Fanlore talk:Plural Point of View
A User Page is not to be confused with a page about a person in Fanlore - the distinction is explained in detail in our FAQ. Uh, this isn't even a question in the FAQ, let alone a detailed explanation of the distinction. Should this sentence be yanked, or is someone going to address the question Real Soon Now? I have to confess, my first thought was to write up my editor page and then redirect regular pages using my old and new pseudonyms to the editor page. Now that I know these are to be distinct, I won't, but for the life of me, I don't have any idea why. --zvi 19:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Zvi, the reason why a redirect would be ill-advised is that on your User page you control the content completely (to the extent that it stays within the ToS) and you control the point of view; furthermore, the PPOV does not apply to your User page - the tone is your choice, as is the content. If a page about you NOT controlled by you exists on the wiki, it would certainly be great that it a/ lists your other names and b/ links to your User page, but it will also be there so that other people can come write things about you that you might not have thought of yourself (or even wanted to include, but which are true/relevant of your fandom history/involvement).
- Now, you're right that the missing FAQ is disturbing, and that the distinction nededs to be further explained. We'll get right on that! Thanks for pointing it out. --anatsuno 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
--Doro 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) We do not strive to establish a "true" account of events, explanation of practices, or definition of terms. We do not believe this exists in fandom.
I think this goes a bit too far. Do you mean to say that factual truth doesn't exist? It's often difficult in fandom to establish what really happened and that's why we need a plural point of view (and I think the PPOV is a really good idea!), but shouldn't we try to get as close to the truth as possible? When there is irrefutable evidence that something happened a certain way (dates, an old tv guide, links, actual copies of a text that is quoted by some people as saying this and by other people as saying that), I don't see why in such a case a differing opinion should have equal weight.
Furthermore, I think there is a contradiction between May indicate the perceived prevalence of a viewpoint within a community and should be given equal weight. All opinions are valid, sure, but not all opinions are equal: There are majority opinions, minority opinions, minority opinions that used to be majority opinions before there was a shift some time in the past; there are opinions held by a single person, opinions that are a majority or minority opinion depending on the fan community, etc. And there are reasons why an opinion is a majority or minority opinion or why it changed.
Without that frame of reference the quality of the information suffers and I would rather have good information than something that says everything is equal and there is no truth.
What do you think?
- The PPOV policy refers to "every contribution of interpretation or experience" not facts, so I don't think it's a problem. It will be clearer once we have an example. --Cathy 21:41, 11 August 2008 (EST)
- Doro, I see what you mean; and Cathy has it pretty close - I think we need to clarify that "we believe in interpretation rather than 'establishing truth' in situations where factual data is not available". So, for an example, it's a fact that Supernatural started airing in 2005; but it is not a fact that fans write Wincest because they're clinically disturbed (to use an extreme example! *g*). Would a clarification of PPOV such as that help towards sorting out this page/policy? --Hope 06:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think making the distinction between fact and opinion would be very useful, especially with a real example (something like the one you gave here). --Ccupitt 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion caught my eye as I was checking recent changes--and it goes directly to something I wondered about in the PPOV statement, which I also love, but there is a difference between fact and interpretation (and opinion!), and that could be noted, with some good examples. I like the limits set ("events, explanation of practices, or definition of terms"), but I'm also wondering if some good examples of how to make qualifications in entries (to avoid the false universalizations we're all prone to making when writing in haste and in more informal spaces where people understand "fandom" means mostly "those of us in this little corner of fandom who mostly but not entirely agree") Robinr 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Under General Guidelines: Sorry, I'm not sure what is meant by this sentence: Use more inclusive than finite language when sharing your viewpoint Could you provide an example finite and inclusive? --Lian 17:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)