Jump to content

Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to length, this extended discussion has been moved from Talk:Lost (TV series)

Lostpedia

[edit]

As wikipedical suggested, moving the discussion from Talk:Lost_Experience to here.

This is my opinion regarding LostPedia: "I suggest we don't just add the link as extra "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" but I suggest we add a sentence or section about Lostpedia in the main article, on the merits that it has achieved quite some notability. We could then add a link as covered under WP:EL ("What should be linked to 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."). Having an informative and objective page includes reporting on notable subjects associated with the article (in this case a website) imo." --Sloane 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I agree with the inclusion of the link here (though I didn't in the case of the Lost Experience article). However, I don't think that "What should be linked to 1" covers it, since LostPedia isn't an official website [1]. More appropriate is "What should be linked to 4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with adding Lostpedia is that it is essentially a fan site, and this article has a clear policy on fan sites. Lumaga 02:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lostpedia is a fan site, but by that same anyone-can-edit definition, wikipedia is a fan site for fans of information, albeit one that passes its own criteria for notability. Lostpedia/The Fuselage tend to be the references of choice for other lost-related forums/blogs in my experience; therefore my opinion on this is that the problem lies in WP:WEB, rather than the article. --Kaini 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone back and forth on the addition of Lostpedia. My feeling is that it's a good idea to re-direct to Lostpedia or the Lost Wikia those who wish to promote their personal theories; however, adding a link to such sites in the main article seems to demonstrate favoritism, and would open the door to inclusion of every other active Lost fan site, such as Lost-Media.com, Lost-TV.com, LostForum.com, etc. In avoidance of making such listings a popularity contest, we only include "official" sites -- and the only such fan site that is appropriate is the TheFuselage.com, as it has the blessing of the creative team, and often includes their input. Lost fan sites are easily found via any search engine; and in general, since we don't use unofficial sites as sources, my feeling is we shouldn't include them as external links from a Wikipedia article. --LeflymanTalk 08:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were those sites mentioned in business weekly? All I'm saying is that lospedia has some notability and therefore should be mentioned somewhere on wikipedia.--Sloane 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unofficial sites that are notable should be listed here. If something is listed in businessweek.com and was a Scifi.com site of the week, or another notable source, then it should have a link here. I agree that every fansite and blog created by fans should not get a listing here. Lostpedia currently has over 5,000 registered users, over 19 million page views, and over 1,200 real articles dedicated to this show. --Jabrwocky7 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Lost article seem to have its own policy regarding external links? A quick look at some other television articles reveals this inconsistency: The Prisoner, The Simpsons, Star Trek, and The X Files all contain links to fan sites. Most of these links significantly enhance the value of the Wikipedia articles. Of course a motivated reader can do independent research and find Lostpedia, but the same could be said of 100% of Wikipedia's facts. It's just not true that inclusion of one fan site requires us to open the floodgates to every fan site out there. We're constantly making editorial judgements about the quality and relevance of any facts included in any article. A couple of months ago, someone added "Leg injuries" to the "Thematic Motifs" section, and it was rightfully removed by someone else. Why are only the external references, of only the Lost article, not subject to the same sort of judgement calls. C'mon people, let's be editors here. Lostpedia is a valuable link, and belongs at the end of the article. (See the Television WikiProject style page for guidance on external links.)--Loqi T. 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What'd you do that for, Sloane? Do we really need to protect Wikipedia from The Prisoner Appreciation Society? (For those who don't know, The Prisoner Appreciation Society is the decades-old organization that The Prisoner DVD box set producers relied on for the games, maps, trivia, and on-set still photography used in the bonus materials, which in turn were used by Wikipedia contributors to the Prisoner article.) Now we can either hobble a few thousand more TV articles to bring Lost in line with them, or we can answer the question about why the Lost article should list only ABC advertisements as external links. It's not consistent with the Wikipedia TV style guidelines, which says good fan sites are okay, and which definitely does not say external links must be controlled by the studio. I notice at The Prisoner, a number of non-BBC-owned sites were spared Sloane's axe. What gives? Anyway, Mr. Ed links to an unauthorized exposé on how they got the horse to talk, and Square One TV has a link to a very detailed episode guide. Should we turn Sloaneloose on 'em, or can we just follow standards here on the Lost article? --Loqi T. 08:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey I don't mind one or two fansites but wikipedia isn't a web directory. On topic, I still haven't read one single reaction to my suggestion: "I suggest we don't just add the link as extra "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" but I suggest we add a sentence or section about Lostpedia in the main article, on the merits that it has achieved quite some notability. We could then add a link as covered under WP:EL ("What should be linked to 1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."). Having an informative and objective page includes reporting on notable subjects associated with the article (in this case a website) imo." --Sloane 00:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea that unofficial ext-sites are linked if they are mentioned for a noteworthy reason within the main article (such as the Business Weekly reference to Lostpedia...) Now, how to summarize that suggestion into a bullet point for the straw poll below? -- Tomlouie | Talk 03:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely opposed. Lostpedia is a random collection of rumors, fancruft, trivia, and unverified/unverifiable information, with kind of a "no holds barred, everything's acceptable" approach to content. It's the very antithesis of Wikipedia in that respect. Let's not sink to that level by linking to it. Does the New York Times reference articles in the National Enquirer? Close to never. I don't think that's an extreme analogy, either. -- PKtm 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppoing the inclusion of Lostpedia on grounds of quality is very different from opposing its inclusion because it's not run by ABC. In this discussion page, there have been claims that the Lost article is to reference no fan site whatsoever, or that only ABC-controlled sites are permitted. Are we now talking about whether Lostpedia meets Wikipedia standards for outside links? Mentioning the existence of Lostpedia is not the same as citing it as a source. --Loqi T. 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Strawpoll

[edit]

Allow links to unofficial external sites if they are deemed notable

Only official sites should be linked to from this page

  • My reading of WP:WEB is that Lostpedia is acceptable, but ABC's advertisement sites may not be. If you have evidence to support the claim that only official sites are permitted on the Lost article, I'd like to see it. --Loqi T. 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been going on since the early days of the article. See the archives:
--LeflymanTalk 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the transcripts, Leflyman. The links you provide do indeed point to conversations on this same topic. Here's my favorite passage, "I think article editors should determine what links to put in, not based on the simple knuckle-dragging notion that 'fan site bad, official site good.' Instead, the best, most notable sites should be listed." (LegalSwoop, April 2006). This has been quite an epic discussion. One would think these issues would've been resolved by now. --Loqi T. 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indeed they were, to the appropriate conclusion that listing fan sites was a slippery slope and thus to be avoided. Let's avoid deprecating and intentionally offensive phrases like "knuckle-dragging", please. -- PKtm 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PKtm, In your August 11 comment, "Let's not sink to that level by linking to it.", you imply that linking to something is the same as endorsing its content. So I assume your scold about offensive phrases is meant for Leflyman for linking to that transcript. Anyway, this raging controversy appears to contradict your claim that the Fan Site Slippery Slope consensus is settled. I'd like to see some evidence. --Loqi T. 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence on consensus? OK, I don't like going here, and I hate to put it this bluntly, but it's time to get real about who's a credible contributor here and who isn't. Loqi T., your contributions to Wikipedia (at least under that handle) have occurred only since 9 August 2006--less than two weeks. In that time, you have not once contributed to a Lost article, only to Lost-related talk pages, and that pretty profusely, and solely on this topic of fan sites and Lostpedia. Equally, two other extremely vocal participants in this debate on fan sites (Jabrwocky7 and Jambalaya), pushing for Lostpedia and fan sites, have not contributed to a Lost article, other than Jambalaya's insertion, back on 9 February 2006, of ... a link to Lostpedia. Contrast that record to Jtrost, or Leflyman, or myself.
An admittedly great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute. Another thing about Wikipedia is that credibility in a given area is established through long-standing, consistent, thoughtful contributions, both to main pages and to talk pages. You have no such pattern. I don't go into the Star Trek talk pages (I haven't ever edited Star Trek articles) and push repeatedly and in an incredibly prolific manner for my views suddenly, as a brand-new editor, without ever having contributed to that space. To do so would seem to me to be, well, pretty cheeky.
There's my "evidence". Consensus doesn't mean brand-new folks who've not been around to wrestle with the articles themselves, or who don't care to. Consensus of long-standing contributors can and should carry significant weight. That's just the way it is, and the only people who argue against that, typically, are people who are brand-new and want to exert their will instantly. -- PKtm 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I have no reply to that evidence.
But I do have a reply to your going there. The plain fact is that I have contributed to the Lost article as an anonymous user, only to have my work swiftly reverted away. I've been contributing to Wikipedia articles anonymously for years, but how could you possibly know this, so I'm telling you now. This little Lost fiefdom has motivated me to create a user account for myself and mix it up on the talk page. As of yet, that's my most lasting contribution to the Lost article. A contribution that seems to have helped cause some movement in what I consider a positive direction. I'm sorry if you experience my participation as cheeky. I experience these revert campaigns as obtuse. I have some great ideas for contributions, but I'm not willing to have my careful writing thoughtlessly blown away. From where I'm standing, I don't see much credibility in the previous treatment of the fan issue. It looks like bullying from here. --Loqi T. 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I have never yet seen any truly "careful writing" get "thoughtlessly blown away." What gets reverted, aside from pure vandalism, are things that are poorly written, random, against Wikipedia tenets and guidelines, etc. There are dozens of editors here enforcing those guidelines every day; calling them "bullies" because of adhering to Wikipedia goals is not a compelling argument. And use of words like "bullying" and "thoughtlessly blown away" is pretty much disproving the "careful writing" assumption there, in my view. You've given no specific examples or links for these claims, so your premise can't be tested. Reality: your writing, like mine or anyone else's, has to stand the test of the commons here. That's just the way it is, and if your contribution gets repeatedly reverted and you can't prevail in convincing others to keep it, that should tell you something. But let's please not toss around incendiary phrases like "bullying" when that happens. From where I sit, it's quite simply hard for me to see great credibility in several new editors marching into town, never having contributed here (and still not contributing here), and cast judgment on a long-standing consensus, and in the process slam a bunch of hard-working, long-standing contributors here. It looks to me like those new editors have one and only one goal, going back to at least last February, and reiterated recently by one of you very clearly, when Jambalaya wrote "this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP". -- PKtm 00:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking only for myself, the Lost article is very special on Wikipedia. It has the distinction of being the only article that has dissuaded me from contributing. It should be clear that a big motivation to many in this sprawling discussion is not passion for (or against) Lostpedia, but passion for Wikipedia. I have been turned off from contributing to the article by what I see as its hijacking by what Kaini calls a clique of editors. I'm sure I'm not the only one who steers clear of writing for this little corner of Wikipedia.
This may be putting it bluntly, but credibility goes both ways. Perhaps there's a reason that thoughtful, quality contributions haven't been flowing in as they could be. I believe I could be an asset to the actual article. So in the interest of accruing some credibility to my account, I've gone ahead and added a paragraph under Themes. The treatment it receives will affect my attitude toward contributing to the Lost article.
It shouldn't feel like a transgression to make a contribution to the Lost article, but frankly, it does. --Loqi T. 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this section because you cannot disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, the section violated policy. Saying "Perhaps the most distinctive theme" is speculative and is not from a neutral point of view. Also saying "An elaborate web of serendipitous coincidence is a hallmark of the Lost story" also violates the neutral point of view policy. However, the biggest problem with this section is that it has no direction. It's left wide open for original research, cites no sources, and is nothing more than a list of random events. So again, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My editorial points are confined to the discussion pages. I ask that you please try to assume good faith, Jtrost. This was not meant as a disruption. It was meant as a tentative contribution. If you read this as an attempt to make a point, what point could possibly have been intended? I see what you mean about POV, and the paragraph could use some work, but I don't think the best solution is wholesale deletion. In addition, many of the issues you raise with my paragraph "Unlikely occurrences" seem also to apply to "Black and white", and "Eyes", and possibly all the other themes listed. Maybe wording like "Unlikely occurrences are a frequent feature in the Lost story..." would be more neutral. But I think most of us would agree that bizarre coincidences are a central theme in Lost. The theme plays at least as big a role as any of the others listed, and deserves mention in any description of the writing. I'd like to contribute to the article in a meaningful way. --Loqi T. 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sub-page to document and categorize un-official fan-sites should be created instead.

