FANDOM


Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/This whole Karen Traviss thing
Something's gone wrong - very wrong. How can we let this happen? How can we let three million clone troopers jeopardize the reputation of this entire wiki and its users? What the f%&# is going on?!?

KEJ 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"These people have stated publicly on another site that they want to end my career."
Karen Traviss speaking about Wookieepedia
[1]

Let's face it, this is a woman who quite consciously tries to ruin everything she touches. Kuralyov 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't care about her. I've never read any of her books, and I probably won't any time soon. Basically I don't care about the controversy either. What bothers me is how the controversy has crept into Wookieepedia and is threatening to ruin our reputation and credibility, and even causes edit wars to take place. I mean WTF!? KEJ 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's time to get past this whole thing. This site shouldn't have an opinion on individual authors pro or con. QuentinGeorge 08:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh c'mon already. This is all stupid and we should start acting like humans. Those who are intentionally making it bad for us will be dealt with in an appropriate manner so that this site does not come crashing down because of some controversial issue. As a result, we have to lay the hammer down, so jSarek and I are proposing the creation of new two teams;

  1. One consisting of non-biased users that will specifically act as a check and balance system for these articles containing POV and biased criticism and correct them if found to be a problem. This team can contain administrators, but they must be aware of the consequences if they violate the rules.
  2. The other team is for public relations, and currently it may be decided that a few can be adminstrators, or it may be decided to have no admins at all, then basing these users below the administrators, but reporting directly to the administrators. This team has the purpose of dealing with users directly before things get too out of hand. These people must be able to solve an issue without becoming a part of it.

If a user claims to be a member of a team and found not to be, they will be punished accordingly. Per the chain of command, Chad and I will retain bureaucrat status and thus have the final say on an issue if neither the lower administrators or the teams can resolve it. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I should add that these teams, though they'll help some, aren't going to fix our fundamental problems. We also need to set some limits of some sort beyond just a nebulous requirement of NPOV, possibly including outright banning of certain topics that are more trouble than they're worth. Some may cry "censorship," but every responsible fact-reporting organization exercises editorial control to various degrees, and encyclopedias are far more restrictive on what they cover than newspapers and other journalistic sources are. Wookieepedia is not a battleground; it's not a newspaper; it's not Crossfire. Sometimes it's more truly neutral to cover no sides of the fight than it is to cover both sides. jSarek 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm uneasy about the total banning of certain subjects, but I can certainly understand where you're coming from with the more trouble than it's worth. Sheesh...so much energy expended over one solitary page out of 37,000. QuentinGeorge 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

BS, Kuralyov. She isnt talking about wookieepedia and you know it. Stop propagating negative ideas that isnt based on fact. Just because you hate her you arent right. The real quote specifies that people other than responsible wookieepedians have hijacked this wiki and wikipedia to create a negative image of her. --Razzy1319 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • this is getting way out of hand, this is one authour yer? so why does that mean an entire web based community be in conflict over something so small? Just stop it now because if anyone looked at us now they wouldn't think we were exactly succesfull squabbling like kids over something so small. Jedi Dude 09:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's disappointing that a site such as this can be so easily dominated by someone who dislikes the wiki and wants nothing to do with it. Whoops, Karen doesn't like it, and she's known for getting bent out of shape by criticism, so let's just remove it all. The George W. Bush page on Wikipedia has the same issues; I just wonder why we deal with this in a completely different manner. Cull Tremayne 09:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"It's a nightmare!"
―C-3PO
AdamwankenobiTalk to me! My home. 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: the controversy is over Karen Traviss adding more clone troopers? Or am I missing something? Darth Anarcus 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm trying not to let my perceptions cloud my thoughts (as I really don't give a toss re:Karen Traviss one way or another), but I'd like to point out that this is not the first time Moose has tried to stir up crap on the wiki in regards to Karen Traviss. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • wipe it, wipe it all. its getting carried out of hand, i read that article, it makes us look so bad, over one thing. delete it, we don't need it for any particuler reason. Jedi Dude 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What I don't understand is why Dark Moose is so fixated on Karen Traviss in the first place. It's almost as if he doesn't want to see any criticism of her pointed out. I suspect he's subconsciously a fandalorian who's defending his idol. :P AdamwankenobiTalk to me! My home. 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but now I have to rant. What I don't get is why a guy who claims to want nothing to do with us is trying to influence how we run things here. He can question our methods all he wants; that's within his right. However, since he has stated time and time again that he won't endorse us or refer to us to his friends, why is he still checking our site if he finds it to be that repugnant to him? It's a power trip, people. He wrote that long ass blog critisim because someone besmirched his idol Karen Traviss, and now he's enjoying watching us all squirm. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Which is eactly why we should keep it. By deleting that page we are just proving ourselves to be as spineless and sycophantic as TFN is. Kuralyov 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Maybe add "The views expressed on this page in no way reflect the views of the editors" or something. But has anyone thought to ask her POV? Writers are watched pretty closely by Lucasfilm editors, aren't they? Maybe she had a reason (George said) for writing what she did in her books.Tocneppil 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We all need lives. :) Cutch 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm extremely removed from the online fan community, aside from Wookieepedia. I keep my Star Wars time to this type of mundane, non-arguing work, so maybe I'm missing the value of this page at all. What does it add? We should catalog the written work of Ms. Traviss, not her comments on message boards, blogs, etc., except for listing them as sources where that is appropriate. It's not worth keeping a page just to dig our heels in the ground against the polemics of one upset fan with a blog when that page represents no value to the wiki in general. --SparqMan 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I know we're not Wikipedia, but they have guidelines for the biographies of living people. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, we may want to use similar guidelines. (Of course, we need to be wary of adding too many policies, but any policy we'd set would mostly be common sense anyway — verifiablity, NPOV, significance, etc.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Since Wookieepedia is supposed to deal with entries in GFFA, maybe the Real-world articles should just be stubs linking back to pieces in Wikipedia -let them deal with the more zealous fans. But guidelines should be put in place, because what's to stop someone from putting up a quote from, say Brian Daley, who can no longer speak for himself & we end up with two sides of an arguement based on conjecture from the POV of fans who beleive that they are acting in the best interest.Tocneppil 04:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • So letting Wikipedia deal with the problem is going to solve ours? Remember we emigrated from there and it wouldn't be the best thing to shift our problems their way, as they have enough already. Infrastructure must be built up here and I'm puzzled that it hasn't been yet. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Definitely puts the 'fanatic' in fan.Tocneppil 04:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And all this over a couple extra clones. I'm sorry, but some of you people (and you know who you are) need to remove your heads from your rectums. Worry about bigger continuity glitches, like the Sith Empire retcon. Darth Anarcus 04:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

      • Actually it's not "extra" clones, but rather lack of clones. And there's nothing wrong with the Sith Empire. Anyways, we really shouldn't let this whole thing take over, it's taking up our time and concentration. That's my opinion. --Sauron18 08:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are a lot of things wrong with the post-retconned Sith Empire upon close inspection, (or even not-so-close inspection), but we won't get into that. But yes, I agree with you that this entire issue should be dropped as it is thoroughly moronic. Darth Anarcus 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My goodness. I've been a way for a while, now I come back and see I've missed something obvioulsy very important. When did we start articles on peoples quotes? Why all this contraversy (spelling?)? We should stop it now, if it's tearing us apart. I've read (most of) the VfD page, and the links etc., and I'm shocked! Why are we doing this? Lets stop now, before this destroys us! Skywalka 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (P.S if this is over, and this post unnecessary, please disregard it.)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.