User:Riffsyphon1024/Quotes/DarkMoose

Wookieepedia - Good, Ugly, and little in between... Yep. It could have been great, and I fear for its immanent demise. Or not...we'll see.

Look, this is just an opinion, but its one I've seen from others, too. Not everyone, either - and I can't attest to seeing a majority because I don't take scientific polls for these sorts of things. But what I have seen is not just famous authors - it's regular fans that tend to put the "Wookieepedia Disclaimer" on things... "Oh, well...that's from Wookieepedia - so nevermind."

The Good:

It started out as a wonderful effort to build an encyclopedic framework of Star Wars knowledge for fans everywhere. It sought to provide information on fandom, on Star Wars trivia, on major contributors, and it did so as an open source guide that anyone could participate in. At its inception it was heralded as a comprehensive guide, professional and throrough. It was praised by authors and even some insiders of the Lucasfilm world.

Wookieepedia takes the organizational template Wikis are famous for and applies it to all things Star Wars...and then some. It's not just about Star Wars, its about Star Wars communities, fandom, and personalities.

When I first saw Wookieepedia frankly I was impressed. It looked official. In its infancy, it felt well-thought out. It read as a labor of love. There were interesting details on so many different things, details that LFL themselves wouldn't focus on but fans would eat up.

Beyond the well-written articles by the many Wookieepedians that care about objective, neutral, concise communication, the graphics and pictures they use aim to flesh out so much more detail than you can get from most places.

Wookieepedia looked poised to launch a wonderful addition to Star Wars fandom - a factual but fun look at Star Wars from the fans themselves. When you read it, you felt guilty that you didn't pay for it - that it should have been part of some hardbound guide you purchase in a book store. And that's because Wookieepedia is made up of lots of conscientious and dutiful Star Wars fans working to build a resource everyone can use, that everyone can participate in.

And a few people that have taken advantage of that.

And so the very thing that made it so astounding - that everyday Star Wars fans could make something so rich in information - became its tragic weakness.

The Bad:

I have very little bad to say about Wookieepedia, because for the most part I know what they're trying to do. Yes, sometimes the facts aren't right. Yes, sometimes people start "theorizing" (the entry on the Chosen One and ideas on The Prophecy comes to mind). But the people at Wookieepedia that try to steer articles away from conjecture, bias and "fanon" (widely held impressions that are created by fans, not by Lucasfilm) and into fact-based, neutral compiling of resource material should be for the most part applauded for making amateur encyclopedic research look so professionally done.

So really, between Good and Ugly, there's very little in between. You can thank the responsible Wookieepedians for that.

Would that it were so simple, however...

The Ugly:

This is Wookieepedia's problem...at least for me taking the project seriously as a whole. I won't yet say it's their "downfall" because I think they can fix it by applying pervasive methodologies and standards - but it colors all the great efforts by responsible Wookieepedians, in my opinion. It draws the whole thing down into the muck.

Because Wookieepedia doesn't just focus on Star Wars vehicles, planets, characters, etc. Wookieepedia indulges in profiling the people that make up Star Wars and its fandom.. And in some cases, indulges in gossip, opinion, editorial, lobbying, partisan slant, and...

This is an encyclopedia?

Because I don't remember the Encyclopedia Britannica including editorial. It includes facts, without selectively pruning those facts. It may include quotes, without cobbling together quotes to paint a picture the author wants people to see.

In other words, the authors at Encyclopedia Britannica don't try to become part of the article by imbuing it with agenda. Granted, Wookieepedia is no Encyclopedia Britannica...but I thought at first sight it was going to at least try to aspire to such encyclopedic standards. As soon as a contributor laces an article with their own agenda, Objectivity gives way to Bias. That "-pedia" part of the name gets tossed out the airlock.

And people are starting to notice.

I have repeatedly seen articles posted that were compiled with no other purpose but to revel in purely slanted viewpoints, adhering to no other facts other than those born of personal agenda, mired in shameful subjectivity and in some cases even degrading and inaccurate commentary. And one look in the "discussion" page tells you immediately - they did it on purpose. They pat each other on the back for the blatant misrepresentation.

