Counterpunch wrote:ZeroWolf wrote:Dr Va'al wrote:ZeroWolf wrote:"Some people"? Am I missing something here?
Some of the TFWiki editors/contributors were pretty mean about the write-up.
I see, just because they had issues with it? Doesn't seem very professional of them since they should be doing the wiki neutral
Frankly, the people behind the wiki are not necessarily known for being professional. It's a clique. If you aren't on the inside, you essentially don't count.
That's not to say that it isn't a great source of information. It's just stereotypical caustic academic types.
Eh, really? I do some editing on there occasionally, fix up typos, correct things, remove a bit of naff humor, make a few small articles etc. and I haven't encountered any such cliquishness (what a messy word) or causticity. Not familiar with the stereotypes, but experience in other communities tells me to never trust what one fansite says about another fansite.
I haven't done anything with the Dawn of Predacus article (haven't had the chance to read the comic), but most of the complaints on that list seemed to revolve around a face-value reading of the comic, since a lot of the author's response focuses on the ideal interpretation of these points. This seems fair enough, since the meat of an article should usually focus on a literal reading of the work, avoiding excessive interpretation, but now the site does have a source of authorial intent when filling out the later subsections of the article.
Edit: (The "me-too!" mentality of a lot of social media can definitely lead to excesses in the wiki's irreverent tone, but these usually seem to be stomped out fairly quickly. I can't draw any concrete conclusions on Dawn of Predacus's article with the information I have available to me. Makes me wonder if this has been a problem with other pieces of low-distribution material.)
/t-DSC00482.jpg)
/t-DSC04149.jpg)