  • WP:TV is a Wikiproject; not a Wikipedia guideline or a policy (unlike "What Wikipedia Is Not"). However, even there, the recommendation suggest "Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites", which clearly indicates a preference for <2 links. We already have that. Finally, to reiterate: the option for a "sub-page to document and categorize un-official fan-sites" would be against Wikipedia policy. --LeflymanTalk 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I do not support the sub-page option, Leflyman. You indicate that there's no room for Lostpedia because The Fuselage (a forum site) is listed. Well, if it's all the same to you, I'd be willing to forgo The Fuselage for Lostpedia. --Loqi T. 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Discussion resulting from the survey should be placed here. If there is a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.

  • I will not vote in this survey, because the outcome will be utterly irrelevant if it goes against Wikipedia policy of verifiability and insistence on reliable sources. In other words, we don't get to "vote" on those basic tenets. If we don't like them, we go to Lostpedia and contribute there, where those tenets simply don't get in the way. This "survey" is clearly oriented towards pushing for Lostpedia to be accepted as a valid "notable" site, but my point is that in this case, notability simply doesn't matter. -- PKtm 03:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and reliable sources applies to facts presented on Wikipedia. A reference to Lostpedia is true and verifiable if that link does indeed point to Lostpedia. If Lostpedia does not share Wikipedia's policies, that verifiable fact can be noted as well. --Loqi T. 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that this survey does not include any mention of whether the lostpedia link itself should be included. It is a more general question regarding whether noteable fan-sites should be listed. I do not see any discussion in the verifiability or reliable sources regarding external links. If I have missed it please point out the corresponding sections. The Wiki: Project Television article mentions that links to one or two important fan-sites should included. It also states that links to official network web-sites should be part of the infobox and not in the 'External Links' section. --Jabrwocky7 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we can solve this with democracy. We need to compromise here, not shut an opposing side out. It's weird... it's like I said the same thing somewhere else... -- Wikipedical 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest as a compromise? We could list that as an option on the straw poll. I listed a third option in the poll as a way I would be willing to compromise the matter. I am trying to follow the dispute guidelines to work this matter out in a democratic way. Do you think this should go straight to mediation? --Jabrwocky7 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this as a compromise: Mention the existence of important sites, and describe those sites. Problem solved.
  • Compromise and Precedence: See the article Star Trek further reading, an article which includes fan websites of various sorts, including wikis. A similar article for Lost may be one method that follows precedence and allows for links to notable fansites, yet keeps such links out of the external links section of the main article itself (which is one of the primary objections of some editors.) --Santaduck 12:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lostpedia should be included since it includes infomation that Wikipedia does not, including a hell of alot more infomation on the Lost Experience. It's sad that wikipedians on here can't see that. dposse 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're going round and round on this, and much as I like discussion on most things, it's not really up for debate: the simple answer is NO, that's just not what Wikipedia is. Lostpedia features a "no holds barred, everything's acceptable" approach to content. Linking to such a collection of rumors and trivia and random facts that someone found interesting enough to type in is not even close to acceptable in the Wikipedia universe. Arguing repeatedly for its inclusion is actually to misunderstand what Wikipedia stands for, and, implicitly, to oppose what Wikipedia stands for. Mediation would be pointless on this, because all it would do is confirm that basic truth. -- PKtm 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please - this survey is not about Lostpedia, but whether un-official noteable fan-sites should be posted in this article. Please keep your comments and slander on-topic. --Jabrwocky7 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling anything in the above as "slander" is inappropriate and inaccurate and not conducive to discussion. Please remove that reference, in the spirit of No Personal Attacks. -- PKtm 05:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I label your statement that Lostpedia is a "no holds barred, everything's acceptable" site as slanderous. It is a false statement which appears to be said for the sole purpose of turning the discussion away from the topic of the survey. This does not fit within the definitions laid out in the No Personal Attacks guidelines. --Jabrwocky7 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not slander, it's libel. And even then, it's not. Lumaga 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of libel vs. slander on the Internet is not something that we can or should settle here. I am not a lawyer, nor claim to be an expert in the matter. My point is that the original statement is false and disparaging at the least. As a good faith measure and to keep this discussion on-topic, I would suggest we delete this whole section, starting with dposse's mention of Lostpedia. --Jabrwocky7 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic of Lostpedia is very germane, since it's how this whole thing started. As for "slander", please reconsider removing that personal attack. We can't have a viable discussion if we throw around inflammatory and accusatory words about each others' expressed opinions about a web site, for heaven's sake. -- PKtm 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I once again reiterate that my statement is not a personal attack against you, only that your statements about Lostpedia are false and detract from the issue of whether notable fan-sites should be linked to from this page. Do you have any arguments for your position other than your opinion of the content of Lostpedia? --Jabrwocky7 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe every major TV show with fandom should include websites created by the community they have gathered together. Transformers should have a link to Teletraan-1 just as Star Wars has a link to Wookiepedia. LOST should include the LOSTpedia because it gies beyond the scope of a mere subsection of the wikipedia. --GodEmperorOfHell 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have written somewhere else, Lostpedia is just as reliable as Wikipedia itself. LP clearly defines and flags the material that is purely based on specualtion/theories as opposed to plain facts. Even the show's creators have mentioned LP in connection to The Lost Experience. The denial of including LP into WP is starting to look like a vendetta and has to stop. --Jambalaya 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. i find it amusing that one of the reasons given for not having a link to lostpedia in the article (anyone can edit, essentially) is the same reason many academic institutions frown on citing information on wiki as a reference. --Kaini 03:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, everyone: let's get real. Go to an episode on Lostpedia and compare to the Wikipedia season article summary of that episode. Observe the fancruft, the theories, the speculation, etc. on Lostpedia, many of which are NOT flagged. It's pretty obvious that the two sites have very different goals, norms, guidelines, etc., and thus very different results. -- PKtm 04:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do agree with you regarding this. however, i also feel that the theories section of lostpedia is one of the factors that makes it one of the better lost-related sites on the web. the earlier statement that lostpedia is an "anything goes" site is patently untrue; there are enough active editors there to ensure that patently ridiculous theories are removed swiftly, and only theories that are based on reasoning and deduction from facts presented as such within the lost universe are allowed to survive (which is surely the basis of every wiki; rubbish is weeded out, and good stuff is not). whilst we're in 'trying to look at the big picture' mode, i feel that it's also worth gaining some perspective on the fact that this whole clusterfuck is based on trying to gain one line in one article on an absolutely huge website with millions of articles. from a personal perspective, turning this into a lostpedia vs. wikipedia battle is not only counterproductive, but it's against the spirit of why wiki was set up to begin with. --Kaini 05:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the big difference between LostPedia & WikiPedia - the former is a site for original research. It is a resource used to collect facts, theories, trivia, idle speculation, etc. But we try very hard to organize it in such a way that these different categories are separated (often within single articles), and delete out theories & speculation that are untenable or have proven incorrect or irrelevant. A link to LostPedia (or any fansite, or any website for that matter) doesn't mean that it follows all of Wikipedia's tenets - it simply means that this is a notable & relevant resource for fans of the show/games/books/etc. --Jajasoon 11:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely: as you say, Lostpedia is a site for original research. It doesn't matter if it's notable or not. Please refer to Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, where it clearly itemizes: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This survey is (in my view, inappropriately) deflecting the debate into one surrounding notability. Notability is necessary but by no means sufficient to justify inclusion of any specific link or material. These Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:EL and formal policies like WP:No original research exist for a reason; they've been honed for years now. Let's not make up our own rules on these basic issues, when we already have well-established policies and guidelines that define what this community is all about. -- PKtm 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PKtm, you seem to have missed an important detail there. The itemized list of guidelines you cite includes this notation: "Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material." In other words, sites that contain both appropriate and inappropriate elements may be considered for linking. --Loqi T. 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, I don't feel I've missed a detail... "if the subject of an article has an official website": Lostpedia is not official, and there's the rub. The guideline is not exactly intending to give carte blanche to the notion of linking to factually inaccurate material. -- PKtm 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I direct your attention to the first half of the sentence, "Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; ..." There's the rub. Factual accuracy is not the overriding criteria for mentioning external sites. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that link to sites containing inaccuracies. And where those sites enhance the value of their articles, this is as it should be. --Loqi T. 02:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And where those prospective linked-to sites contain boatloads of speculative, uncited, unverified material, they hardly enhance the value of their articles, so not linking to them is as it should be. I'm hardly against the existence of Lost fan sites, but let's not pretend that they conform to Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, which, for all Wikipedia's flaws so far, are at least setting a higher bar, higher than rumors and speculation and unconfirmed factoids. The only exception I see that is allowed for in WP:External links is for an official website, even if that website is inaccurate. But that's not the case here; Lostpedia and other fan sites are ipso facto not official.
We're going round and round in this discussion, because some people here for some reason pressingly want to link to Lostpedia. But read the guidelines and policies, and it's clear that linking to a fan site is just not in keeping with them. It's not like we have a choice, given those guidelines; those are the current rules of the community that we're participating in. Hence, the survey is not useful. -- PKtm 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not "going round and round on this discussion," we are making progress. It seems to have shifted from 'no fan sites allowed' to 'Lostpedia sucks'. So let's examine what you just said. Wikipedia's standards apply to Wikipedia, not the rest of the world. Rumors, speculation, and uncorfirmed factoids have value, they just don't belong on Wikipedia. A reference to those unconfirmed factoids might well belong on Wikipedia, depending on the circumstances. The guidelines are just that: guidelines. They declare loose standards for most circumstances. They do not tie our hands in all cases, even when deviation is appropriate. That said, listing Lostpedia does not deviate from those guidelines. I direct your attention to two words in the middle of the sentence in question, "for example." These words mean that the example given in the second half of the sentence illustrates one possible specific case of the more abstract first half. That's why the second half of the sentence appears where it does, and not "where noted" in a line item listed below it. And, yes, PKtm, it is like we have a choice. Most of the rules of this community evolve from our participation in it. And our decision to deviate from Wikipedia norms in certain cases is also up to us, as editors of individual articles. --Loqi T. 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and here's a big difference between Lostpedia and wikipedia: Lostpedia actually has real infomation on the lost experience, and not just saying that "this happened", but actually showing the infomation.

