User:Thetoastman/Skinning Wookieepedia

On July 15th, 2006, I posted a blog about the entire crisis involving Karen Traviss, The Dark Moose, and that pesky number of clones in the Grand Army of the Republic. It was promptly deleted.

The blog was in response to one The Dark Moose himself had made regarding what he believes are the flaws of Wookieepedia. His central issue was that people could be "slandered" at will, without being able to censor themselves from the public eye. As he put in his threat-laced response, "This IS the official site, and they WILL protect the VIP's."

Well, Mr. Moose, Wookieepedia is not the official site. When something happens, the facts will be stated without censorship and without prejudice. Here public consensus holds sway, creating a truly democratic environment. I realize the reason Wookieepedia irks you is that, unlike on the official site, you don't have veto power- voices from all sides can be heard.

I'm now going to present the full text of my blog, which does not remotely dream of attacking Traviss or The Dark Moose. You decide for yourself whether there was an iota of falsehood. I don't have time to reformat it now, but I'll do that later.

Blog
 Snakes on a Star Destroyer http://blogs.starwars.com/thetoastman "Get these m%$#&amp;@!$#&amp;@!&amp; vine snakes off the m#&amp;@!&amp;%$#&amp;@!$#&amp; &lt;i&gt;Executor&lt;/i&gt;!" en-us Skinning the Wookieepedia http://blogs.starwars.com/thetoastman/8 thetoastman Three days ago &lt;a href="http://blogs.starwars.com/webapps/blogs/view-profile.action?userID=2924455" target="_blank"&gt;The Dark Moose&lt;/a&gt; posted &lt;a href="http://blogs.starwars.com/moosepoodo/90/comments" target="_blank"&gt;a blog&lt;/a&gt; regarding what he views as the chief pitfall of &lt;a href="starwars.wikia.com" target="_blank"&gt;Wookieepedia&lt;/a&gt;, so great in fact that he &lt;i&gt;"fear(s) for its immanent demise"&lt;/i&gt;. Specifically, the percieved bias in certain articles, especially against specific people, and the positing of conjecture as if it were fact.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Where to begin.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;1) &lt;i&gt;"Again...this is an encyclopedia?"&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; First of all, Wookieepedia has clear disclaimers that state, quite simply, that its purpose is &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; as a primary source, but rather a collection of relevant bits from other primary sources.  Quoting Wookieepedia, then, for the most part, is simply quoting whatever official works the quoted information was adapted from.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; However, like all wikis, (and all encyclopedias even) there's not only simple fact.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Take a look at any article, in any encyclopedia, on the topic of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  What you'll find is not just a description of the killing but almost certainly information on the various conspiracy theories surrounding it.  Now why would conjecture like this appear in an encyclopedia?  The reason is that consensus has validated that conjecture. No matter what, there's no getting around the fact that the majority of physical evidence points to a second shooter on the grassy knoll. There's no getting around the fact that it is physically impossible for one man to fire and reload the weapon Lee Harvey Oswald used as many times as there were shots in the timeframe of the shootings.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; So it's not only wikis that have conjecture. Conjecture is included when it seems so likely, or is so relevant to the topic, that inclusion is merited. Should Wookieepedia remove the section in &lt;a href="starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Anakin_Skywalker" target="_blank"&gt;the Anakin Skywalker article&lt;/a&gt; that postulates Anakin may have been created by Plagueis/Sidious? No. Because that conjecture is viewed as so likely- and accepted- that it merits inclusion.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; But why am I talking about this in the first place?&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Because The Dark Moose's article was not really about Wookieepedia, and it was not really about the disparity between fact and speculation.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; It was about Karen Traviss and a little article called &lt;a href="starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Army_of_the_Republic" target="_blank"&gt;Grand Army of the Republic&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;2) Let's get this out of the way.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Okay, it's disclaimer time.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; First of all:  I adore Karen Traviss.  She is an exceptional author, who has contributed massively to Star Wars since she began writing for Lucasfilm.  I love her idea of the creation of a Mandalorian language, and shake my head at the- as she calls them- 'Talifans' who think it's too reminiscent of Star Trek's Klingon.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Furthermore, I really don't care if there were three trillion clones, or three million clones, or three.  Listen, people.  Star Wars is fiction.  