Again...this is an encyclopedia?

Just recently Wookieepedia has put up a new "quotes" page for a particular Star Wars author, in which every single excerpt taken from message boards and private blogs alike have been taken out of context and purposefully manipulated. They've been put in juxtaposition to skew the article toward creating a negative opinion. That the entry even exists, for the reasons it exsists, destroys any misconception of objectivity and uniform adherance to neutral fact at Wookieepedia. Like so many other agenda-laden exploitations I've seen in their pages, it means that although there are many good Wookieepedians, there are some that just don't get what that community could have been. And when it comes to encyclopedias, if there's even one person skewing fact in favor of spinning personal opinion, you can absolutely throw that ugly baby out with the dirty bathwater.

I see also that as far as I can tell, to date no other author gets a "quotes" page, be it for good or bad spin. Just one author. Can you guess who it is? Someone that's been targeted before? See a pattern there?

Seriously...an encyclopedia?

And even though they took the time to likewise post comments from a regular online fan along with the author's quotes, I don't seee the quotes pages dedicated to taking the Wookieepedians themselves out of context. Or even in context. Curious. No lowbrow negative spin to depict them in a negative light? How objectivity-challenged can you get and still flaunt the idea of being an encyclopedia? You can't. Those concepts are usually mutually exclusive. This isn't about a good-natured mistake, mind you. This is about people willfully using Wookieepedia pages to further an agenda against Star Wars notable figures. Even groups of fans. Who's next? I don't see how it's possible to advertise one thing and be another.

Because in the end, Wookieepedia is just another community...or at least it is viewed as such by some of its members. An online community that unfortunately sells itself as an unbiased source of information (note that "-pedia" suffix). An online community without moderators. In other words, a propagandist's dream - a place where agenda can look just like the facts next to it.

See, I've figured it out. It's not an encyclopedia.

It's a blog.

Because nothing so riddled with frequent opinion, used repeatedly as a veiled avenue of "complaint" or "dissent", could ever be considered a research guide or reliable, neutral information source.

I'm sure some will tell you "No, but that's just half the story. See, someone posts something wrong, and someone else comes in behind them and fixes it...and if that's wrong, someone else will fix that."

Fact by concensus. Which is fine, that's how fact is usually arrived at. Except for the idea that people don't usually publish the alleged fact until it's confirmed to be fact. Yes, I know this is an indictment of the entire Wiki world, not just Wookieepedia...however, it has special implications for Star Wars fandom. Because articles are not just limited to innocuous factoids like where Tibana Gas comes from or the length of a Star Destroyer. These articles also include profiles of people, real people, that contribute to Star Wars media. Hell, I'm one of them for some reason.

So what happens when one of these people is profiled incorrectly? Or worse, what happens when someone writes an article with a desire to mangle the facts to construct a larger untruth?

Again, I'm sure someone will tell you "No, that's just half the story. See, someone posts something wrong....maybe really wrong...maybe even something vindictively wrong about a member of the Star Wars community, but that's ok because someone will come in behind them and fix it, and if that's wrong, someone will come in and fix that."

Let me ask you folks something, out there in Netville -

2) What happens if an article on Wookieepedia is slapped with a "This Article Is Under Dispute" label...and people are still reading it, regardless?

Can you guarantee your label is effective in disuading the potentially negative opinions formed?

3) What happens when it's fixed, only to be reverted back to inaccurate and derisive content? Repeatedly?

Where is this "fact" by concensus then? If the concensus is overturned by a few "uber-Wookieepedians", it's not really open source, now is it? It's decidedly closed source. It's run by a small group who decide its content, not by everyone. How can you continue to call it "open source"?

4) What happens when something is published with such venomous slant, and it's read before its ever changed? What happens when someone isn't around to fix it for several days, or weeks? Or just doesn't want to?

