Reconsidering the Wiki's Approach to Theory/Fanon...

[thewayneiac]

@Bagheera: I tweaked the wording in some of your Wiki edits to better reflect the strength of the respective theories. Please let me know your thoughts. The only one I reversed altogether was where you changed "Asuka is a University graduate" to "Asuka claims to be a university graduate". There is nothing in this or any subsequent episode that suggests she is being untruthful.

[Bagheera]

@Bagheera: I tweaked the wording in some of your Wiki edits to better reflect the strength of the respective theories. Please let me know your thoughts. The only one I reversed altogether was where you changed "Asuka is a University graduate" to Asuka claims to be a university graduate. There is nothing in this or any subsequent episode that suggests she is being untruthful.

You didn't tweak them, you reverted them (or altered them enough that you might as well have done so). I thought we weren't going to get into edit wars here? If you're going to insist on letting your biases dominate the wiki there's no point in others contributing.

In any event, the language in your 25' edit is awkward, some of the edits are redundant, and there's at least one spelling error. Please fix it.

Also, noting that Asuka claims she's a college graduate isn't suggesting she's untruthful. It's just noting that her claim of such is the only information we have on the subject.

[thewayneiac]

You didn't tweak them, you reverted them (or altered them enough that you might as well have done so). I thought we weren't going to get into edit wars here? If you're going to insist on letting your biases dominate the wiki there's no point in others contributing.

In any event, the language in your 25' edit is awkward, some of the edits are redundant, and there's at least one spelling error. Please fix it.

Also, noting that Asuka claims she's a college graduate isn't suggesting she's untruthful. It's just noting that her claim of such is the only information we have on the subject.

I didn't revert anything. I simply strengthened the assertions in some places and weakened them in others where appropriate. A wiki works by consensus; you can't expect your edits to be the final say. In my opinion you were understaing the soul reunion theory and overstating the triggered memory theory. I attempted to meet you half way in what I believe is appropriate compromise language. (Remember, if it were solely up to me the triggered memory theory wouldn't be there at all. I don't buy it for a minute.)

[Bagheera]

I didn't revert anything. I simply strengthened the assertions in some places and weakened them in others where appropriate. A wiki works by consensus; you can't expect your edits to be the final say. In my opinion you were understaing the soul reunion theory and overstating the triggered memory theory. I attempted to meet you half way in what I believe is appropriate compromise language. (Remember, if it were solely up to me the triggered memory theory wouldn't be there at all. I don't buy it for a minute.)

That's not the purpose of a wiki; if it's not neutral it's useless.

Anyway, I refuse to get into edit wars. If your idea of compromise is slanting language toward your pet theory while merely mentioning others (and poo-pooing them in the process) I want no part of it.

[Seele00TextOnly]

...

[esselfortium]

Besides, there's plenty of indication of exactly that. I'm pretty sure the creepy nightmare visuals Asuka is seeing there aren't supposed to be literally occurring, plus we already know the exact line spoken as an extremely notable, important one from Asuka's memories.

And, again, there's literally no evidence anywhere in NGE to show the supposed struggle between Kyoko's 'good side' and 'bad side', where they went out of their way to show the malfunctions and idiosyncrasies of the other Evas as clearly and obviously as possible. Thewayneiac's proposed interpretation of the scene relies on the belief that this complete 180 degree turnaround in Eva-02's modus operandi is not only justified but is also entirely determined by this single, solitary scene.

[Reichu]

I don't like the way this is going. Wayne, did you see what I wrote before? I'll reword it as an official proposition.

- The wiki's foremost purpose is to provide information to individuals in the Anglosphere interested in Evangelion, whatever their affiliations.
- For this reason, it doesn't matter which theories the editors prefer, or what they view as "predominant" within their community. What matters is being helpful.
-- Therefore, the job of the editor is to provide information on theories and ideas (preferably ones that have been subjected to extensive discussion) along with their pros and cons, so that the reader may decide which ones they prefer.
-- We should not slant the language to indicate which theories are better. Let the ideas speak for themselves.

I mean, I can only hope we're not assuming that our audience are a bunch of idiots who can't think critically and need to have the "right choice" highlighted for them with weasel words...

The forum clearly shows that we disagree constantly. As a general rule, none of us are in any position to decide which ideas are the best. The only way the wiki will ever crawl out of its stupor is if we adopt a policy of mutual tolerance and respect for one another.

I don't think doomsday will suddenly happen if the leash is loosened a bit, Wayne.

(BTW, changed the thread title to more accurately reflect its topic. Sorry, Bags.)

[NemZ]

Wherein I re-discover why I never bothered using my Wiki abilities, and we see one reason participation is so low.

That would be exactly why I stopped trying too.

[Bagheera]

No worries Reichu. I think your proposal is quite sound, and stand behind it 100%.