If we can all sweep aside the fact that hunks of metal can traverse an entire galaxy in a matter of hours without even the need to refuel, then we can sure as hell accept that the Republic had three million clone troopers.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; What does annoy me, however, is when people become defensive bulls whacking over any china they think might be detrimental to the reputation of Traviss when it's something she should be able to handle herself.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Is the three million figure unbelievable? Sure. The present United States military could rebuff three million clone troopers easily. It's not like anyone's denying this. But what does it matter? There's a reason Star Wars is fictional.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; But Karen Traviss, whether she likes it or not, is now in the public eye. By writing for Star Wars, she has knowlingly put herself in a position to recieve criticism, like any other famous figure. It's not like she didn't know this either- she knew full well that there would be fans that would get uppity over something that reminds them that Star Wars is fictional like an impossible number.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Karen Traviss has done only one thing wrong. She has opened herself up to criticism by voluntarily responding to her critics. Right now, her defense is that Lucasfilm told her to write in the 3 million number. &lt;i&gt;Why didn't she just say that from the beginning?&lt;/i&gt; All of this mess would have been avoided. But instead, she chose to engage her critics that were applying real-world logic to a fictional scenario, which is almost always a losing proposition. By presenting herself as open to criticism about the subject, she opened up a debate on it, and finally had to withdraw when she lost miserably. Fiction never holds up to real-world logic, and it shouldn't. Traviss should have known better than to try to disprove this principle, and the Internet condemnation of her today stems from the fact that she tried and inexorably failed.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;3) "Conjecture" in &lt;i&gt;Grand Army of the Republic&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; So back to the central issue- the Grand Army of the Republic article on Wookieepedia.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; The controversy revolves around a section near the end which debates the three million clones figure Traviss has become infamous for championing. Obviously, The Dark Moose would like to see that section removed, ostensibly because it is based on 'conjecture'.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; But let's get back to my point about the JFK shootings and the grassy knoll.  The three million figure, like the single shooter theory, is open to dispute simply because it is so highly unlikely.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; The Dark Moose's main grievance centers on what he criticizes as the presentation of conjecture as fact.  I'd like someone to point out where exactly it states, "There were more than three million clones in the Grand Army of the Republic" in that article. Because I'm not seeing it. In fact, all the section does is state 'there is a controversy' and proceed to detail numerous &lt;i&gt;facts&lt;/i&gt; to debate &lt;i&gt;both sides&lt;/i&gt; of the topic. Is that conjecture? Is that unwarranted? Is that unencyclopedic?&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Listen, The Dark Moose. I know you want to keep the loonies away from Karen. I do, too. That maniac who made the YouTube movie went way too far and, though you might have slightly exaggerated the negativity of his clip, I agree that it was unnecessary and offensive.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; But you've got to recognize that Karen dug this hole herself. When she sank to the level of people who can't tell fact from fiction by trying to defend the indefensible, she opened herself up to rebuke, and rebuke's just what she got. Now you're making the very same mistake. Karen's wised up- she realizes that trying to debate fans over fiction isn't going to get her anywhere. I wish you'd do the same so that this silly argument can die quietly like it should.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; And dragging third parties like Wookieepedia into the issue only exacerbates it. There's naught but fact in the GAR article, and I challenge you to find a single quote in it that proves me wrong. Don't try to fight the fire by throwing lighter fuel on it. Just let it fizzle out. Fan Activities Jul 14, 2006 11:30 PM starwars.com-blog-4128-8

Response

 * To: thetoastman
 * From: The Dark Moose
 * RE: Snakes on a Star Destroyer


 * The policy is absolutely clear, from Bonnie and the Admins down - you do NOT talk about the VIP's here. You can talk about my thoughts on WP, say I'm wrong, anything you want, but you will not attack the VIP's personally.  Ever.  If you don't get that by now, after all these months, I don't know what to tell you.  I have the full backup of the admins on that policy, and its a fully bannable offense, make no mistake.  This IS the official site, and they WILL protect the VIP's.


 * Don't do that again. What I wrote was about WP, why you're responding with comments about KT is beyond me.


 * DM out