What does this do to Wookieepedia's credibility? And how does this relate to someone's legal rights? How do you "undo" the misinformation in the heads of your readers, long since gone? Hope the people that read the incorrect articles come back to re-read the corrected version? Did you get their phone numbers and email addresses to tell them the information has been updated? Are the maligned forced to participate in a community they don't even support, just to keep errors out of their own information?

5) What happens if no one has the time to babysit Wookieepedian malcontents to make sure they aren't publishing items that have less to do with objective fact-finding and more to do with a smear campaign?

Who is responsible, who is accountable for the misteps or misdeeds of a few Wookieepedians? Is it all of them? Is that fair? Does it matter?

6) What happens if the next article is about you, or me?

What happens when it doesn't just target authors and LFL employees - what happens if someone finds it necessary to target you as the subject of a slanted Wookieepedian article? Yes, you, reader. If you're around the Star Wars community long enough, could that happen? if you win a contest, if you are quoted, if you write a databank entry...are you now subject to attacks in tthe guise of "articles"? Quote pages?

7) And what happens if you're an author or artist for LFL that has not yet been targeted by a biased article from a fan that doesn't like your work?

Is it a matter of time? Do you have time to make sure the details of your livelihood and public dealings are correct in someone's fan-based encyclopedia?

See, this is where the guise of fact can be used as what I would call a kind of web-based weapon. It's Rita Skeeter come to life. And it appears little is done within the Wookieepedia community to control it. Nothing is done to censure those elements that foster the abuses of journalistic and encyclopedic standards. And I would think people in an "open source" encyclopedia, a project based on the very idea of equal footing for all participants, would rail against elements that just want to use a Wiki as a bullhorn for their own personal cause.

This is why I call most Wikis, "Encyclopedia Subjectiva". It's not fact, it's an ongoing public argument about fact, on which a page stays the same for a while during the dull moments. And it doesn't say clearly "um...we're still working this one out...so come back when we agree." Meanwhile, when the falsehoods and personal opinions are being purposefully entered...not just mistakenly placed...but strategically planned while profiling Star Wars personalities and their material - that's doom for any encyclopedic project to be taken seriously.

That's a ubiquitous, systemic problem. That's why I see people time and time again saying that they don't trust what they read at Wookieepedia - because of the lack of objectivity.

You might say "Well, then, it's not as damaging as you say - people can tell nonsense when they read it. No harm, no foul."

Not so easy. First, you're saying that it's perfectly acceptable for people to read slanted nonsense from an open source encyclopedia..and yet you still want people to use it.

Second, you're not accounting for the many people that might find your source and not know it's commonly full of slanted opinion. The average, mild-mannered Star Wars fan might happen across Wookieepedia, in fact is very likely to happen across Wookieepedia, read some completely skewed viewpoint masquerading as fact, and leave with an unbalanced view. That's well.. dishonest. And encylopedias are supposed to be the exact opposite of dishonesty. People want to be able to rely on them, you know.

Yep.

It started out as a wonderful enterprise. Parts of it still are. But it's only as strong as its weakest links, and those links do love to let down the rest of the chain.

I'd love to be sitting here saying "Man, I wish I could be part of that amazing project called Wookieepedia."

But when they continuously allow slanted, biased material, especially of a disparaging nature, I realize I'd never want to be part of that, nor would I ever refer to it or use it for my own purposes. I have no idea if what I'm reading is born from a desire to report fact, or constructed from a need to twist facts.

If that continues to be the case, I'd rather stick with this and this, thanks. They are constructed by people without agendas, and I never have to worry about someone purposefully skewing information to deliver their own impressions.

My advice to Wookieepedia - get out of the business of reporting on real people. Stick to Star Wars minutiae. At least if you get that wrong, it's not impacting on how readers view your motives. As long as you make a habit of reporting slanted, biased and even vindictive information on real people, then I'd say you're always going to have a problem convincing people you're an encyclopedia of any sort. Get back to being a source about Star Wars information, not a gossip blog. Then I think folks might be able to trust you again.

Remember, your endeavors there can be held to the same microscope you pin real people under, but at least here, there's no underhanded disguise, no hidden motive. Here, folks will tell you up front- "This is a blog, and this is my opinion."