Have you forgotten that Wikipedia allows this website?

What should be linked to

1. Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link. 2. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. 3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) 4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. 5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.


Links to be used occasionally

1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, one or two links to professional reviews. 2. A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories. 3. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. 4. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. 5. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.

I don't want a link to everything on lostpedia, just the exceptional Lost Experience part because it has details that totally exceeds anything that wikipedia currently has. I don't get why you are saying this one wiki is not allowed, while other Fan created wikis are! dposse 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course Lostpedia is different from Wikipeda! There's a big world out there. There's a place for cruft and unsupported theories, and it's not Wikipedia. Lostpedia's relationship to Wikipedia is roughly analagous to Wikipedia's reliationship to the New York Times. The Times would never cite Wikipedia as a source, but its reporters undoubtedly use Wikipedia to gather leads, and the Times has no trouble mentioning Wikipedia in articles. So why is the mere existence of Lostpedia a taboo subject for the Lost article? --Loqi T. 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been silent in this discussion because it's such a little detail and however the discussion turns out really isn't going to impact the overall quality of the article. Other issues we have here (i.e. the episode guide) are much more important. While I do oppose linkiing to fansites for the reasons PKtm and Leflyman have stated, I would like to offer a compromise. Instead of directly linking to a fansite, how about we link to Lost's page on the Open Directory Project. Open Directory by all means does fit the WP:EL criteria, so I see no reason why it can't be linked to, and also we will not be showing favoritism to a specific fansite because we won't be directly linking to one. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for attempting to find a reasonable middle ground on this overblown controversy, Jtrost. Your restraint in joining the fray is also admirable under the circumstances. While I do think a mention of the Open Directory Project would be worth its own weight, Lostpedia would be far more valuable to most readers. If we have to choose one or the other, Lostpedia wins with me. After all, how many of us use Open Directory as an aid to writing for the Lost article. By contrast, I suspect even the series writers have taken to using Lostpedia to research their own continuity issues. I know of nothing else out there with that level of detail. Playing favorites with facts is a necessary aspect of editing for quality. Good suggestion though. --Loqi T. 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I would like to compromise is because I believe many people participating in this discussion do not have a neutral point of view when it comes to Lostpedia. The majority of the supporters for adding a Lostpedia link are registered at Lostpedia: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
And it's very possible more people who support this are also registered at LostPedia under a different name. Now let's say that you guys do get your way and a Lostpedia link is added. Then what if a bunch of people from Lost Media, another big fansite, create Wikipedia accounts and start demanding a link to Lost Media be added? Then what if people from another website do the same thing? See where I'm going with this? We cannot bend Wikipedia policy because a bunch of fans from one website want their website added as an external link. However, the Lost fandom is undeniably strong, so I believe that there is merit to add those sites in there somehow, which is why I am highly recommending we add the Open Directory link and be done with this. Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to justify an attempt at compromise. It would be great if we can find a compromise that can satisfy most of us. Neutral POV applies to facts presented on an article, and not to a talk page about that article. If the concern is that Lost Media will want some of what Lostpedia's getting, the obvious response is that until Wikipedia's Lost editors (we) agree that Lost Media approaches Lostpedia in value to our readers, it doesn't fit. The fact that Lostpedia shares many users with Wikipedia is hardly a strike against Lostpedia. I don't agree that linking Lostpedia bends Wikipedia policy, and I certainly don't see that bending policy would not be appropriate in this particular case. I can accept an Open Directory link if the alternative is nothing at all, but really, the anti-Lostpeda editors have not made a convincing case as to why Lost should use standards different from all other television articles. --Loqi T. 19:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Lostpedia arguments

[edit]

Summary of Lostpedia arguments expressed in this discussion page from August 1 to August 13.

I'd like to try something new.

This discussion page seems to be dominated by controversy over whether to mention Lostpedia anywhere in the Lost article. It's quite a sprawling read for anyone trying to follow it. So I've taken the liberty and the trouble to concisely summarize the major points. Please fix any mistakes you perceive, and add comments of your own.

While it's been said that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is certainly not a stubborn-ocracy. I believe the principal reason that Lostpedia hasn't stuck is that it's slightly more offensive to obstinately re-restore a deleted item, than to obstinately re-delete the same. So if we're to avoid mentioning Lostpedia anywhere in Wikipedia, it should at least be a conscious decision on its own merits, not in deference to the most stubborn among us.

I have collected most of the arguments, both pro and con, as I understand them. I've tried my best to word them in a neutral point of view, and credit the ideas to the authors {in curly braces}. Everything signed by me indicates my personal views; not signed by me is an attempt to summarize someone else's comments. If I've mischaracterized or omitted anything major, please either edit the numbered argument, add an indented rebuttal comment, or add a new numbered argument. I believe this format can be productive in exposing the core issues of the controversy by putting them into a coherent structure. So, if you'd like to play along in this section, please try to stick to this format, be as brief as possible, and we'll see where it leads. And I truly hope I've not offended anyone by initiating this section or putting words in their keyboard. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to mercilessly edit this summary section. It seems to be getting a good reception for now, but it's already getting messy. Since it's an experiment in playing with fire, I'll go ahead be the librarian of this turf for a while. What I'll do is pro-actively adjust all the formatting for consistency, and transplant any comment that seems verbose or mis-filed to the next section below. Then I'll incorporate the ideas in the same way as when this section was first created. And as always, there's no offense intended to anyone, I just want to keep this experimental section orderly and concise - it's valuable because it's tightly packed. So if I didn't get you right, please fix my fixes - thank you for playing here.

And hey, if I hacked up your contribution and you want to explicitly approve, you can always make it official-like by adding your time stamp to the end of the curly-brace version, with or without adjusting the wording. That helps keep it all on track. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in favor of Lostpedia

[edit]

Arguments in favor of listing major fan sites (i.e. Lostpedia) in the Lost article, and rebuttals and supporting comments for each argument.

1. The Wikipedia Television Project style page says links to important fan sites may be included in articles about TV shows. {Jabrwocky7, Aug 11}

2. Lostpedia has notability outside Wikipedia, and therefore should be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. {Sloane, Aug 3}

  • Lostpedia was mentioned on TheFuselage.com by Damon Lidelof, one of the Lost creators. {Jambalaya, Aug 14}

3. Every major TV show with fandom should include websites created by the community they have gathered together. {GodEmperorOfHell, Aug 11}

4. Lostpedia is just as reliable as Wikipedia. Lostpedia clearly differentiates established fact from speculative material. {Jambalaya, Aug 12}

5. This entire controversy is over the inclusion of a single line, in a single article on Wikipedia. If a significant number of users want it, why not just include the thing? {Kaini, Aug 12}

6. The standard for whether a link is appropriate should be whether that link enhances the value of the article. If Lostpedia meets this standard, it should have a link. {Tomlouie, Aug 13}

7. Adding a link to Lostpedia and directing Lost fans there, it could keep Lost fancruft off the encyclopedia. -Dr Haggis - Talk 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against Lostpedia

[edit]

Arguments against linking or mentioning Lostpedia (or possibly any fan site whatsoever) in the Lost article, and rebuttals and supporting comments for each argument.