If this is truly a collaborative effort, I invite everyone to look at my edits for ep. 25' (the second footnote). The language I used was a neutral as I could make it; it noted the prevailing theory and the alternates, as well as problems voiced with all of them. If the edits are found wanting, fine. But if not I propose we revert thewayniac's alterations and let the edits I made stand.

[thewayneiac]

This brings us back to my initial concern. If a Wiki editor thinks that Naoko is in Unit-00, for instance, do we accomodate his complaints that the article is slanted towards Rei 1? Suppose he insists that Misato shot Kaji and the article is slanted towards a Seele assassin? We spent a lot of years trying to weed that crap out of fandom. Do we really have to say Anno says it wasn't Misato but then not draw the conclusion that it wasn't her? Anno says it wasn't her, but here's the evidence that it was; you decide, readers.

I think the people who visit here do want our conclusions. It's not like they don't already know we have a mind set.

As for the tweaks I made, as I noted this is a collaborative Wiki and neither Bagheera's edits nor mine should be considered the last word. I'll be glad to remove the line that says his theory is less likely, if that's what is causing the problem, but his wording still distorts the relative strengths of the theories. It should be neutral for preference not for evidence.

Edit:
I think that the changes I made to some of the other articles made them more neutral. They originally had "it is probable " that the soul was reunited. Bagheera changed them to "it is possible" that the soul was reunited. I changed them to "there is evidence" that the soul was reunited. This wording doesn't speak to the probability at all and truely lets the readers judge the strength of the evidence.

[esselfortium]

I'll be glad to remove the line that says his theory is less likely, if that's what is causing the problem, but his wording still distorts the relative strengths of the theories.

No, but yours does. If you're not going to even take Reichu's word on it I don't know what to tell you. It's insulting that you're comparing this interpretation to bullshit theories that have no evidence for them.

[Bagheera]

This brings us back to my initial concern. If a Wiki editor thinks that Naoko is in Unit-00, for instance, do we accomodate his complaints that the article is slanted towards Rei 1? Suppose he insists that Misato shot Kaji and the article is slanted towards a Seele assassin? We spent a lot of years trying to weed that crap out of fandom. Do we really have to say Anno says it wasn't Misato but then not draw the conclusion that it wasn't her? Anno says it wasn't her, but here's the evidence that it was; you decide, readers.

That's...an absurd comparison. If Anno comes out and tells us something about the series he wrote and directed, there's nothing to talk about. If something is stated outright in the show we have no reason to question it. But that's not what's going on here. You are favoring one interpretation over another with nothing to support it -- that's what the policy aims to change.

Giving equal weight to interpretations with the same level of support (or lack thereof) is not the same as exercising no critical judgment whatsoever. Stop excluding middles.

As for the tweaks I made, as I noted this is a collaborative Wiki and neither Bagheera's edits nor mine should be considered the last word. I'll be glad to remove the line that says his theory is less likely, if that's what is causing the problem, but his wording still distorts the relative strengths of the theories. It should be neutral for preference not for evidence.

But there is no evidence in this case! We have two voices speaking directly into Asuka's mind as she enters high sync with her Eva. That's it! Is one of those voices in her head? We don't know. Is one the salvaged remnants of Kyoko's soul? We don't know. Are they both from the ravaged maternal Kyoko? We don't know. Do those nightmare images at the end play into it? We don't know! We have absolutely zero supporting evidence for any of the theories presented. The wiki should acknowledge that and present the theories as impartially as possible -- something your edits utterly failed to do.

I think that the changes I made to some of the other articles made them more neutral. They originally had "it is probable " that the soul was reunited. Bagheera changed them to "it is possible" that the soul was reunited. I changed them to "there is evidence" that the soul was reunited. This wording doesn't speak to the probability at all and truely lets the readers judge the strength of the evidence.

And where is this evidence? It certainly hasn't been presented to date. Is there something in the flashbacks we missed? Something in the CI? If you have evidence to cite, then by all means please share with the rest of us. You can't use the voices themselves as evidence, because that's what we're trying to explain -- no begging the question, please.

[Reichu]

To the extent possible, I'd like to keep this discussion general, and not specifically about the Kyoko issue (insofar as debating it). Though, this does provide a good example of how personal bias can get in the way of smooth operations...

Wayne, I really hate to say this, but there are certain things about your attitude right now that remind me of V. You have to be receptive to what's scaring users off and adjust your sensibilities so that this thing can work on a community level.

I hate the fact that Wiki participation isn't higher, so let's keep this dialogue going, and stick to the key points. Hopefully we'll be able to whip some guidelines together for everyone to abide by that will avoid much of these problems in future.

[Bagheera]

To the extent possible, I'd like to keep this discussion general, and not specifically about the Kyoko issue (insofar as debating it). Though, this does provide a good example of how personal bias can get in the way of smooth operations...

