i would be fine if the fight could be avoided and if peoply could start working in the policy of the wiki rather than simply making actions based on saying the opposite thing as me. the fact is that I don't love Star Trek Online, but it exists out on it's own and the novels haven't much touched it except the one reference in TNotM. last year, interested users and admins had a discussion and it was decided that we would approach this with a certain policy. you all would rather personally attack me here instead of discussing it rationally as a matter of policy on the wiki. if anyone had approached the matter without making it personal, there could be a better approach decided. but cooperation obviously isn't anybody's strong suit here...
thank you for the kind words -- my last response was written simulataneously, please bear that in mind. now, if anyone would like to approach the policy that would be fine. most people don't like wiki policy discussion so the past seven years have become a show of attacking the admin rather than working on the policy
i can't remember the last time someone was open for an honest discussion about a correction, without a personal attack .. as soon as someone with that level of maturity comes along, let's do it!
Hardly a personal attack... Our case is simple, given the Trek Lit we have up until now, it is clear that the Mirror Universe Saga will not include a restoration in 2409. Therefore it is a fallacy to suggest it on the main page. Particularly when the author of the latest book has directly supported our position I think the problem there is that the admin has appeared to be...over zealous...in enforcing its policy, which leads to the regular contributors feeling slighted and unable to air their grievances in another way...
If you were looking for an honest appraisal, I would leave the "restoration" section of the article as-is, and add a note that things might not end up like that in the novels and there is a strong possibility that there are two alternate universes. But the main point is that your (and the author's) supposition that 'it is clear' is still an assumption at this point. CBS could fire everyone tomorrow and hire another crew to write a different version. Saying that it is "obviously going in one direction" does not mean that it will, so the wiki shouldn't state that as fact, but yes, let's get that in the article as a note, but not move it to some bottom-of-the-page 'alternate garbage' section ...
We're not suggesting that the alternate universes are in any way "garbage" but that they differ from the universe presented in Trek Lit. I can see what you're saying, but I have to say it's just another example of the over zealousness. This is the projected direction of the novels and so there is no reason why the page shouldn't reflect this. The suggestion that "CBS could fire everyone" is so unlikely it's almost laughable. On a balance of probabilities, we are more likely to be correct than the suggestion "CBS could fire everyone".
An extreme case, but do you recogize what I am cautioning against? Just because you think you know what 2012 novels are going to bring, I hesitate to think what would happen if we opened the wiki up to information about what they 'think would happen' in the next novel. How would we know who was right? Memory Beta has style suggestions for indented background sections and also larger-scale background information subsectioning. Our policy currently recommends information like this be restricted to those spaces -- and thus such information won't be used to rearrange sourced information that has published rationale and citations...
And since the writer himself *says* he's not restoring the Empire, I think we can count that as definitive. And what's this about "CBS could fire everyone"? It's not like the authors of current Treklit are all writing what they're told. They're writing what they *want* to write. They don't work for CBS.
Plus, it's a dumb policy. The characters who were killed in the Destinyverse are listed as dead in their character articles, with addendums at the bottom which explain how the Path to 2409 contradicts this. This just creates a lack of consistency.
Sci, how's your letter coming? I'll write one too about how you've been plotting against me all this time, badmouthing me in private, encouraging others to disrupt what could be an enjoyable pursuit for me... Thanks for turning what could have been a collaboration into an abusive confrontation -- real nice...
That's not what Sci was saying. A significant portion of the Trek BBS community is agreed that the policy of Memory Beta is wrong. Therefore we want to alter that policy by appealing to the Memory Beta community. Independent of that, some of the members here were annoyed at the over zealous nature with which they perceived your actions. You may have noticed that Sci, myself and others disapproved of this action, which is why Sci asked Mr Laser Beam to refrain. We want to present our proposal an have it viewed on its merits alone, not as some kind of "war against the admins of memory beta." Since you have admitted that you are restricted by the policy, you should recognise our plight.
I have plotted against no one. I have, however, wanted to arrange a letter with the support of other Memory Beta users that presents an alternate to how Memory Beta currently archives information and asking for a less zealous and more courteous enforcement of policy. I only got the idea to do this last night. I suspect I'll have heard back from other users and have the letter ready to present to the Memory Beta community on Thursday evening (Eastern Standard Time). I did, indeed, say that I have found your behavior on Memory Beta consistently disrespectful. I have said this many times in public on Memory Beta, and I said it in public here. I have never "badmouthed" you in private. In point of fact, I encouraged my fellow contributors not to disrupt anything for anybody, both in Private Message and in this thread. Indeed, you quoted from me right there, encouraging others not to get into a fight with you.
One of the main reasons I have championed the 'one universe' approach to the wiki is that the licensed Star Trek universe is cohesive, with the sole exception of the Destiny-era and STO actively contradicting each other, and of course the well establsihed JJ Abrams timeline divergence Basically, having read wikis where everything is fractured into several alternate versions, i can't see the necessity for making a separate Janeway article for WildStorm Comics, Pocket Books, STO, IDW, etc -- when there is only one questionable divergence This is why i support unifying the articles but highlighting contradictions where they exist
It's not though! The numbered novels of old contradict each other, the series and everything else! The destinyverse is the only timeline that keeps continuity to itself and the canon.
I understand your position and respect it, but I also strongly disagree with it. A more detailed response will be found in the letter we will be presenting to the Memory Beta community once we have heard back from everyone who wishes to sign on, and at that point we look forward to having a thorough and respectful debate about both policy and its enforcement on Memory Beta's boards. Until then, I do not feel it appropriate to further debate Memory Beta policy outside of Memory Beta itself.
Furthermore, as the policy we decided on the first time this was discussed (and the policy i've been trying to explain while everyone reconvened here and talked about what a colossal douche i am for being the only admin on the site) is that where contradictions DON'T exist, there's no need to move everything to the 'alternate' section. The fact remains that many readers are moving all STO info to 'alternate' in favor of their lit, and many gamers will be tempted to move all Destiney-era info to 'alternate' -- both choices present a question that needs to be answered - why present one 'first' and move the other 'to the bottom'? The STO missions outnumber the Destiny-era novels by far, but there is much more prose and narration with the books -- who's right? I'd be willing to support branching affected articles, but no one's even suggested that on Memory Beta (although supposedly there is a 'letter' being drafted) does everyone think i'm so awful that if a logical plan was forwarded to a MB 'forum' page that it would be rejected without discussion. i'm open to discuss this in the proper forum, but NO ONE HAS TRIED TO DO THAT IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER
A proposal will be presented on Memory Beta within the next day (or two days at most, if I have not heard back from everyone by tomorrow). Until then, we can all sit back and take a chill pill.
That's what we're doing now, we're presenting our argument. However as we are all posters of the BBS, this only became a discussion topic yesterday, and we wished to present a united front when making our proposal, it hasn't made it to Memory Beta yet. We are going to forward our logical plan at the appropriate time. EDIT: Or, what Sci said...
I've started a page for the appropriate plan. Hopefully we can work through the details without need for whatever secret goings you all seem to feel is necessary. All that was really needed was to create a forum page and start the discussion. The wiki isn't well populated right now, but hopefully we can get something agreed upon enough to go forward.