1. The Lost article has a clear policy against linking to fan sites. {Lumaga, Aug 3}

  • I can find no evidence to support this claim. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, please read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, where it clearly itemizes as one of those links to be avoided, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It doesn't use the word "fan site", but that's what a fan site is. Nothing wrong with that, but not for WP. -- PKtm 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over the past weeks, I have become something of an expert on WP:EL. There's a reason your favorite subsection is titled, "Links normally to be avoided," and not "Prohibited links." Now, if you'll please read the more applicable WP:TV#External_links, where it clearly states, "Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter." This passage does use the word 'fansite.' --Loqi T. 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Linking any fan site other than TheFuselage.com would open the door to every fan site out there to be listed. {LeflymanTalk, Aug 3}

3. Mentioning Lostpedia may violate Wikipedia policy requiring facts be verifiable and previously published in reliable sources. {PKtm, Aug 11}

  • The fact that Lostpedia exists cannot seriously be disputed. But if you want sources, Sloane notes that Business Week magazine wrote about Lostpedia, and Jabrwocky7 says it was a "site of the week" at Scifi.com. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because other publications/sites have referred to Lostpedia doesn't cover the needs of WP. PKtm 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact in question is the web address of Lostpedia, not every piece of data on Lostpedia. If the web address is correct, and current, it meets WP's standards for reliable information. --Loqi T. 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. The content of Lostpedia does not meet Wikipedia standards, and linking to it would damage Wikipedia's credibility. {PKtm, Aug 11}

  • Lostpedia's approach is more inclusive than Wikipedia's, making its content more complete, as well as less reliable. Merely mentioning the existence of Lostpedia in no way discredits Wikipedia. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct; I have no objection (per a proposal below) to mentioning the existence of many fancrufty sites for Lost lore. But linking to them? Not allowed per WP policy, which I support. -- PKtm 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't it be silly to mention the existence of such sites and not link to them? I also think it would fall under linking to "official sites". When writing about the subject "Lostpedia", one should link to the official Lostpedia site. --Sloane 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How's this for a proposed solution: "Mention Lostpedia, but don't link to it. Instead, explain exactly how to manually type its URL." --Loqi T. 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, a ludicrous and even offensive proposal, and one which seriously stretches the reader's ability to assume good faith in the back-and-forth of this discussion. -- PKtm 04:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an actual proposal. That's why it doesn't get a number. It is an actual joke. It's illustriating Sloane's more serious comment. You say you don't object to mentioning crufty websites, so long as they don't get actual links. What would this look like? --Loqi T. 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Lostpedia contains fancruft, theories, speculation, etc. Not all the verifiable fact is differentiated from the speculation. Wikipedia's policies and goals differ from Lostpedia's, and consequently the two sites are not the same. {PKtm, Aug 12}

6. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prohibit linking to sites that contain original research, factual inaccuracies, or unverified facts. {PKtm, Aug 12}

  • This conflates two issues: what's acceptable on Wikipeda; and which sites are eligible to be linked from Wikipedia. None of these rules say we can't mention the mere existence of a website. None of these rules say a site like Lostpedia is ineligible to be linked under any circumstances. And Wikipedia's guidelines apply to Wikipedia's content, not to the rest of the world. Surely there are times when its okay to acknowledge the existence of a notable website, no matter what its content. Furthermore, the vetting of a website constitutes original research of a sort. Perhaps those who take issue with Lostpedia's content should support their claims with reports published in reliable sources. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, please read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, where it clearly itemizes as one of those links to be avoided, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Just because that WP guideline document acknowledges that there can be exceptions (e.g., an official website) doesn't mean that Lostpedia and other Lost fansites are such. In fact, anything but. -- PKtm 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what do you think is a good example of the exceptions covered under "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included." ?--Sloane 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd note that the section you quote of WP:EL is controversial and oft-debated on the talk page. One talk page contributor there recently wrote, Fansites should probably be moved in the "not normally appropriate section" too ..., if only because in most cases, disputes arise as to which fansite(s) should be linked too. Circeus 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Another editor wrote, just today as a matter of fact, The main problem is always the same: when you tell them to limit the amount of fan sites/forums, they can never reach consensus, thus all of them are deleted. -- ReyBrujo 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC). -- PKtm 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it might be controversial but it is still there. And the lost article is guarded pretty closely so we can delete non notable sites if someone tries to slip them in. --Sloane 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, PKtm, despite the fact that I agree with you about factual inaccuracies on Lostpedia, let's split some hairs here. I challenge you to find a reliable source supporting your contention that Lostpedia contains factual inaccuracies. (Citing me doesn't count.) But seriously, by this line of reasoning, the article on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, shouldn't link to Science Creative Quarterly's humorous article cataloging evidence for the existence of the Monster. The outside links guidelines are not the last word on what belongs in the Lost article; we are. --Loqi T. 04:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's try to stay respectful, here, please, and not issue ludicrous challenges with outlandish examples. Finding sources on Lostpedia is not germane here, and you're well aware of that. Let's stay focused on the issues, not on posturing against the people who happen to espouse a viewpoint different from your own. And yes, guidelines matter; they define this community, as opposed to everyone making everything up on their own. If you differ with those guidelines, you should take it to the WP:EL talk page and argue for them to be changed.-- PKtm 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course that callenge is ludicrous. That's why it's worded like that. I never said guidelines don't matter. I said they're not the final word. We don't need to change the foundation in order to deviate from it in specific cases. How about this example instead: The Christianity article includes an external link to the Bible. The Bible contains tons of cruft, and there is more than one unsubstantiated claim. Referencing the Bible may be a technical deviation from WP:EL guidelines, but is clearly appropriate for an article on Christianity. In any case, no reasonable reader would interpret this as Wikipedia's endorsment of all the facts presented in the Bible. --Loqi T. 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

[edit]

Proposed solutions, and supporting or opposing comments on each proposal.

1. Do not link to, or mention Lostpedia, in the Lost article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. {The current default condition}

  • This seems like a patently absurd position. Lostpedia is a significant item of interest, as evidenced by this very discussion. Wikipedia mentions all sorts of bizarre social phenomena, as long as they're really there, and someone reliable has previously said so. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Add a line to the External Links section of the Lost article, mentioning Lostpedia, and linking to it, possibly with a disclaimer about its content. {The other current position, though attempts to implement it have been quickly reversed}

  • In my view, this is the most tenable solution. There seems to be a great deal of pressure to link to Lostpedia, and most of the objections I've seen would be reasonably addressed by including a disclaimer about what Lostpedia contains.--Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this also seems like the sanest position imo. i do not feel that lostpedia is worthy of an article, but it is definitely worth linking to. --Kaini 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Mention Lostpedia in the body of the Lost article, using business weekly, scifi.com as footnotes and then adding lostpedia to the external links. {Sloane, Aug 2} --Sloane 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Link only to the very detailed Lost Experience section of Lostpedia. {dposse, Aug 12}

5. Create an article about Lostpedia, and reference that page in the Lost article. {Jabrwocky7, Aug 11}

  • This seems reasonable to me, since Lostpedia is gaining notoriety in the outside world. Such an article could contain descriptions of how content is generated on Lostpedia, and allow readers to make up their minds about whether to visit. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC) On second thought, I think it's excessive, just to work around this controversy. I'd only support this if it's the only way. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm against this, Lostpedia has received enough media attention to be included in the lost article but not enough for a seperate article. The article would just comprise of stating the existence of lostpedia. --Sloane 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm against this (for the moment at least) — Wikipedia is not a directory, but just because it's not notable on its own doesn't mean it doesn't provide more valuable information for the reader. I'd go with the disclaimer idea mentioned above. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Create a section in the Lost article about participatory fan speculation. This section would not deal in actual theories, but would describe the social phenomenon of Lost fans and their web sites. {Tomlouie, Aug 13}

  • Conspicuously ignoring such social phenomena would be analagous to ignoring the existence of Trekkies in a Star Trek article. {User:Tomlouie, Aug 13}
  • This solution seems reasonable to me. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of this one (with #2 as second choice). I've drafted a section on Lost fandom that will hopefully do the trick. --Jajasoon 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the initiative, but it's implementing a solution before consensus has been reached. I've reverted it. If you want to talk about proposed language, let's do it here, rather than jump the gun by implementing it within the article as if this discussion doesn't matter. -- PKtm 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to put it out there as a model of what this option could be. I'm fine with not including the links (for the moment), but Lost fandom is totally relevant & should be non-controversial for this article, so I've restored it without the final sentence: "Notable fansites include LostPedia.com (modelled after Wikipedia, but including theories and parodies as well as verifiable information), Lost-Forum.com and TheTailSection.com, as well as officially-sanctioned site TheFuselage.com and discussion boards on websites for networks broadcasting the show around the world." --Jajasoon 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when do we need consensus to add a paragraph about Lost Dorks, PKtm? This discussion is about whether we can have a web link, not about whether we can talk about unusual fan behavior. Having seen Jajasoon's paragraph, I'm thinking this solution has a great deal of potential. But without a link to anything, how can anyone object on the basis of External Links policy? --Loqi T. 02:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Create a List of Lost fan websites article, or a website subsection in a Lost further reading article analogous to precedence of the Star Trek further reading article, which includes, among other things, fan-based wikis. --Santaduck 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Proposed Solutions area has an element of straw poll to it. But instead of focusing on counting heads, it's focused on range of opinion. That said, it's also nice to count heads, so please add your two cents to your favorite solutions, so we can see them gather a following. Let's see if a consensus emerges. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to include every position I found, even very similar ones. I probably made mistakes, so please edit any item that doesn't end with a signature timestamp to fix errors you see, especially if it's attributed to you. My attempt at consolidating the bare essence of the views was made in good faith, with every attempt at fairness and civility. If you find errors, please fix them in good faith and try to refrain from personal attacks. My hope is that one or two items will draw all the action, which will give us insights about where things should be heading. And please, say what needs to be said, but do try to be as brief as possible in your contributions to this section. Also, please add new items if they occur to you, but if you need to write a long paragraph, please add it to another section and then summarize it in this section. Brevity, clarity, and structure are key in this experimental section. Try it out. Maybe it'll go somewhere. --Loqi T. 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loqi T. - Thank you for your hard work and neutrality on this. --Jabrwocky7 19:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, we needed this summary as I don't think this debate won't be over until LostPedia has gotten its link on WP... --Jambalaya 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've made comment elsewhere regarding PKtm's repeated mis-quoting of the above line. One such instance might have been a mistake, but I've seen it at least twice. Please do not correct the grammar above. --Loqi T. 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original comments transplanted from Summary section

[edit]

These are comments that have been entered directly in the summary section, but have been refactored. The original wording of the comments has been preserved here, and their main points have been paraphrased into the appropriate line in the summary section. As always, if you've been mis-interpreted or anything like that, please fix the error, no harm intended. The reason for doing this is to keep the summary section structured and tight.