I have no doubt that as I write this, someone might consider altering the article on me so that it's less than flattering...this would be the Wookieepedia entry I never asked to have, by the way. They have in the past when I was critical of their standards (or lack thereof) in hopes for improvement at Wookieepedia. Instead of sticking to relevant, plain facts, someone decided to make Wookieepedia itself part of an article about me. Drop, kick, goodbye objectivity. Granted, someone changed it back. My problem is, why was it changed in the first place? I'm not even sure why it's there at all, but I'm not the only regular fan to be profiled because of the "What's the Story" databank project. Oddly enough, what they said in the alteration was untrue - all I said was that I wouldn't personally support Wookieepedia if that continued, and that I wouldn't refer people to it as a reliable source. You should have seen it - Dark Moose jeered out of a discussion because he proposed change. It happens.

Now this here? This is me now questioning Wookieepedia openly - if that's discreditiing, so be it, but its really just a simple question: Why do you allow that? How that's relevant to the article on me, my unwanted article, I have no idea. But if you want to put it back up, by all means, do so. Link to this blog if you like.

Consider this scenario, reader...

You're a poster at StarWars.com. You become somehow "noteworthy" - perhaps you're a featured blogger. Perhaps you write a "What's the Story" entry. Maybe you win a contest.

But someone at Wookieepedia has a beef with you, or something you've said. Next thing you know, someone has cast about the net to find quotes from you from various blogs and message boards. Every single thing you've ever said in print. And then they throw it together in such a way that makes you look unreasonable, or contradictory.

You don't like it. You decide to contact Wookieepedia to have it removed but...who do you contact? And where are the standards? Are you going to make a lone contributor change your article, when they're the one that posted it?

Meanwhile, people are reading it. Every day its up, people are reading this page on Wookieepedia made by people that for some reason have a problem with you personally. Or publicly. Either way, they have a problem with you, and it shows. You finally get a hold of someone, and you know what they say?

WP: "Well, anyone can change it. Just change it yourself. It's Open Source!"

You: "But I don't want it there at all - it's not fair or accurate - it's not even relevant to Star Wars."

WP: "Well, then edit it, if you're so concerned."

You: "I'm not a member of Wookieepedia."

WP: "You have to register to participate. You have to register to make alterations, and to comment on other people's articles and alterations. And to make complaints in the discussions."

You: "Look - I don't want to be part of your community. I want this information removed, it's false and misleading. It's malicious. I don't even want an entry about me on your site. Why would I want to be part of the community that's abusing me?"

WP: "Well, it's Open Source - anyone can change it."

You: "If they are registered members of an 'open' community, you mean?"

WP: "Right."

You: "And what happens when someone changes it back? Or if I remove it, someone re-posts it anyway? And what does it look like if I come in and trash my own entry?"

WP: "Well....like I said, anyone can change it. It's Open Source!"

You: "But I don't have time to be a Wookieepedian. I don't want to babysit your site to make sure it doesn't say untrue, unfair and malicious things about me!"

WP: "Then..you can change it...or maybe the Admins will help you."

You: "And if they aren't inclined to help me?"

WP: "Then...you can change it..it's...open source..?"

You: "Thanks for nothing."

And so your "Quotes" page stays up, full of orphaned quotes and contradictory statements that someone purposefully hacked together. It's easy to do. It would be exceptionally easy to do with me. I could do it all day long with you. There's entire collection of threads on this site, and its even been duplicated on other sites, of "QOOC" threads (Quoting Out Of Context) - a little something I started myself. It's easy. Too easy. Anyone who does it and think they've accomplished something needs to re-evaluate their standards for accomplishment. It's not exactly clever, and it's about as pointless as a golfball. Here, on the message boards, it's humor.

On an open source encyclopedia it's called "Damaging the Credibility of your Colleagues." There ya go - there's one for free from Dark Moose - "DCOC". Make what you want out of it.

The efforts of the conscientious Wookieepedians that started a good project with excellent intentions are being trashed by what appears to be a lack of regard for what Wookiepedia could have been. Should have been. Might still be.

