Robert Comsol wrote:
To me it looks like our interpretation of "canon" is incompatible.
The way I see it "canon" is foremost "first comes, first serves", also to ensure respect for the intentions of the original creators. I think we all owe them that much, at least.
It seems that according to your interpretation of "canon" what is said last and alters, revises or overwrites previous canon is the neo-canon. Thus neo-canon prospers at the expense of previous canon and therefore has a somewhat ungrateful and parasitical nature, IMHO.
You are not talking about a single work by one author, but about a long-standing commercial property that has been and continues to be produced by many different people. It has been and will be updated, modified, or altered in any way the owners or their designated representatives see fit, including possible contraction of what came before. And this was true almost right from the beginning: In TMoST, Gene Roddenberry was already contradicting TOS while it was still on the air.
The results are not always satisfying to me, personally, but to expect otherwise is not realistic.