And hey, if you'd like to explicitly sign off on my editing down your prose, you can make it official by adding your time stamp to the end of the curly-brace version, with or without adjusting the wording. That helps keep us all on track. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two comments were entered at #6 In Favor:

6. I believe that a fan web site should be allowed into the text of an article ONLY if the inclusion of the fansite adds to the article significantly. Since Lostpedia was specifically mentioned in the "Business Week" piece "Network Finds Marketing Paradise with Lost", Lostpedia should be mentioned. I'm not comfortable with a blanket inclusion of any fan site should be allowed into any article or external link section. And certainly nor am I comfortable making a blanket exclusion policy either. I think that WP editors should reach consensus on a case-by-case basis. -- Tomlouie | talk 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just want add here that LP was mentioned by one of the creators (Damon Lidelof) on the offical site thefuselage.com in connection with The Lost Experience. However, I wasn't able to find that specific comment before commenting here (seems like thefuselage.com has hidden older replies from the VIPs?) --Jambalaya 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlouie's has been shortened as #6 In Favor; Jambalaya's has been shortened and moved to #2 In Favor, where it seems to fit better. If it were in the solutions area, I wouldn't dare move it. Please put it back if it belongs at #6, eh Jambalaya? --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was attached to #3 Solutions:

Perhaps a related proposal: create a section called Existence of Fan Speculation Web Sites. This section would be a meta-discussion about Lost fan web sites, not discussing actual unverifiable details. To explicitly ignore even the mention that popular fan created content exists would be similar to a Star Trek article explicitly not mentioning that Trekkies exist. Highly illogical. -- Tomlouie | talk 21:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it down as #6 Solutions. --Loqi T. 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-instatement of Lostpedia

[edit]

I personally think that Lostpedia should be re-instated as it allows the creators and editors to be more expressive with their articles and gives an expansive knowledge of LOST--Alvar Hanso 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansive knowledge or a giant repository of unencyclopedic fancruft? Lumaga 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giant repository of Expansive LOST knowledge! --Kevincroy 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LostPedia is just as trustworthy as Wikipedia itself. (And I don't want to discuss that statement for obvious reasons) --Jambalaya 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reinstatement?" Was there a time when Lostpedia was allowed by the gatekeepers of the Lost article? Encyclopedic or crufty, a "giant repository" of anything on-topic sounds like a candidate for a link. I suspect much of the Wikipedia article is sourced from Lostpedia. Why is the existence of Lostpedia such a dirty little secret? I'm new to this controversy, so if there's a history here, could someone please give a brief recap? --Loqi T. 20:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user MatthewFenton who is supporting keeping us off this site, is known as a vandal on Lostpedia, and was banned because of his vandalism both from Wikipedia and Lostpedia several times. I suggest there is an agenda on his behalf. --Plkrtn 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The slippery slope problem

[edit]

In this discussion, it's been said that fan sites cannot be included in the Lost article, because this would set up a slippery slope problem, putting the editors into the position of having to decide which fan sites are in and which are out. It's just more convenient to prohibit all fan sites and be done with it.

Trouble is, on Wikipedia every potential fact is subject to this same problem. There's no getting around editorial judgment.

If we simply exclude all fan sites from the Lost article, we haven't rescued ourselves from the slippery slope problem; we've only pushed ourselves one level uphill. That is, we're now in the position of deciding which sites are to be designated as fan sites.

For example, consider the Lost (TV series) article. This article contains at least two prominent links to sites that might plausibly be called fan sites: John Fischer's Lost filming locations search, and LostVirtualTour.com. Differentiating between fan sites and non-fan sites requires editorial judgment, which brings us back to our slippery slope.

There's no getting away from our ongoing editorial judgment as the final determinant of what belongs in a particular article at a particular time. That's just how Wikipedia functions. --Loqi T. 07:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still not sure why there is such an obsessive need to insert a particular fansite when the editorial consensus is that it's not necessary. This "slippery slope" discussion appears to me to be a strawman argument. The difference with the examples you've listed is that they are discussed in the context of a particular section, in this case dealing with shooting locations. A link to a fan Wiki site does not offer any particular benefit over what Wikipedia itself offers.--LeflymanTalk 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I'm not convinced that any consensus has been reached. If you have evidence, I'd like to see it, otherwise I draw very different conclusions from the controversy on this page. A strawman argument requires misrepresentation of a position. The slippery slope problem has been invoked as a rationale for excluding fan sites, and has also been alleged to be the main point of consensus against such links.
In several comments on this page, PKtm has used the exact phrase "slippery slope" in the context of excluding fan sites, including this August 19 comment claiming prior consensus on the issue of linking to fan sites, "... [consensus has been established], to the appropriate conclusion that listing fan sites was a slippery slope and thus to be avoided." On August 3, Jtrost writes, "... adding a link to such sites in the main article seems to demonstrate favoritism, and would open the door to inclusion of every other active Lost fan site, ..." And on August 20, Jtrost says "... Then what if a bunch of people from Lost Media, another big fansite, create Wikipedia accounts and start demanding a link to Lost Media be added? Then what if people from another website do the same thing? See where I'm going with this? ..." Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me.
You say that a fan Wiki offers no benefit over Wikipeda. But on August 12 PKtm writes, "... It's pretty obvious that the two sites have very different goals, norms, guidelines, etc., and thus very different results." This was in the context of why Lostpedia should not be linked, but PKtm said it, not me.
Why is it that pushing to include an item is obsessive, but actively preventing its inclusion is not equally obsessive? We now have a new section addressing fandom, which seems like an ideal context for a particular fan site (or even two). --Loqi T. 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The following are other TV articles that have links to unofficial fansites: X-Files, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Futurama, South Park, Angel (TV series), Desperate Housewives, Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, The Office (US TV series), The Simpsons, Saturday Night Live... need I continue? In fact, I could not find one single article of a TV show with a significant fan community that does not link to fansites - except Lost. So I believe that either the small number of editors who are vocally resisting (and reverting) inclusion of fansite here either must radically overhaul all of Wikipedia's treatment of television programs, or must justify what makes Lost unique to warrant this exception to precedent. The burden of proof should be on those arguing against the norm, and the norm is clearly to link to fansites. --Jajasoon 03:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am in total agreement with Jajasoon on this. Earlier, when I pointed out some TV articles with external links, Sloane removed the Prisoner Appreciation Society from the Prisoner article! I put it back, but didn't have enough knowledge about the others to differentiate what belonged in the respective articles. Fan activity is a significant fact that often deserves mention in connection with various pieces of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loqi T. (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 August 2006
Have you read Wikipedia's policy about external links? Links to fan sites are not acceptable. Mushroom (Talk) 17:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." It never says that fan sits are not acceptable. And the TV project page says that a few fansite links are appropriate. And the clear precedent is toward inclusion, as every other TV show page attests to. --Jajasoon 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mushroom: So would you would kindly explain why the Futurama article got three links to fan sites and two of them are links to fan wikis? --Jambalaya 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i have to agree, but with caveats; if wiki policies were properly enforced, there would be one or two links to fansites on the aforementioned articles. the status quo at present seems to be that there are a clique of editors patrolling this article who make it their business to remove any reference to lostpedia.
i would love to hear some justification for this. as regards the format that articles regarding popular television series follow, the lost article seems to be an exception at present. --Kaini 04:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fandom

[edit]

Everyone happy with jajasoon's new section? --Sloane 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's well-written and neutral; and an appropriate content addition. I would suggest however that the references be brought in line with the new "{{cite news}}" format for footnoting used elsewhere in the article.--LeflymanTalk 08:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Nice work. -- Wikipedical 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the initiative, Jajasoon. Good Thing. --Loqi T. 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, agreed, and I left jajasoon a note to that effect as soon as I saw it. The section is completely appropriate to the Lost article, in that it covers the fandom phenomenon, and does so without going down that slippery slope of supplying links to questionable material. -- PKtm 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it hurt that bad to put something like "One of the more notable fansites has been LostPedia, a wiki styled encyclopedia about Lost, detailing the show's storyline, The Lost Experience and gathering fan theories. [9] [10]" in it?
    • For all the reasons previously stated, pertaining to Wikipedia tenets and guidelines, which I won't reiterate here, I'm opposed to doing that. As are numerous other long-standing editors of this page. -- PKtm 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to come off as too confrontational here, but I'd like to hear form some of those numerous editors on this. If we're to take the extraordinary step of talking about a subject, and citing reliable sources also talking about that subject, while carefully avoiding giving a particular example, we should have a preponderance of support for such a conscious omission. --Loqi T. 06:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When people say "putting in a link" to a fansite, do you mean an inline link like this, or
      1. a bulleted link like this
I would think that a bulleted link would seem more of an inapropriate endorsement, whereas an inline link would be more easily justified based on its merits to the article. -- Tomlouie | talk 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured an inline link. To reiterate, the sentence I'd proposed was: "Notable fansites include LostPedia.com (modelled after Wikipedia, but including theories and parodies as well as verifiable information), Lost-Forum.com and TheTailSection.com, as well as officially-sanctioned site TheFuselage.com and discussion boards on websites for networks broadcasting the show around the world." --Jajasoon 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inline links would be a good solution. Also, lost-media.com would be another notable site to have in the list. --Jabrwocky7 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lost-media.com and lost-forum.com are actually both part of the same site. Mentioning one is sufficient. --Jajasoon 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not in favour of such a claim of "notable fansites" -- what is the metric being used? This appears to be an attempt to bypass the earlier discussion about inclusion of fansites in the article, of which I have already stated my objections. --LeflymanTalk 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. Which is why I objected to the straw poll having people vote on including a site just because it's supposedly notable. Aside from notability being falsely presented as a sole criterion, this conjures up a future world where (once the door is open) new fan sites would keep getting added. We're already seeing suggestions above to that effect: lost-media.com is notable too, etc. Let's stick with thefuselage.com. -- PKtm 23:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WEB for the accepted guidelines and metrics for web notability. Lostpedia for example easily meets the criteria for #3. --Jabrwocky7 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will say it once again: notability is necessary but not sufficient.' -- PKtm 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS does not apply in this situation since we are not attempting to use Lostpedia.com as a citation or reference. Please see WP:WEB and WP:EL for guidelines on external links. - 06:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A "slippery slope" argument seems to have little merit here. Lostpedia is so singularly relevant that it has ignited this concerted pressure to include it. The operative metric is our human judgment as editors. I seriously doubt that Bob and Mary's Greater Des Moines Lost-porium will make it past all of us for long. While nearly every door to Wikipedia is open, the articles are actively patrolled by bouncers. For example, the Lost Mythology section includes the Dharma Initiative and The Others, but not Jack's father's alcoholism. Why not excercise the same judgement when it comes to linking? --Loqi T. 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and that same kind of judgment is currently having to be continually exercised by vigilant editors just to stop the recurring insertion of an alternative spelling of Ana Lucia's name. I feel that it has equally "little merit" to summarily dismiss the slippery slope arguments, because it's clear from the page histories just how much I and other Lost editors spend our time reverting nonsense. -- PKtm 02:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That nonsense is from casual users who don't respect editorial consensus. We can carefully craft any standards we want, but we'll still have to patroll. That's one of the many joys of Wikipedia. --Loqi T. 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone tried putting a link to the Lostpedia article as a "see also" under the Fandom section. This seems pretty appropriate, and I think it's a logical alternative to putting it at the bottom or in the Navbox. I'm saying this because the discussion above, about the Fandom section in particular, seems to have taken place before there was a Lostpedia article. I know, there's a consensus -- I'm not disputing that, just adding my thoughts in an attempt to change the consensus. Tulane97 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me why all of the arguments against Lostpedia do not also apply to the multiple unofficial print guides that are mentioned in the fandom section? Tulane97 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered arguments

