The Energon Pub

News Credits: 1350 · by **ZeroWolf** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:47 am

"Some people"? Am I missing something here?

News Credits: 6188 · by **Va'al** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:03 am

ZeroWolf wrote:"Some people"? Am I missing something here?

Some of the TFWiki editors/contributors were pretty mean about the write-up.

News Credits: 1350 · by **ZeroWolf** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:55 pm

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

News Credits: 127 · by **Counterpunch** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:05 pm

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.

News Credits: 2 · by **RevTibe** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:09 pm

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.)

News Credits: 456 · by **Sabrblade** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:33 pm

In defense of the points argued by the Wiki (but NOT in defense of its hostility), a lot of the insight provided by JPB's responses was not present in the comic. Without already knowing what he personally had in mind and/or planned for both this comic and the yet-to-be-told stories surrounding its events, one would not get this all this insight from just reading the comic alone.

Some of this insight was even only provided by the script reading that took place at BotCon on Friday, and not everyone who attended BotCon (let alone everyone in this fandom) attended the script reading. And even those who did attend (myself included) found its story rather difficult to follow. It wasn't until Jesse Wittenrich graciously posted some clarifying info about it on another board yesterday (five days after the script reading took place) that some sense was made out of its story.

But even taking the script reading into account, my original point still stands that not everything JPB revealed about the comic's story in his response to the Wiki was evident in the comic on its own.

News Credits: 650 · by **ScottyP** » Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:40 am

I've said it in other threads but I'd love it if we could stop talking/gossiping about TF Wiki so much. I'm guilty of having done this maybe once in the past, yes, I know. Would just like to see it stop going forward without going and lobbying Burn about implementing actual rules about it.

On comics in particular, trying very hard to get our own resources improved - was very close to completion before the site data problems last month :/