Not directed towards anyone, just a general rant:

It really irks me to see fans that think that they can argue published information. Be it the size of the GAR or the ages of the Solo twins in the Jedi Academy series, what's published is published, and it wasn't published by YOU. Yes, some sources argue with each other. Yoda is blue in the ESB novel, for fierfeks sake. Things change. Maybe some new information has come to light and has changed other sources. The earth isn't flat any longer... When the good folk at LFL see discrepancies or errors, they fix them. Go by what is CURRENTLY said. It may change tomorrow, but who cares? Then we'll go by what is said then, and not be like "But yesterday Chewie was 6'11" and now he's 7'2" rabble rabble rabble" (No, I don't know Chewie's height but that's not the point). The LFL people are human beings and deserve our respect. They've given us theirs...

Rant over, we're all fine, here, now, thank you... how are you?

Something that I'm not understanding is the fact that, when viewing the history of your page, Karen, the last edit was made on Feb 20th, almost as if all subsequent edit have been removed and not even viewable in the history - all of the discussion has been removed too... That's just a load of osik in my opinion.

EDIT: Interesting, it is all there again... Odd

Just the other week I saw an article about how the general public doesn't know much about the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, which also contained summaries of the actual First Ammendment rights... summaries that were taken from Wikipedia.

I can't see how any self-respecting researcher or journalist would rely on wikis primarily. I would use them perhaps to point me in a direction, or to reveal facts that could be corroborated elsewhere...

But to use a wiki as a sole source is irresponsible, especially given the fact that recently it was discovered that US Congressional sources had infiltrated wikis to provide their own brand of information.

I see the entry has been changed back. I'll take that as a show of the contempt you have for me.

Compare this professional and neutral entry with this.

I'm going to prove a point about this by changing the page myself. If anyone from Wookieepedia wants to change it back, I'll take that as deliberately hostile intent, as I've made my views clear on this. The amended paragraph I just deleted was actually provocative and even more irrelevant with added detail about my views on wikis and why I won't post on TF.N.

I sincerely hope the expanded version wasn't some attempt to teach me a lesson for asking for amendments. If someone wants to go to war with an author, it's not smart. By all means continue to say what you like on blogs and even abuse me as much you wish within the laws of libel, but keep it off a so-called encyclopaedia page, or you discredit everything you claim to stand for.

I think I read it differently from you; I see it more as a disclaimer that, despite you having an account at Wookieepedia, you no longer endorse the medium. I may be blind, but I don't see the snark; even the talk page comments don't seem negative, just surprised.

When I read it, it didn't come across like that.

Let's try this excercise:

I'm reading the Encarta Encyclopedia when I come across an entry on Sir Edmund Hillary, famous climber of Mt. Everest. It might read thusly...

+Sir Edmund Hillary, born in 1919, mountain climber and Antarctic explorer. He was the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest (8,850 m/29,035 ft), the world's highest peak, with Nepalese Sherpa Tenzing Norgay.

Born in Auckland, New Zealand, Hillary served in the Royal New Zealand Air Force during World War II (1939-1945). He obtained his early mountaineering experience in the Southern Alps of New Zealand.

In 1951 Hillary joined the British Mount Everest Expedition. Over the next two years he participated in several expeditions to the Himalayas for reconnaissance and practice climbs.

By the time the British Mount Everest Expedition was ready to attack Everest in the spring of 1953, Hillary had become one of its strongest climbers. In April and May the climbing party ascended the mountain by way of the South Col, the pass between Everest and neighboring peak Lhotse. After the first team of climbers was forced to turn back just about 100 vertical m (about 300 vertical ft) from the summit, Hillary and veteran Sherpa climber Tenzing Norgay were called on to make an attempt. Just 30 vertical m (100 vertical ft) from the summit they faced an exhausting and technically challenging climb up a 12-m- (40-ft-) tall exposed rock cliff. This rock climb, Everest's final test, would later become known as the Hillary Step. Hillary and Tenzing Norgay conquered the step and reached the summit of Mount Everest on May 29, 1953.

It should be noted that Sir Edmund Hillary, though having been granted the title of an honorary editor of the Encarta Encyclopedia in 1954, had often times criticized Encarta's content. He has likewise been outspoken against other academic efforts. He seems to prefer Encyclopedia Brittanica, though offers no explanation of this.

Newly crowned British monarch Elizabeth II knighted Hillary for the achievement later in 1953.+

Now - obviously that was altered by yours truly. But if I'm a researcher seeking only information on Hillary, and then finding his opinions on the encyclopedia itself, I'd have to ask myself "Why am I reading about Hillary's apparent dislike of Encarta? Why is this my business? I just wanted information on Hillary. I don't care what Encarta has to say about his opinion of Encarta, or any other encyclopedia..."

Objectivity means not being part of the subject on which you report. There is no disclaimer needed on any reasonable effort to report facts.

Wikis should not report on themselves when attempting to present facts. No one cares, and its not conducive to objectivity.

More importantly, if its Wookieepedia's methodology to present a "damned it you do, damned if you don't" option to LFL licensed authors and artists about providing contributions or support, its entirely possible you'd invite a full-on revolt from those you want to report on.

