Other people though... part of it could be that they'd rather have someone they know and trust run it (enough fan sites out there have started out by good intentioned people who then reach the end of their rope and close it down. I noticed that there's a not on the wiki against that, but still, in general), but it could also be that a wiki is only as good as the people putting effort into it, and they feel that the OTW will have a big enough following to make their wiki better, simply because that's something that they could help with and say they were an active part of OTW.
I've heard that argument before. And...I get it, but not...hm. It's like you mentioning my comment in Scalzi was the first you thought of other fans disagreeing with OTW because the idea just hadn't occurred to you, and a while ago someone putting forward the idea that the group using "bamdom" to mean not "band fandom" but "fandom of a very specific group of bands" were doing so because they hadn't thought of fandoms existing based on bands outside that group, not contributing to a wiki based on who runs it just never occurred to me.
It's a reasonable argument, for sure, just not one I'd ever really thought of, and not one that really resonates with me.
Not contributing because a wiki is only as good as its contributors, however, really doesn't make sense to me. It's the same thing as people who, when I pimp FanworksFinder (http://www.fanworksfinder.com), decide not to use it because their fandom isn't well-represented yet.
"I won't do it because no one else has" just...doesn't sit right with me as a justification.
I also think that the fact that something already exists isn't enough of an excuse to the members of the OTW not to make another one, because there are already things out there for all of the projects they'd like to make.
There are, definitely. I think where I don't like that as a justification for doing another wiki is mainly that with all those other things that already exist, they're planning on doing them differently in some way - there aren't multifandom archives that really do take everything (no porn, no RPF, no slash, no het, no gen, etc.), there aren't social networking sites integrated with archives, etc. The wiki's the one area they appear to be doing the exact same thing as someone else in fandom, and it's the one area I think a collaboration would be most beneficial - I think multiple Wikis will be more fragmentary than helpful.
I do have to wonder though, if the owner of that wiki were to speak to the OTW and offer up her wiki to be the OTW wiki if they wouldn't take her up on it, I don't know, but it does sound like a much easier solution to me.
They've talked about it a bit, I know, but only after OTW announced plans for a wiki. I happen to think - and I'll be careful how I word this, because I've seen her get really criticized for sounding self-centered when she said this - I would've liked to see them contact her. But that has a lot to do with my view of their board+committees as very insular and representing a specific segment of fandom - I think they would've benefitted from talking to archivists and other fannish people of influence from more varied backgrounds earlier.
Re: OTW Part 2
I've heard that argument before. And...I get it, but not...hm. It's like you mentioning my comment in Scalzi was the first you thought of other fans disagreeing with OTW because the idea just hadn't occurred to you, and a while ago someone putting forward the idea that the group using "bamdom" to mean not "band fandom" but "fandom of a very specific group of bands" were doing so because they hadn't thought of fandoms existing based on bands outside that group, not contributing to a wiki based on who runs it just never occurred to me.
It's a reasonable argument, for sure, just not one I'd ever really thought of, and not one that really resonates with me.
Not contributing because a wiki is only as good as its contributors, however, really doesn't make sense to me. It's the same thing as people who, when I pimp FanworksFinder (http://www.fanworksfinder.com), decide not to use it because their fandom isn't well-represented yet.
"I won't do it because no one else has" just...doesn't sit right with me as a justification.
I also think that the fact that something already exists isn't enough of an excuse to the members of the OTW not to make another one, because there are already things out there for all of the projects they'd like to make.
There are, definitely. I think where I don't like that as a justification for doing another wiki is mainly that with all those other things that already exist, they're planning on doing them differently in some way - there aren't multifandom archives that really do take everything (no porn, no RPF, no slash, no het, no gen, etc.), there aren't social networking sites integrated with archives, etc. The wiki's the one area they appear to be doing the exact same thing as someone else in fandom, and it's the one area I think a collaboration would be most beneficial - I think multiple Wikis will be more fragmentary than helpful.
I do have to wonder though, if the owner of that wiki were to speak to the OTW and offer up her wiki to be the OTW wiki if they wouldn't take her up on it, I don't know, but it does sound like a much easier solution to me.
They've talked about it a bit, I know, but only after OTW announced plans for a wiki. I happen to think - and I'll be careful how I word this, because I've seen her get really criticized for sounding self-centered when she said this - I would've liked to see them contact her. But that has a lot to do with my view of their board+committees as very insular and representing a specific segment of fandom - I think they would've benefitted from talking to archivists and other fannish people of influence from more varied backgrounds earlier.