I hate the fact that Wiki participation isn't higher, so let's keep this dialogue going, and stick to the key points.

Speaking generally, I like the policy you mentioned earlier. I we need to talk about how to practice it generally. I would like to propose the following. This is just a general idea, not meant to be taken as it is -- it's meant to spur discussion aimed toward implementing a useful policy. Here goes:

We should refrain from making major edits without discussing them first in the forum. That is to say, if we're correcting a spelling error or tortured grammar it's one thing, but if we're changing the content of the article, even in a minor fashion, we should talk about it first. If someone proposes a change and nobody comments on it, they can go ahead and make the change after a specified time (a day? Three days? A week? I dunno). Otherwise the change is implemented (or not) once consensus is reached. If no consensus is reached the wiki is changed to reflect such.

In the Kyoko example, we change the wiki to reflect extant theories, since there's no consensus to be had there. In the Rei I = Unit 00 case we have reached a consensus (AFAIK, anyway) and so we leave the page as it is (I still wonder how we know Unit 00 is Rei I specifically and not another shard of Lilith's soul, but that's a separate issue -- if anyone has insight into this I'd appreciate a PM on the matter).

I think three days is a good starting point. Does this make sense, or is it terribly wrong-headed for some reason? Other ideas?

[thewayneiac]

O.K., check the 25' article out now. I removed the line that indicated a preference and elaborated on the objections to all three theories, yes, including including my own. And I made the final part more clear that there's no more corroboration for any of these theories.

@ Bagheera: certainly I can cite the voices as evidence because they are evidence. By saying the voices are evidence that the soul is reunited but not assigning a word like probable, likely. or possible, it lets the readers decide for themselves whether it is strong, average, or weak evidence. Probable indicates a bias that it is strong evidence, possible is biased that it is iffy.

@Reichu: V!!! That's a low blow! Take it back!

@Essel: It's hardly a bullshit theory to say that the voices we hear are real voices. We need to treat each other with respect on the forum as well as the Wiki.

Edit: Probably the Wiki discussion pages would be better than the forum for discussing Wiki edits. I doubt if a time lag is neccessary; when we make a major change, it should just be a policy to explain exactly why we made it on the discussion page, and invite comments, suggestions, or further edits.

[esselfortium]

@Essel: It's hardly a bullshit theory to say that the voices we hear are real voices. We need to treat each other with respect on the forum as well as the Wiki.

I'm referring to the comparisons to known bullshit theories like "Misato killed Kaji" and "preinstrumentality is all a hallucination" that you've made throughout this discussion to diminish your opposition, both in this thread and the one it was split from.

[Bagheera]

@thewayniac: I actually have no objection to the current edits. I do, however, think the wording is awkward; when I have some time tonight or tomorrow I'll see if I can streamline them without changing the intent. I'll post a note here when I do.

[thewayneiac]

@thewayniac: I actually have no objection to the current edits. I do, however, think the wording is awkward; when I have some time tonight or tomorrow I'll see if I can streamline them without changing the intent. I'll post a note here when I do.

I knew we could work it out sooner rather than later. What do you think of the idea of discussing edits on the Wiki discussion pages rather than here?

[Bagheera]

I knew we could work it out sooner rather than later. What do you think of the idea of discussing edits on the Wiki discussion pages rather than here?

My worry there is that a good portion of the site's users won't see it. If we want to encourage participation getting the forum involved, and using it as a place to at least announce changes, seems like a good idea. Also, it shows users that something is happening; letting people know changes are being made can only encourage further involvement with the wiki IMO.

[Reichu]

Got headache right now (not from the forum, amazingly enough), so just a couple of things...

- I'll shoot for taking a look at recent Wiki changes in the next couple of days and add my thoughts.

- In my experience, the wiki talk pages are good for prattle between editors that nobody else necessarily needs to see. The Editorium is good for the kind of stuff that Bagheera is talking about. Both have their purpose.

- One thing about formalizing guidelines for 'speculation presentation' that we need to think about is how to handle the matter of theories going in and out of fashion. The community changes over time; support for different ideas ebbs and wanes. This is one reason why the notion of assigning "tiers" is generally madness, because most of them will be subject to constant change.

-- On a related note, I do wonder at what point speculation could be considered "sufficiently discussed" within the community to warrant inclusion on the Wiki. This is one reason that I would be hesitant to muck around too much with the Kyoko stuff right now; the "patchwork" theory has been floating around for years and there's a lot of discussion for it, but I'm not as certain about the alternatives. Some research might be required before people get ambitious. But I'm just thinking [s:25towwh2]aloud[/s:25towwh2] in print here.

I forget what else I was gonna say... I'm gonna go slurp some ibuprofen now.