If I were ever an author, I would think twice about associating myself, or in any way ever mentioning Wookieepedia, lest I find my own entry altered to reflect my disdain for "open-source" (a very loaded term when in fact it is a very few people who are accountable for it) encyclopedic efforts.

Encyclopedias are not blogs, and they aren't even news articles. Even most news articles these days are given some latitude on editorializing. Encyclopedias are held to a higher standard of objectivity - these are supposed to be source materials - the researcher's guide. There aren't supposed to be any implications whatsoever, just "findings".

And you would never find real encyclopedias reporting on themselves while providing source material on a subject. The fact that its there discounts the credibility of the author(s) of the article.

I know Wikis are run by people with no specific training in journalism, research, scientific method, audit, editing, etc etc..but nowhere do you see THAT disclaimer at the bottom of every article.

Is that a pertinent fact? Because as long as you are undertaking the effort to build an open-source encyclopedia, it should emulate the standards of other encyclopedias.

Otherwise, you can't really call it an encyclopedia. It's basically another blog. BUT - it could be so much more if certain disciplines and methodologies were consistently applied...

Just a simple exercise in logic, really. What you leave out of public information is as telling as what you put in. Context. It's all about context.

Yes, of course. I just wasn't really thinking straight earlier. Given how my eyes are burning with the lack of sleepage, I'm probably not thinking that much straighter now.

I'm happy to do it here if you are.

Certainly; transparency is indeed good, and hopefully your concerns will be addressed quickly enough that we won't be taking too much of other people's time here.

I've actually never endorsed the medium. My first awareness of wikis stared at Worldcon last year, where I was asked to take part in a panel on open source information. After I looked into it to find out what it was about, I decided I disliked the principle for its lack of robust process. (Jargon, folks. Basically means that I can't rely on it.) The only reason I was registered was because a very well-meaning fan wanted me to get involved in editing the Mando'a material, which I explained I couldn't do.

Unto the innocent, all is innocent. I can respect that. Unfortunately, at least five people now have read it as I read it. And in handling their own reputation management, I think wikis need to consider the bigger picture of how their selection of info might be interpreted. It's an oddly-worded "disclaimer" in some people's eyes because of what it doesn't include.

You see, folks, there's background. As happens to every author once they acquire a certain level of readership, they also acquire a small group of people who subject them to attacks and hate mail, and I'm no exception. TOS doesn't tolerate it, and neither do I, and I'm now much more proactive about dealing with it. (Translation: I get bored easily these days and I bite back.) Not surprisingly I decided to stop posting on a forum that doesn't deal with abuse in quite the robust way that TOS does. For some reason the wiki page mentions that fact, but not the long list of places where I do post and chat.

The fact that I have general issues about wikis as a journalist is not connected to this, although some folks appear to be active in both forum and wiki, so perhaps this is their focus and perhaps they're unaware of the other information - like my activity here on TOS - that they could include.

I'm going to offer some positive suggestions.

If you want to include information about me - and there's no reason why you should - then the basic data most sites would go for is bibliography and links to the official sites; my website, the sw.com blog, the Yahoo forum, and my LJ. That's very safe and can't be interpreted any other way. If you want to include my forum activity, then say where I do post - here, the 501st, HVM, TOS. Only saying what I don't do does rather suggest to the casual reader that a value judgement is at work, and if the aim is to provide readers/ fans with information they can use, then I would have thought that it would make more sense to say where they can chat to the author.

Just a simple exercise in logic, really. What you leave out of public information is as telling as what you put in. Context. It's all about context.

Or, of course, you could just take the page down. I'm easy either way.

I'm happy to do it here if you are. I'm all for transparency, and I like to keep my LFL colleagues aware of what I'm doing too. I did briefly think of using that rusty wiki registration of mine to do some editing of my own on the page and perhaps prove my point about the general quantum nature of open-access wikis, but that would have been sheer naughtiness on my part, as well as unfair on the vast majority of fans who have been very good friends to me indeed.

How about things that aren't actually connected to SW facts, but look rather like snarky comments about authors - like me? Now, as you all know by now, I'm a journo, and I know how to juxtapose apparently innocent facts so they aren't an outright comment but leave the reader thinking, "Hmmm...what a jerk." I'm sure Wookieepedia, not being staffed by professional journos, has managed this by unfortunate accident, even if some of the discussion behind the page that was pointed out to me does look a little less than benign. The discussion about the links removed would tend to make an old hack like me question someone's intent.

Although someone set up an account for me hoping I would help maintain the Mando'a pages, I only went in to reword disclaimers attributed to me and I no longer do so. I've made it clear on several occasions that I can't get involved because of the unofficial nature of the pages, and I don't wish to because of my general views on public wikis. I would expect that position to be respected, and not made a subject of implied comment on what claims to be an encyclopaedia devoted to SW fact. It doesn't help the reputation of the site.

If you want to talk to me back channel, feel free.

I've got a question for the VIPs:

Where does the avatar image of the Sic-Six come from? A picture of the same individual also appeared in the old CCG but I was under the impression that it was just something computer-generated made by Decipher. Was there actually a model/maquette of this beast made for Return of the Jedi (or the Special Edition)? Thanks.

It is a good WEG reference, though...