Iwiki and 'joke' articles

[brianeyci]

The transphasic torpedo article is utter garbage. It refers to some nebulous "they" and refers to the "mindset of science fiction fans and Trekkies in general."

Well anybody not familiar with debate would wonder who the fuck "they" is, and "mindset" of science fiction fans and Trekkies? Give me a break. "We know almost nothing about them" what the fuck does that mean: we know nothing about the mechanisms of warp drive or shields but that doesn't stop us from describing them and suggesting a mechanism. Too much excess verbiage. "As should be obvious" etc., wasted words, patronizing and saying nothing.

For example, a section called "Nomenclature" could put forward the theory that torpedoes "phase in and out of space" then blast it with an example from real life of a name that does nothing like what it implies. Another part of the article could talk about "Deployment on other Vessels" and mention we've never seen them on other ships and list some possible reasons and their counter examples. The most prominent and sensical counter example, the Temporal Prime Directive, is not even mentioned. If you want to outright say that Transphasic Torpedoes are good only against Borg then just fucking say it, say that they're only good on the Borg so Starfleet didn't replace photons with them, and don't pussy around. And goddamn list the source of that Paramount insider who said the armor and torpedoes were meant to kill only Borg. What's wrong with that?

Are many of these articles like this? You know, it's entirely possible to get your point across without referring to board culture. If the wiki isn't fixed, Stark is right, it will die.

[RogueIce]

If someone wants to have 'sarcasm, dry with, and fun', the least they can do is construct sentences properly, write articles like they finished highschool, and not capitalise every second word. I'm far more likely to adjust and allow an article about some element of the board that's written properly than the current standard of 'lol chatlog rar rar rar hilarious wheee' nonsense.

I'd think something like this would work for a "Board Culture" category. I take the Civil War banners article as an example: it was hardly utterly professional in tone, but it still managed to get the point across (and explain what they were) while not looking totally retarded.

I'd think for those maybe you could set something up to ask about posting some element of board culture before putting it on the IWiki? I mean the people who would even know about it are posting here anyway, so why not? Or if we don't want the board itself cluttered, PM for permission and then you and Shep (and any other admins who may come along) can discuss it amongst yourselves? Or something, I dunno.

[Ghost Rider]

Have them cleared by the admins, and really put under a note of colorful under some ass end part of the board culture. Literally hordes can fill the wiki up with useless colorful garbage that range from the AYVB to Testingan shit that have as much note on the board as what's Fluffy's favorite canned food.

[Covenant]

The way I see it, the Wiki should be for the documentation and glorification of the successful intelligent products of the board, and only secondarily to provide an actual feel for the culture. If anyone is genuinely interested, they can just peek on here and get their eyes melted. But if we intend to use the Wiki as anything more than the Encyclopedia Dramatica Warstrekkia, it should be kept relatively clean.

The big quote-search function, for example, is a great thing to put on the wiki. As well as firepower calculations, and the explinations for those calculations. You could make an article entirely wiki-ized that allows people to learn, in extremely simple terms, why we would say that a TIE has firepower to make the Enterprise blush.

That right there is a useful addition, since compartmentalizing information like that would be quite handy, and a Star Wars vs Star Trek wiki should really be done to the absolute and utmost professionalism just to remove claims of bias. Instead of openly calling them trektards, let the info speak for itself. If anyone accuses SDN of losing it's teeth, they can come here. But a wiki is not a debate, and I doubt calling a detractor a "knobmongler" would make much sense in a research paper, which is what a wiki should be.

We could have another section ABOUT sdn itself, in which there are articles about profanity, board culture, bannable offenses, and notable longstanding detractors to the official party line--so to speak. Not everyone, afterall, loves the Star Wars canon policy. We just don't invent new realities where it's different, and I think a discussion about the nature of debate here is worthwhile but should not permeate the entire wiki, as if we were too unintellectual to see it.

You could have an entire section of joke articles. Like a thing that says "This is from a Series on In-Jokes" or such.