[edit]

Over the past months, there have been a number of arguments put forward in this discussion that have simply been ignored. I'd like to hear them answered in an intelligent way. I've collected them here, for convenience. Please reply if you have an answer. --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There have been many mentions of past editorial consensus against the Lost article linking, or even mentioning, any fansite not owned by ABC. No-one has offered evidence of such consensus ever being reached. Please cite some kind of record to support such a claim of consensus. --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if consensus had been reached in the past, it's clearly not current today. Why is such past consensus still cited in the face of such obvious controversy? --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other articles about media with fans include links to fan sites. I am unable to find a single Wikipedia article about a popular television show, film, or Shakespeare play that does not contain external links to fan sites. Please explain why Lost should depart from this norm. --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's insistence on verifiable facts and credible sources applies to Wikipedia, not the rest of the world. Mentioning or linking a website does not constitute an endorsement of that website's content. Such a fact is true and verifiable if it can be demonstrated that the website really does exist on your favorite DNS server. For example, today's featured article on the band Nirvana includes twelve external links at the bottom of the article. Of those, only one is to a site that I might consider a credible source (Rolling Stone Magazine). Please explain the novel interpretation that only sites that qualify for citation as sources are eligible for external links in any context. --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioning a non-ABC-owned fansite does not open the floodgates. We can use our editorial judgment to decide which sites are most valuable to our readers. We don't have to choose between zero and infinite. Why can't we exercise the same judgment in choosing fan sites that we do in choosing other statements of fact? --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing for an item's inclusion is no more obsessive than engaging in a one-sided edit war to exclude it. Why is it that a small number of editors has taken to reflexively deleting mention of fan sites contributed by dozens or hundreds of users? (Please don't make me dig through all those history pages to support this assertion.) --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is currently no consensus for either including or excluding mention of certain kinds of websites in the Lost article. Discussion on this topic seems to have settled down. The most recent straw poll (above) indicates 100% opposition to exclusion of "non-official" sites, and 100% support for inclusion of links to "notable" external sites.

The Lost article is participating in WikiProject Television. That WikiProject says, "Linking to one or two (at the most) major fansites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter." The Lost article contains a section on Fandom, which talks about the existence of websites devoted to fan speculation, story analysis, and parody works, but mentions no such website. The Lost article would benefit by a reference to one or two of the best examples of this phenomenon.

So, here are some very direct, explicit proposals for your consideration. --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #1

[edit]

I propose that the heading "Notable fan sites", or a similarly worded heading, be added to the "External links" section of the Lost article. This heading may list up to two external links deemed by editors to be of the most notable (two or fewer) fan sites at any given time. --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures in support of proposal #1

[edit]

Signatures in opposition to proposal #1

[edit]

Proposal #2

[edit]

In the event the heading described in proposal #1 is accepted, I propose that the Lostpedia be listed under that new heading, until it is no longer among the most notable two fan sites. --Loqi T. 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures in support of proposal #2

[edit]

Signatures in opposition to proposal #2

[edit]

Discussion on both proposals

[edit]

Here we go again, it appears. We've discussed all the major points since at least the beginning of August, and efforts at compromise have not been accepted. My suggestion at this point, although I must admit I think it's a waste of everyone's time, is that you try to put this up for mediation, because we're not going to come to agreement because of yet another vote, which you've tried before. Personally, I won't participate in a vote that relates to something that is completely antithetical to Wikipedia's tenets and philosophy; it's pointless, because the outcome doesn't matter. We're not going to overturn the WP:EL prohibition on including spam links, and we already have one link to an official fan site (thefuselage.com). Again, I can't imagine why you are pounding so repeatedly on this topic (over 20 posts in a single day back in August). I'll repeat just one of my remarks from the lengthy (months-long) discussion above: Once again, please read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, where it clearly itemizes as one of those links to be avoided, "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Just because that WP guideline document acknowledges that there can be exceptions (e.g., an official website) doesn't mean that Lostpedia and other Lost fansites are such. -- PKtm 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution PKtm, but your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is not shared by everyone, as seen in the long discussion on this page. I'm sorry if you're offended by this, but I'd like to know whether these very specific proposals have broad support. --Loqi T. 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support which will certainly be skewed by fourteen users on whose talk page you've already posted messages tonight asking for them to weigh in here. The group you chose was of course selected for their previous stance favoring this issue. You did not leave a message for Jtrost, or Leflyman, or myself, or others who have opposed it. So "broad" support will not exactly be determined here. -- PKtm 04:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to participants in the earlier straw poll. The results of that poll were unanimous, so of course it's mostly supportive users. I have since written to Jtrost and Leflyman. You are free to invite participation by anyone you care to. --Loqi T. 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is considered highly inappropriate on Wikipedia to lobby pro or con for polls you've created, which you apparently have done multiple times. Further, what has been presented is an extremely confusing and non-standard opinion poll. I would highly suggest that if you intend to get actual responses, it be rewritten to some standard survey format. But I'd further suggest that this subject has been discussed ad nauseum, and that continuing the attempts to promote Lostpedia will just polarise the editors further. Please move on to something else. In short, I do not support any of the "proposals" above. See Polling is Evil and Discuss, don't vote. --LeflymanTalk 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that "move on to something else," doesn't mean, "I don't agree with you, so we'll do it my way." I would say that stubborn-ocracy is even more evil than polling. --Loqi T. 05:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. OK, let's talk about the evils of lobbying, not polling, then. Contrary to your claim of trying to gauge if there's "broad support", I'd mention the following factoid: of the fourteen people you solicited tonight prior to my pointing out that you were doing so, only two have more than one Lost-related edit since September 1. For easy checking, here's the list, with links to their contribution histories: Cbuckley (5), Santaduck (0), Captain Insano (0), Nickb123 II (0), Kaini (0), Jambalaya (1), GodEmperorOfHell (0), KevinCroy (0), Iron Chef (0 -- but his user page declares "Demand the Lostpedia page be recreated!"), Sergeant Bolt (hundreds), Dposse (0), Jabrwocky7 (0), Ntfletch (0)
So only Sergeant Bolt has been a strong contributor here, and I suspect you won't have his support. In fact, of the rest, many of their sole Lost-related contributions ever to Wikipedia relate to trying to get a Lostpedia link here. If you really wanted to gauge if there was broad support for these ideas, you might have tried posting on the pages of the most frequent contributors to Lost pages, a list that would have been pretty easy to compile. But you didn't. So it seems clear that there's an agenda at play here, as I've pointed out before. You've made several dozen talk page edits on this one topic today, and hundreds over the last three months. This level of effort on your part to pursue a Lostpedia link goes beyond simply arguing strongly for something that will improve Wikipedia. So no, this campaign hasn't worked. You simply don't have the support of long-standing editors here, and yes, that matters, and no amount of lobbying of various non-participants here will change that. As Leflyman suggests, and with all due respect, it's time to move on. -- PKtm 06:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I'm not going to support you in this, Loqi T. There's only one official fansite, and that is The Fuselage. To have any more is unnecessary and inappropriate. Like PKtm says, kindly just move on, please. SergeantBolt (t,c) 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lostpedia aside, I do think it would be useful providing links to one or two fansites, including to some of the "fannish" information at the ABC website. For example, the ABC website itself has a wiki for collecting information about each episode. I think it would make sense to include links to the wiki pages about separate episodes, from the respective locations here on Wikipedia. They would meet Wikipedia guidelines for an external link, and I don't think they would be excessive. For example, from A Tale of Two Cities (Lost), we could provide a link to The ABC Wiki page. This would be useful, it would be to an appropriate location, plus it would give a sort of "steam valve" release which might prevent the collection of trivia that we continually have to deal with -- it could divert users who feel that Wikipedia is the only place where they can post their favorite speculation, and give them someplace else to post it. --Elonka 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that we do not link to fansites directly because that would encourage linkspam. Like I have said before, I think a fair compromise is linking to the open directory, which lists fansites. Then we can leave it to the viewers to decide what fansites they believe are notable and worthwhile instead of forcing our opinion on them. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with only allowing sites controlled by the ABC network is that then all of the links we provide are advertisements on behalf of a for-profit corporation. By doing this, we are giving special consideration to a commercial interest, while passing over sites that are arguably more valuable to our readers. If we are to only link to fansites through Open Directory, then I would suggest that most of the ABC marketing sites should be similarly relegated to be actively sought out by Wikipedia readers. --Loqi T. 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lost is a for-profit enterprise. All network television shows in the US exist to sell advertising. We link to ABC's site because they are the original broadcaster of the series-- the closest to official source; not to "give special consideration to a commercial interest." We likewise have the The Fuselage listed, which is "The Official Site of the Creative Team Behind LOST". If another site comes along with such a claim, we'd likely list it. I have nothing against Lostpedia-- it's a growing and popular site-- but it's basically an expansion of Wikipedia, rife with speculation, adding nothing to what we already have here. There are countless other such nice sites, but we're not to play favorites and promote certain fansites just because their users really, really want a link on Wikipedia.--LeflymanTalk 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a simple answer here “NO” – We should not spam the readers of this article, especially not have to make them read “Lostpedia” – which In my experience is patent nonsense and them themselves are for profit (Just look at all those adverts they chuck in your face, disgusting isn’t it? – We also should not be endorsing websites that infringe on copyrights)
I’d also like to point out that: Captain Insano, Nickb123 II, Jabrwocky7 are SysOps and “Lostpedia” and that KevinCroy is its owner, I also would not be surprised if the other users where directed here or are what is called a “Fanboy”.
"Linking to one or two (at the most) major fan sites is allowed, but keep it limited to those that really do matter."
As is said “Those that really do matter.” – Lostpedia has nothing relevant to the article except offering misleading information with added cruft. The only link I would ever support is to the Lostwiki, which is obviously going to be far superior and cruft free.
This message in a nutshell: Spam should not be in this article, especially not to "Lostpedia", period. (PS: You running you "Poll" does not equate to consensus nor does it mean that spam would be okay.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ABC's "official" (read "controlled by the corporation") fan sites are an attempt to monopolize the discussion about the show. A cursory side-by-side comparison of Lostpedia* with Lost Wiki: Home of ABC's Lost Fan Community - ABC.com - Official Lost wiki reveals that the ABC-owned site is covered with animated graphical ads intespersed throughout the content, while Lostpedia's ads are Google-style muted text at the bottom. The ABC site features an on-line store, where you can get all your Lost coffee mug and t-shirt needs met, while Lostpedia has no such sales pitches. I'm sorry, but if the network's domesticated "fan community" wants to exclude Lostpedia from our external links, it's going to have to do more than merely be owned by ABC. --Loqi T. 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
( * Leflyman has thoughtfully removed the link to Lostpedia from this paragraph on the grounds that it is a form of spam. For the convenience of readers who care to compare the two sites mentioned, the URL of Lostpedia is "http (colon) //www (period) lostpedia (period) com", which can be manually typed into a web browser's navigation bar. Lostpedia can also be be found somewhere in this clickable list of websites. I apologize for linking to Lostpedia on this talk page. --Loqi T. 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Actually, I was forced to remove the links because at the time "lostpedia.com" was listed on the Wikipedia ban list-- and while the URL was here, it prevented this page from being edited.--LeflymanTalk 08:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, when did I become a sysops?--Captain Insano 18:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that User:MatthewFenton who requested the speedy delete to the Lostpedia article today is also a regular editor of the Memory Alpha article. Double standards? --Plkrtn 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand what the difference in notability of the Memory Alpha is with Lostpedia. I'd be interested in MatthewFenton's explanation in this discussion. At any rate, as stated before:
    1. Policy regarding fansites in the Lost article is inconsistent with other shows/media: Star Trek, X-Files, Battlestar Galactica, The Prisoner, etc. It's like the Law: do we follow precedence, or statute? There are competing camps for both all across WP. For the record I support the addition of limted # of fansites to these articles.
    2. An alternative to listing fansites in the article is to create an article for fan content, following the example of Star Trek Further Reading or Portal:Star Trek. I would support this as well in the case of Lost.
Santaduck 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god, we need a Lostpedia Article. I am just one voice in the revolution! Vivi la Pedia! --Iron Chef 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tenacity of the Lostpedia advocates on this issue is simply remarkable. For those who haven't seen it, see the discussion posted today at policy village pump. -- PKtm 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify a bit (i hope): tenacity should not be an issue in this debate really, and that's not why i posted on the pump... i think that essentially the fansite policy should be clarified beyond informal. however, this is related (as are jimbo's comments on the lost wikia [11]), so all participants in this neverending debate should be aware of both. --Kaini 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm afraid I am completely unconvinced that the lost.wikia.com user you cite is actually the same Jimmy Wales who founded and runs Wikipedia. Take a look at his lost.wikia.com user page here. Other than the name, there's little information that would lead me to that conclusion. I somehow doubt that the real Jimmy Wales has a lot of time to delve into this content dispute or to spend time "away from his insane work schedule" (sic) contributing speculation on whether Ethan Rom is a member of the Dharma initiative. Of course, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... well, it would bring the concept of "tenacity" into a whole new dimension, wouldn't it? -- PKtm 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a valid point, which i hadn't considered. nevertheless, i think that an attitude of wait and see regarding the village pump discussionis the best one to adopt for now, because the attitudes of unbiased wikipedians (unlike you or i) are the best indicator of opinion, in my opinion. although to be frank, jimbo's post on wikia was rather similar to the style of writing 'real' jimmy has on wiki (a completely unverifiable opinion) --Kaini 05:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem believing that Jimbo is editing on the Wikia site -- it's his commercial venture, an outgrowth from WP, after all. However, what discussion goes on policy-wise on a Wikia talk page and what is the actual consensus of the editors on this article are two different things. Jimbo's opinion is certainly welcomed, as a general opinion like those of any other editor -- but so far as I can tell, he's not actively involved on the Lost articles here. I would suspect that if the generally held consensus of editors on any particular pages were "over-ruled" by dictate from above, there would be a fair number of unhappy editors. I, for one, find the lobbying of Jimmy Wales for inclusion of Lostpedia to be rather distasteful.--LeflymanTalk 06:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Wikiasite:Lost:User:Jimbo Wales is the same as User:Jimbo Wales. Angela. 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Jimbo Wales at Lostpedia, I myself had doubts that this account truly belonged to him and so I e-mailed him with contact information off of his wikipedia user page. He replied and confirmed that it was him. If you don't believe me you'll need to ask Jimbo or Angela to confirm. --Jabrwocky7 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venom