Wookieepedia, heal thyself. Start questioning motives of your fellow Wookieepedians. Start questioning why motives are even there to begin with. You were going places, and it disappoints me to see you settle for less.

Just a note from a fan who had high hopes.

DM out

EPILOGUE, JULY 12, 2006:

Just to illustrate....

The List of Wookieepedia Admins, and their selected quotes...

________________________________________________________

Whiteboy: "I'm just a WhiteBoy from Arkansas... I used to be the biggest Star Wars fan I knew, until this place started. Now...I know nothing." --Wookieepedia profile page

"World of Warcraft now sucks much time from my existence! Come and join me...I'm horde on the Blackhand server." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Aidje: "For the most part, I do random things wherever they seem beneficial." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

AzizLight: "My specialty here on Wookieepedia i guess is ensuring that all articles are sourced. Goto Category:Sourceless to see how badly i'm doing .." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Imperialles: "Hey, I'm Imperialles ('Imp' for short), and I'm an administrator here at Wookieepedia. If you have a question, request or comment, post it on my talk page. I can help in most cases." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Jamach Ral'Tir: "This Wookieepedian is an administrator of the site and, as such, should not be disrespected or annoyed in any way." --Wookieepedia profile page

(Sikon) "Why are your screenshots so distorted? What are you saving them with?" (Jamach Ral'Tir) "I got the ones from KOTORI from a fan-made KOTORI Sourcebook for the Star Wars d20 system. So whatever they used is why they're so distorted. I'd take them myself but...I'm very lazy... " --discussion page

________________________________________________________

JSarek: "I'm just this guy, you know?" Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

MarcK: "Hello. I'm Steven Loyd, more commonly known as Marc Kingston (don't ask), even more commonly known as MarcK, and occasionally known as Boris. I'm also an administrator, so if you need someone/thing banned/locked/deleted, or just have a question, let me know, since it's basically my job (for lack of a better term) to help people." Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

QuentinGeorge: "Please stop putting that other quote at the beginning of the article. We only want *one* lead-in quote, just like our other articles. Look at the article itself. There are two quotes in the body even before we get to the disputed one. If you REALLY don't like that Jocasta Nu quote there, take it out completely. Additionally, please don't crop that picture. I chose the size of it for a reason and I'm starting to get annoyed by Starkeiller's habit of going and cropping all the pictures for no apparent purpose. Cutting off the rest of the lightning in the picture just removes the context and makes the picture look ugly, IMO." - QuentinGeorge, discussion page, on Quotes, Context, and making things look ugly

"Worst. retcon. Ever. (You know what I'm talking about...)" Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Riffsyphon1024: "Are you three insulting me? As my brother would say, "You wanna mess, punk, punk?" By the way, I'm sure none of you are punks, its just a saying. But still, do not insult me..." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Sikon: "Nobody is insulting you. However, it's a pity that you decided to leave instead of contemplating to the community's wishes. If others behaved the same way, there would be no Wookieepedians left. I hope to see you back, making valuable contributions, and I'm sure the rest of the community will appreciate your efforts if they prove to be productive, not disruptive." Riffsyphon1024's Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Silly Dan: "I was voted Wookieepedian of the Month for December 2005, which is ironic because I spent pretty much that entire month away from my Star Wars books and/or a high-speed internet connection." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Sparqman: "We need to be wary of becoming a catalog of the Star Wars fan world, rather than the Galaxy Far, Far Away." discussion page

________________________________________________________

StarNeptune: "I feel that we should be making up our own policies and standards and not strive to be a Wikipedia clone. Now I'm not saying that their ideas, policies and standards are all bad, it's just that most of them are either not applicible (sp) or are too restrictive for a wiki such as ours." --Wookieepedia profile page

________________________________________________________

Wikipedia Protection Policy in Regard to Admins and Articles: "Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."

