of a single person on the Wiki. Other than keep saying this, I don't really know what to do to focus your attention on the need to group them into a single category (which various sub-categories, of course).
Your reference to the non-canon category is not enough, IMO. If you take a look at the content of the Non-canon category, you'd find stuff (mostly) that comes straight from custom campaigns and modpacks. Theories and other articles that represent a member's POV are non-canon, no doubt about that, but quite frankly deserve to have their own sub-category. IMHO, a specific category is also handy: it allows people to look for theories and other subjective stuff. A while ago I was interested on reading as many theories as possible, but I couldn't find any specific categories other than "Shivan Theories".
I now agree on making that a sub-category of non-canon, but why getting rid of it even if there are many Wiki articles that satisfy its requirements?
And just to top it off, you went ahead and made this template when the last thread where you proposed it didn't have a clear consensus it was needed, and you present that thread as evidence of a consensus. Your duplicity is not welcome.
Can you please be of any help rather than posting stuff like that? No offense, but you're being a bit disruptive. If you have good subjects to base your assumptions on I'm more than glad to read them. You have to do that in a polite way, however.
-
YOU ARE NOT A MOD.
Mobius, you're a run-of-the-mill member and you're in no way special. Stop telling other members how to act. Every time you tell someone they're being 'disruptive' it's transparently obvious that you're just trying to hide from valid criticism. At least High Max responds directly to critiques with angry rants, instead of taking cover behind condescension.
FOV =! POV. Edit your post.
-
I'm not a moderator. I'm not an administrator. I'm not special, nor I pretend to.
Posting my opinion and pretending to accept it as a fact everyone should accept are two separate things. If I don't agree with NGTM-1R, what am I supposed to do? I think I have the right to reply.
-
You've been referring to this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Typical_FREDding_mistakes) article which clearly states at the top that it was written by one community member.
-
Yeah.
The point is that community members have their opinion about the subject itself (the presence of common FRED mistakes and consequent explanations) and therefore may post their POV somewhere.
-
Psittacumimus.
What the **** does that mean?
I'm sure it's some kind of badly veiled offense, so **** you too.
-
Please don't start this again. No... no...
-
It's not an offense...
-
That explain what it is. You're widening the language gap that has already been referred to.
-
He's been putting veiled insults in his sig for a while now. 'The lost respect', the critique of the HLP community in Italian...it goes on.
Mobius, the fact is that you don't come across as someone who believes himself equal to other members. You consistently enshrine your own opinions in the form of Wiki articles, attempted policy changes, and stentorian, demanding posts. While you largely keep those actions within the range of reasonable doubt, you often try to reinforce your own points of view by creating articles and threads about them in order to stir up attention. Moreover, instead of addressing criticisms people level towards you, you weasel out by acting holier-than-thou, calling them 'disruptive', and accusing them of threadjacking.
The whole issue with the FSU skybox is just one case where it took hours of effort to get you to express your opinion on a simple black-and-white choice because you knew that if you expressed an explicit opinion then you'd be unable to weasel away instead of admitting you were wrong.
Please don't start this again. No... no...
It would be one thing if it were only a small spectrum of members who found Mobius disruptive, but the problems he's been causing are not limited to Snail. While Mobius makes valuable contributions, his interpersonal skills (or lack thereof) are a genuine problem that needs to be addressed.
What I'm still trying to decide for myself is whether it's a language barrier issue, a personal issue we should be tolerant of, or something he genuinely should correct. My main point of concern is Mobius' consistent failure to admit when he's wrong on issues, followed by passive-aggressive backlash against those who he thinks have affronted him.
-
It's just a way to point someone out as a person who always agrees with another. I don't understand how it can be offensive, really.
We're OT, anyway.
EDIT: Oh please, not that again. Policy changes? An invitation is not a policy change. It's an invitation and nothing else - the fact an administrator interpreted mine as a policy change and locked that thread doesn't mean that I wanted to pretend a radical change.
Seriously, I'm quite sick of dealing of people who pretend to understand my actions more than I do. It doesn't make sense, and I don't know how this can happen. Language barrier? Will to make me look as a totally disruptive person for nothing in return? A cheap way to "win" an argument I don't know, I don't want to know.
All I know is that recently my attempts to help the community have been interpreted as disruptive actions by people who think that Mobius is here to dominate and put his own opinions to a superior level.
This is not true!
I understand the lesson. I don't have to do that again, for the sake of the whole community.
Indeed.
Based on the consensus of three admins and a couple of global moderators, Mobius is hereby monkeyed and permabanned from the wiki.
Ok, then what about the contribution I was trying to make now? Are they lost? Ok.
-
Want me to split the thread?
I'm sure we're all aware that you'll just duck out instead of doing anything mature like apologizing or admitting you were wrong on any issue.
-
It's just a way to point someone out as a person who always agrees with another. I don't understand how it can be offensive, really.
He had no way of knowing what that word means. You cannot expect everyone to look up the Latin/Whoknowsofwhatorigin words you're using every time they reply to you. See? That's another kind of language gap, and it's not about using the wrong word or sentence structure to explain yourself; it's one you have complete control over. If that post had been direct at me, I would also have presumed it to be a kind of offensive remark.
Want me to split the thread?
I'd split and close it. There's no way this discussion could end well.
-
Indeed.
Based on the consensus of three admins and a couple of global moderators, Mobius is hereby monkeyed and permabanned from the wiki.
-
Can I ask, why? Is it his attitude, or his contributions?
-
Both. Just read Battuta's post. He has a long history of passive-aggressive disruption. And note that the three different admins became frustrated with his behavior in three different places, so it's a widespread problem.
Template deleted, and thread locked. As I said in the wiki changelog, there might be a good idea in there somewhere, but we need to reset things. If someone wants to propose another similar template, he should start a new thread and we'll discuss it without prejudice.