[edit]

This section is a continuation of a thread that began in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)

In Leflyman's comment under my recommendation on the main page, he seems to be insinuating that I am some sort of meat puppet. I've reproduced the entire comment here, because I feel I must address it more fully. --Loqi T. 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't buy Loqi's sudden "influenced my evaluation" contention, as he's been campaigning for inclusion of Lostpedia in any way shape or form for over three months. The entire discussion at Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites was an outgrowth of his repeated promotion and forum shopping for a link to the site. Only two days ago, he went back to delete the excessive canvassing for his proposal which he had spammed 20 user pages with. The very first edit he made on August 8 was to push a Lostpedia link. He's even been commended by Lostpedia's owner for his "passion" in promoting the site. He attempts to imply that he's participated in other AfD discussions, when this is actually the only one in which he's ever been involved. (Oh, and incidentally, the place to put such a revised "Keep" comment is at one's original discussion above, not as a seemingly new "closing" recommendation.)--LeflymanTalk 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been asking for inclusion of Lostpedia "in any way shape or form". I have been asking for a simple Lostpedia link in the Lost article. All these months, I have been explicitly not asking for a Lostpedia page, until a few days ago, when the primary initiator of deletion proceedings changed his mind on the issue.

I was perfectly happy anonymously [12] editing [13] Wikipedia, until the trouble at the Lost article motivated me to create an account. So naturally, my first edit was on the topic. What Leflyman probably didn't notice was that my next significant contribution was to drastically improve [14] the Ruben Cantu article. The link Leflyman provides to my first edit (while logged in) is emblematic of why this trouble has lasted as long as it has. The question in that posting, roughly, why the novel interpretation of WP:EL in the Lost article?, has met with nothing but evasions and abuse in all my attempts to get an answer.

I am not a puppet—meat, sock, or otherwise. All I want is an answer to my "very first" question. To quote another active participant in this AfD, "This is not good behavior on Wikipedia, folks." --Loqi T. 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is almost becoming a parody of an AfD discussion! how in the world can a change of vote by a vehemently anti-inclusion of lostpedia user with a history of productive edits be construed as meatpuppetry by someone who has been pro-inclusion throughout the debate, bar by l33t h4x0r1ng? this whole discussion has somewhat descended into bathos. also, how can a compliment on a user's talk page for their passion in enforcing their interpretation of a wiki policy be interpreted as being underhanded in some way? the fact that loqi t hasn't participated in any other AfDs is moot; wiki users should not be accused of underhanded behaviour because they feel passionately about something. this whole branch of the debate is utterly ridiculous imo. i see no meatpuppetry here. --Kaini 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't understand what this new section is about. A read of the worthwhile essay Wikipedia:Beware_of_the_tigers would seem to be appropriate. Please further note that nowhere in anything I've written has there been an accusation of Loqi of being a puppet -- this appears to be his own reading. I have stated, as he has acknowledged, that he has campaigned for inclusion of a Lostpedia link for the last three months. He's not been merely passionate about seeing Lostpedia here, he's been seemingly single-minded in that pursuit, and has been repeatedly asked to tone down the level of rhetoric when responding to others who do not share his interpretation of policy-- In comments on his talk page, he has posted that he wanted a "few knuckleheads to get a clue" which he later replaced with "scurvy scamps... share my view".--LeflymanTalk 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've reverted the edits to prior comments; it's considered bad form to edit comments after they've been responded to, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, "Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."--LeflymanTalk 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
apologies; the mere mention of meatpuppetry somewhat annoyed me (regardless of who it was mentioned by), and i should have cooled down before posting. happily restored and struck through. --04:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank-you for clarifying what you meant with those words, Leflyman. (I mean that sincerely.) And I will read that essay. Now, If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this conversation in the Lost/Fansite venue's new section. --Loqi T. 04:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leflyman. Not anyone else. Leflyman

[edit]

I hope we can now continue the same discussion that I initiated here three months back. But without the venom of the past. All I want is an answer about WP:EL. What's up with the novel interpretation? I don't need consistency; true judgment can lead to inconsistency. I just want to know where's the decision of the past. Give me anything and I can go away happy. --Loqi T.