________________________________________________________

Darth Culator: "Though he preferred to avoid conflict, Darth Culator had an unfortunate tendency to attack like a cornered animal if sufficiently provoked." --self-characterization, Wookieepedia profile page

"Anybody who wants to harm Wookieepedia will be found and brought to justice. There are some that feel like if they vandalize us that they may get away with it. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us here. My answer is, bring 'em on." --Wookieepedia profile page

"This guy is a surly misanthrope who wishes he could be the protagonist in the Twilight Zone episode Time Enough at Last. (Since I'm only mildly nearsighted, breaking my glasses wouldn't be so terrible for me.) Or, this guy can be as friendly and jolly as Santa Claus on cannabis. Nobody is sure which one is the real one." --self-characterization, Wookieepedia profile page

"I normally go by "Kip" or "The Kip" in real life..." --on preferred nicknames, Wookieepedia profile page

"I've been using some kind of computer on a daily basis since I was 7. I've been using a Windows PC daily since 1992." --on computing prowess, Wookieepedia profile page

"How to verify sources in "3" semi-easy steps.... Use Mozilla Firefox, and make a keyword for searching CUSWE.... Brush up on your Google-fu.... Acquire the ability to do a full-text reference search... Download text versions of Star Wars books.... Learn to read really fast in order to determine the context of the reference." -- excerpts from preferred admin method, Wookieepedia profile page

"I was motivated to sign up after wiping the dirty (read: ungrammatical, hyperbolic) fingerprints of some anon users off of a few entries, when I realized I was still a faceless stranger. So now you know who to blame when I poke my dirty fingers into the pages here!" --Wookieepedia profile page

"I don't take his site as gospel, but I believe Curtis Saxton is right more often than he is wrong." --Wookieepedia profile page

"Nothing but her own words, in reverse chronological order, with sources. Usually with multiple links to the same content (thank you, Google Cache). No commentary, no links to "controversial" pages, just links to places where she has posted her own words. I posted a number of "positive" quotes, to maintain a certain degree of neutrality. Though I don't see why I should have to (if her own words reflect badly on her, isn't that a noteworthy fact in itself?), and I expect people to raise hell about it anyway. But, as usual, the facts speak for themselves. Sadly, I couldn't find the trachea bit. I think comments on her blog are disabled." -- discussion with posters on Stardestroyer.net in regard to Karen Traviss Quotes article on Wookieepedia

________________________________________________________

Kuralov: "I just discovered this wonderful site (link to the site of "Talifan" hate video creator). If Star Wars ever goes down the drain, it will be because of authors like Traviss." Wookieepedia profile page ________________________________________________________

And perhaps most telling, quotes from the publicly viewable discussion behind the Karen Traviss Quotes page:

"I don't know whether to fall down laughing or slap a POV (point of view) on this." -- SFH

"How is it anything but NPOV (neutral point of view)? There's no commentary, no links to 'critical' pages, and every quote is sourced. Anyone is welcome to add to it, as long as they keep things in chronological order." -- Darth Culator

"This is the greatest page ever." -- Kuralyov

"Interesting. Some of the blog entries have disappeared. Can't say I didn't see this one coming ..." -- Darth Culator

(update - 7/12/06 - 10pm CST...)

"Selection and context (or the lack thereof) can be as POV as anything else. Entertaining though it may be, I'm not convinced that we should keep this." -- RMF

"FWIW, I notice we only have one other real-person Wookieequote page" -Silly Dan

"I say it should be deleted. Pages like this make us look bad. It's not very encyclopedic, IMHO." -- Adamwankenobi

"How? We aren't the ones saying these things. They are all fully sourced so people can see them in context. If you don't want to look bad, don't talk about (gratuitous DM edit - unfounded accusation and misinterpretation I won't repeat here)." --- Lowkey

"That's not a very neutral point-of-view that your coming from, now, is it? I don't care if it is just quotes; I don't like the idea behind this page and I agree that we should get rid of it. Shall we continue this on a VFD (vote for deletion) page?" -- Ozzel

"Neither do I. They are arbitrary. A person can put any of her quotes up in order to push their POV of her. Or a quote can make her look stupid, like the one User:Lowkey just posted. Lowkey, did you even read Dark Moose's blog?" -- Adamwankenobi

"A VfD (vote for deletion) sounds good to me." -- RMF

"Yes I did. I find it interesting that you think the opinion of a fan who pretends to work for LFL (as oppossed to being a volunteer) and tries to threaten you with their legal team (despite having no authority to do so and the fact you operate on a creative commons liscense) is worth listening to...

