231,276
edits
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20180406151023/@comment-188432-20180416223840 (edit)
Revision as of 15:14, 27 April 2023
, 27 April 2023Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7/-/-)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
At the risk of seeming a bit quick off the blocks, I think I've gotta close this thread. It rests on fundamentally incorrect assumptions about this wiki. As such, it's too flawed to allow to stand. Here are a few reasons why: | At the risk of seeming a bit quick off the blocks, I think I've gotta close this thread. It rests on fundamentally incorrect assumptions about this wiki. As such, it's too flawed to allow to stand. Here are a few reasons why: | ||
* '''"...We always seem to be bringing up the same few stories declared “non-canon” on the site long-ago."''' Well, no, "we" don't. And neither is it right to say that "we are still fighting over" whether Peter Cushing films are valid". There are '''a few people''' who like to bring it up from time to time, often in violation of [[T:POINT]]. And as we learned in the spate of inclusion debates in December 2016, some participants were actually opining about things they hadn't ever read, seen or heard. They were just jumping on the bandwagon. So I'm not at all inclined to believe that this is some big, pressing problem. I'm always going to be on the side of the '''average reader of the site''' — and none of this is even on their radar. I know from page view stats on the wiki that, over time, what most people care about are, unsurprisingly, characters from modern (mostly televised) ''Doctor Who''. | * '''"...We always seem to be bringing up the same few stories declared “non-canon” on the site long-ago."''' Well, no, "we" don't. And neither is it right to say that "we are still fighting over" whether Peter Cushing films are valid". There are '''a few people''' who like to bring it up from time to time, often in violation of [[T:POINT]]. And as we learned in the spate of inclusion debates in December 2016, some participants were actually opining about things they hadn't ever read, seen or heard. They were just jumping on the bandwagon. So I'm not at all inclined to believe that this is some big, pressing problem. I'm always going to be on the side of the '''average reader of the site''' — and none of this is even on their radar. I know from page view stats on the wiki that, over time, what most people care about are, unsurprisingly, characters from modern (mostly televised) ''Doctor Who''. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
But I really think that by firmly pushing back against the OP's assumptions, it might put us on the same page — and help frame future arguments along clearer lines. | But I really think that by firmly pushing back against the OP's assumptions, it might put us on the same page — and help frame future arguments along clearer lines. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20180406151023-4028641/20180416223840-188432]]</noinclude> | ||