  • First, I find the characterisation of my comments as "venom" as being inappropriate and contrary to positive discussions; I again ask you to tone down such rhetoric.
Second, as I stated far above, by consensus of the editors a year ago, the links in the article were reduced to those from official sources and sponsored web sites. This is entirely in keeping with WIkipedia policy, and such is at the discretion of the editorial consensus of any particular article. Again, I refer to the lengthy discussions, with some additional historical context, which Loqi was naturally not around for. Thus, a review:
Up to September 21, 2005, this is how the article looked -- with an extensive and indiscriminate list of fannish sites under "External links". A major revision of the article was undertaken by User:K1Bond007 and, most notably, User:Baryonyx, beginning on September 19. Based on his recommendation, a draft version was edited, which removed all fansite links, and became the official version a few days later.
Afterwards, external linking was discussed multiple times, when anonymous users kept inserting their favorite fan sites, and wanting to know why they were removed:
It may be of surprise to some readers, but when the issue was brought up in April 2006, I responded with the possibility of considering Lostpedia or the Lost Wikia for inclusion: Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive07#Fansites.. However, at the point that Loqi (then using the name "Loki") first appeared in June, it was still the editorial consensus that "We do not list fansites on this article." (As succinctly put by Jtrost).
In July, Sloane again tested the waters for inclusion of fansites, and was promptly advised of the article's standards by multiple editors:
WP:EL does not permit two fansites. In rare cases, it allows one fansite. Just because other articles do not adhere to the external links policy does not excuse this one. --Yamla 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of looking at this is what credible, encyclopedic information do these fansites offer that Wikipedia does not. As far as I can tell they don't. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to entirely agree with Jtrost. This discussion has also occured recently at Talk:Lost_Experience#Lost Experience at Lostpedia.. As I've said in the other discussion, Lostpedia and the theories in its articles present a problem when it comes to original research and verifiablity. While we are specifically debating whether Lostpedia counts as a 'fansite,' as Jtrost said, we have to take into account whether its information is relavent to an encyclopedia. -- Wikipedical 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<snip>
Then really, LostPedia adds nothing of value to this article's content since the extra information is crufty and superfluous. Lumaga 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, on a more personal note: Loqi (and for that matter, Sloane) what I'd really wish would be that rather than spending so much time and energy insisting that all the editors who had been working on the Lost article were wrong-- and becoming antagonistic when such long-standing Wikipedians disagreed with you, that you had instead applied the same level of drive and determination towards improving the actual article, and its associated siblings. Rather, this ongoing three-month-long debate about linking to Lostpedia has been a drain over an extremely unimportant matter in the grand scheme of this things. I, for one, am so enervated by this constant repetition, that I am finding it extremely difficult to rouse any more enthusiasm to edit Lost articles further. If that was the ultimate aim of all this, then it has been a success. --LeflymanTalk 08:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original purpose was to get lostpedia mentioned on Wikipedia in some way, be it via the Lost article, or through its own article, both of which it deserves for being a very notable site. However, as there seems to be a clique of editors who work together on the LOST page, keeping it very much to themselves for their personal gratification, it was taken into a general argument about the over-zealous egotistical and maniacal self editing of pages for the gratification of the individual editors, such as yourself rather than for the betterment of the wiki. --217.65.158.118 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your reply, Leflyman, and will go into the depths of the links in it. I understand there are hard feelings around here, and it can sometimes be a stretch to elevate the discussion, but if you want to take credit for all the venom of the past, all I can say is that appears to be your own reading. (That's about all the venom I can muster at this point.)

The alternate spelling of my name was because I hadn't intended to pursue this discussion, so I used the more common spelling. Nothing dodgy, in case anyone was wondering.

Thank you for doing all that research, Leflyman. You really went above and beyond my needs. I will study all the links you provided. While I'm at the library, I would appreciate if spectators would try to refrain from following the lead of our anonymous friend above. --Loqi T. 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loqi, thank you for your thoughtful reply; I truly appreciate your willingness to review those links, because I provided them with the hope they would more fully explain my and other editors' positions. There was no intended implication that your use of "Loki" was at all dodgy, but that it wasn't a registered account name at the time. Regarding my reading of "venom": I was responding to your heading "Venom" above, under which you copied my comments from the Lostpedia AfD; and then, the repetition of the statement in this section, under "Leflyman. Not anyone else. Leflyman". That seemed pretty clearly to have been aimed at me.--LeflymanTalk 03:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright all you spectators, I'll be writing something here after I understand what's going on with all those references. In the meantime, in case you don't know your way around this place, allow me to direct you to the amicable resolution that's played out on our personal talk pages: An open letter to Leflyman from Loqi. --Loqi T. 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leflyman, I'm stuck. I've read through what you've given me, but I can't seem to find something that looks like consensus forming. Everything I've found seems to be controversy all the way through. Am I missing something in there? The closest I can get is Jtrost's 2 May 2006 reply to my own question, (the one you cited above that I asked as Loki from an IP address). ( Item #2 here. ) But then the trail goes cold.

This seems like a direct and specific statement by Jtrost, which seems to be founded on some knowledge that I can't quite locate. If you prefer, I can write to him directly and ask him what he meant. But if you happen to know something I'm missing, it'd get me rolling again. Please help me if you can. --Loqi T. 04:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I mean by controversy all the way through. In the short list of links you provided me, this is what I found.

  • External Links - This has Baryonyx giving completely inaccurate (in my view) information to a couple of IP comments. The anonymous users quote this disclamer one of them found, "Note: the links in this section are meant only to be either network sites or official "Lost" sites, and as such must be able to be sourced to producers, ABC, Touchstone, or Disney. All websites posted here will be examined via Whois and for production copyright. Any site without official status will be removed." They then ask for a justification. The answer given is a reference to the advisory guideline Reliable Sources. They're not even asking about citing sources, they're asking about linking to websites. Nonetheless, that's the answer they're sent away with.
  • External links are not sources - Disclaimer - This selection contains a dispute along the lines of, "If IMDB is not a fansite then why is TV IV considered a fansite." (See the slippery slope section above, for a treatment on just this sort of dispute over what constitutes a fan site.) A 3-Jan-06 comment from Jacoplane says, "So, I would propose that this disclaimer be removed from the article, since it does not reflect Wikipedia policy at all." Baryonyx's reply contains, "As for removing the disclaimer, its not going anywhere." It doesn't say where it came from or why it would not be appropriate to modify it.
  • Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive06#Fan_sites.21 - On 10-Feb-06 Baryonyx writes, "In a nutshell, fansites are not acceptable sources nor can they be listed without risking being seen as playing favorites and resulting a links section dozens of links long. Further, Wikipedia is not the place for Lost theorizing, since it is, after all Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and not Wikifansite, the free fansite." LegalSwoop replies with, "I disagree with not listing quality fan sites. ... Wikipedia is not endorsing all the content as factual." and "[The] best, most notable sites should be listed." And then Jtrost comes in with, "Please review WP:EL. Use the criteria on that page to determine if a fansite is notable." This seems pretty controversial to me. And here Jtrost seem to be implying that sites that meet WP:EL can be considered for linking. Or maybe he's talking about "a fansite" in the abstract to mean any fan site.

In any case, it doesn't seem settled to me, and seems to come back to choosing between zero and too many external links. These justifications seem to be reaching for some kind of rule that can substitute for editorial judgment, so we don't have to justify our choices to everybody who wants their favorite site listed. And none of them actually say when or how such a decision was ever arrived at.

Loqi T. 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, anyone?

[edit]

I just re-read my thing above to Leflyman. It reads like a conclusion, but was meant as a question. I'm willing to look further, I'm just stuck right now. I could do some off-roading, but it would be better if someone familiar with the history of this thing would point me in the direction of the discussion where consensus formed around the the "no un-official sites" rule. If you happen to know where it is in the stacks, could you please point me to it? --Loqi T. 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL and WP:TV

[edit]

There's been much discussion about linking to external unofficial/fan sites here and elsewhere. But isn't it allowed by WP:EL and WP:TV (making most of the discussion moot)? The Lost page says "no fansites", the to do list says it as well. But isn't making such a blanket declaration overriding EL and TV? Even if there is consensus within the Lost pages (which I'm not convinced there is), is that able to negate the policies of wikipedia as a whole? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, such an [article] policy would indeed be an overriding of the WP:EL general style conventions, and WP:TV Wikiproject style conventions. It's okay to depart from these guidelines. They are not the final word, and are enforced only as a matter of usual preference. If a consensus of interested editors agrees it's a good idea, the Lost article can discourage inclusion of anything, including whole classes of external links. I've been researching the history of the Lost article for evidence that such a consensus ever took place. The relevant traffic on that line of inquiry is in the section immediately above. In the meantime, you might be interested to know that this thread would seem to reveal that certain Lost editors now appear to be aware that the "only official sites in any article" interpretation is not shared by some WP:EL experts. In any event, if significant controversy now exists, maybe this whole discussion is moot for another reason. --Loqi T. 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) --(amended) Loqi T. 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your basis for saying that it's OK to depart from WP:EL? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the WP:EL page, there's a banner template at the top with a blue check mark in it. Clicking on the hyperlinked word "guideline" takes you to WP:RULES. Item 2.2 in the contents of that page takes you here, where it says, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." That means, if we, the editors of this particular article have decided that following that guideline would damage the quality of our article, we can discard some or all of the guideline. We just need to be upfront and responsible about it, try to follow the parts that still make sense, and re-evaluate when circumstances change. --Loqi T. 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and here's what I mean by "moot for another reason": WP:CCC --Loqi T. 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a newcomer to Lost, but not to wikipedia, I'd like to voice my support for including a link to the Lostpedia site (or article) from the main Lost article. I've reviewed this discussion and some of my arguments have already been stated. Star Wars links to theforce.net, etc. Slippery slope arguments are never valid as long as you've got conscious human beings monitoring the situation and willing to put the brakes on. But my main reason for supporting the link is that common sense dictates that any newcomer or other person who's using wikipedia AND reading the Lost article would want to know about the existence of Lostpedia if they didn't already. It doesn't necessary need its own article, just something to let people know it exists, since your audience consists of people who like wikis and Lost. Thanks. Tulane97 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a fansite, huh?

[edit]

I've used Lostpedia for weeks now, and it's clear to me that it is not "just a fansite". It may include fanon and speculation -- both of which clearly cited as such, so it is not a site that posits OR as fact -- but it also includes a wealth of show information, expanding far beyond the scope to which Wikipedia could justify.

It seems there are a lot of thin excuses (in the "arguments against"), such as the guideline WP:EL where it mentions another guideline, WP:RS. And WP:RS talks about sources, not links, which are not the same thing. In short, a link does not need to meet the same standards of an article. Even if it did, Lostpedia presents its OR clearly as OR, it does not misrepresent fanon or speculation as fact.

Anyway, someone said that there is a limit of one fansite per article. Even if this is true, I don't see any fansites on the article. I see The Fuselage, a website which says at the top "The Official Site of the Creative Team Behind LOST - Sponsored by J.J. Abrams". That's clearly a site run by the production team of Lost -- not a site run by fans, which would be a prerequisite to qualify as a fan site. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Fansites&oldid=1257399627"