(Breaking in...This is referring to me, by the way...did I say I worked for LFL? Anyone remember that part? When did I even pretend? And...where's that legal team of mine? Gosh...I don't have one. Never mentioned one. Interesting...

DM out)

...And the simple fact is that he is full of it. These are not taken out of context, twisted, or edited like he claims. Ever last one of them is linked to the full text, where people can read all of it in context. I'd also point out he challenges to include that quote from her in his comments." -- Lowkey, in reference to adding to the KT Quotes page the first 8 words of a 64-word quote by Karen Traviss in this blog at the time of this update (see quote below)

"...Which some anon just did. " -- StarNeptune, referring to an 'anonymous" posting of the aforementioned quote from this blog

________________________________________________________

Did anyone find that unfair? Did anyone suspect I twisted the situation?

Does that seem to be a fully "factual" profiling of their personalities, ideals, goals?

Does that seem to be a fully accurate accounting of who the admins are at Wookieepedia?

After all - it's their own words. So it has to be a factual picture...right?

________________________________________________________

And one more quote from the Vote for Deletion page:

"By quoting everything a person says, its call truth." -- Riffsyphon1024 ________________________________________________________

Funny thing - they didn't quote everything she's ever said. How could you? They subjectively selected the most "interesting" quotes based on the pre-meditated prejudice (the opposite of neutrality, for you beginners) that they were "negative", ripped them out of their context and lumped them together.. They begin with the idea that they don't like some of what she says, and portray it as everything she's ever said. Funky. I don't see neutrality there. I don't see "truth" there. I see bias. I see agenda. And I see a faulty impression of the role of an encyclopedian. The fact that the quotes are selected in the first place imply the agenda behind it. The fact that the page exists is contradictory to the idea of neutrality.

If you find this to be slanted, opinionated, unfair, even malicious...hold up. Take stock. You're in a blog. This is personal opinion. Those quotes are selected subjectively. That's how easy it is to do. Did you get a positive, or negative impression overall? That took me all of 32 minutes, plus time for edits. No sweat, no real "thought" put into it. It's just right there in front of me, easy pickins...

But does that make it right? What happens when someone does that in an Encyclopedia?

Seriously...it's an encyclopedia? Then why are people allowed to do what I just did?

(update - 7/13/06 - noon CST...)

And the Quotes page in question has remained the same into the 4th day, and has even grown at times with slanted selections skewed toward the negative as the debate raged. This despite the weighty misgivings of several longstanding Wookieepedians (even founding members) that it was created with serious disregard for neutrality. Witness the breakdown of the Wiki democratic process, the "open source" that's really closed, in which information is managed not by everyone, but in fact a very small and determined group with an agenda, who are willing to argue others into the ground, a great many of which are the same people, by the way, associated with yon troop numbers myopia, and video... That this happens for any amount of time is problematic.

But finally, though not removed, they have altered the page in an effort to maintain relevance to Star Wars only. I don't know if that's purely progress in my book, but it at least proves there is concern for the quality of material, and to avoid the lack of neutrality shown by a few. But the previous version was still up since at least July 9th. And, of course, that it existed in the first place is cause for concern.

That's what happens when people give over their voice for fear of reprisal. That's what happens when an enyclopedia turns into a blog without telling anyone. Agenda becomes fact, fact becomes agenda, no line in between.

Think about it. Think about what that says about Wookieepedia, think about what that says they might think about you, and think about what that does to people who don't deserve it.

I'll add one final thought about what Wookieepedia says to me with all this: Beware freely sharing your thoughts with people, anywhere you go. Some at Wookieepedia may just find a way to hold it against you, regardless of being an encyclopedia.

And people say McCarthyism is dead. Psh.

DM out