I have a hard time seeing how a fandom wiki could be fundamentally different than another fandom wiki, but if OTW's IS noticeably different, that'll probably appease me. It's going to be different if only because it's likely to be different people working on it. The OTW has come off as very academically oriented, and I think that it's likely going to show in their wiki as everyone puts their thinking caps on. They are also dealing with a whole boat load of fandoms at the moment, and so are more likely to get a wider response from them.
If they just do the same thing over again? I actually have no problem what so ever of them doing something over again. Think of RL. How horrible would it be if there were only one history text that *everyone* used. Or only one newspaper or news channel to watch. There may be a single one that you choose to watch, but you always have the variety out there, and it keeps facts straight. Because some people will always put their bias into, or slant information a certain way, and without more than one resource for people to fact check against, they can never come to their own conclusions, and the truth just gets hidden. Fandom’s not exactly like that, but still, I think it applies to any history taking. I think it should be *required* that there be more than one source.
I personally have an issue with them coming in and duplicating something I know a lot of time and effort has gone into without so much as a nod at the original. See, and here, I would say that the other wiki has absolutely *no* claim at *all* on being original. None. They are not the first wiki out there. They are not the first to write out fan history, or make a resource available to a community to edit/add to that records fan history, and our quirks. I doubt they’re even the first to make a fandom wiki (because I know quite a few fandom specific wiki’s out there that can be quite extensive). They may not even have been the first to put the two together, even if they’re the only real one out there now. Just because some takes two unoriginal ideas and puts them together (in ways that are suggested by both of the other ideas) does not give them a special standard over any that might fallow. It doesn’t give them special treatment of consideration. I’m sure at one point there was only on archive out there, only one fanzine, only one rec list, but just because there’s one, doesn’t mean there can’t, or worse, *shouldn’t* be another. Think of how much it would stunt fandom if we were told, each fandom should only have one rec list, or if you want to rec fic, you have to acknowledge that you weren’t the first to do so? I think of archives too. Within my fandom, SGA there are multiple fandom specific archives competing for attention. Most of them run off of the eFiction archive script. Should only one be allowed? Should all the other sites have to get their own scripts (even though eFiction is free and is available to *anyone*) to be polite, or else acknowledge that another site tried it first? That’s ridiculous. The only difference here, is that there aren’t that many fandom wiki’s out there. But you know what? That’s probably going to change in a few years anyways. Like I said, I already know of a few other fandom wiki’s out there (even if they are fandom specific), the wiki format is free and easy to use, and a lot of fans out there are willing to put in the time. Fanfiction.net wasn’t the first multifandom archive out there when it first came into being, it just, for whatever reason, was able to make itself more popular than the others. The same is going to happen I think to fandom wiki’s. It may be your friends that is able to make that jump ahead to being *the* fandom wiki, or it could be the OTWs, or it could be someone else who makes it. Only time will tell, but I don’t think the *second* to make a wiki should have to take any more heat than the third or fourth or five hundredth, just as I don’t think anyone really has a right to be upset when another is made. And I think fandom can only benefit from having more than one option available to them, if only to see how different people cover the same thing to get varying opinions.
Re: OTW Part 2
It's going to be different if only because it's likely to be different people working on it. The OTW has come off as very academically oriented, and I think that it's likely going to show in their wiki as everyone puts their thinking caps on. They are also dealing with a whole boat load of fandoms at the moment, and so are more likely to get a wider response from them.
If they just do the same thing over again?
I actually have no problem what so ever of them doing something over again. Think of RL. How horrible would it be if there were only one history text that *everyone* used. Or only one newspaper or news channel to watch. There may be a single one that you choose to watch, but you always have the variety out there, and it keeps facts straight. Because some people will always put their bias into, or slant information a certain way, and without more than one resource for people to fact check against, they can never come to their own conclusions, and the truth just gets hidden. Fandom’s not exactly like that, but still, I think it applies to any history taking. I think it should be *required* that there be more than one source.
I personally have an issue with them coming in and duplicating something I know a lot of time and effort has gone into without so much as a nod at the original.
See, and here, I would say that the other wiki has absolutely *no* claim at *all* on being original. None.
They are not the first wiki out there. They are not the first to write out fan history, or make a resource available to a community to edit/add to that records fan history, and our quirks. I doubt they’re even the first to make a fandom wiki (because I know quite a few fandom specific wiki’s out there that can be quite extensive). They may not even have been the first to put the two together, even if they’re the only real one out there now.
Just because some takes two unoriginal ideas and puts them together (in ways that are suggested by both of the other ideas) does not give them a special standard over any that might fallow. It doesn’t give them special treatment of consideration. I’m sure at one point there was only on archive out there, only one fanzine, only one rec list, but just because there’s one, doesn’t mean there can’t, or worse, *shouldn’t* be another.
Think of how much it would stunt fandom if we were told, each fandom should only have one rec list, or if you want to rec fic, you have to acknowledge that you weren’t the first to do so?
I think of archives too. Within my fandom, SGA there are multiple fandom specific archives competing for attention. Most of them run off of the eFiction archive script. Should only one be allowed? Should all the other sites have to get their own scripts (even though eFiction is free and is available to *anyone*) to be polite, or else acknowledge that another site tried it first? That’s ridiculous.
The only difference here, is that there aren’t that many fandom wiki’s out there. But you know what? That’s probably going to change in a few years anyways. Like I said, I already know of a few other fandom wiki’s out there (even if they are fandom specific), the wiki format is free and easy to use, and a lot of fans out there are willing to put in the time.
Fanfiction.net wasn’t the first multifandom archive out there when it first came into being, it just, for whatever reason, was able to make itself more popular than the others. The same is going to happen I think to fandom wiki’s. It may be your friends that is able to make that jump ahead to being *the* fandom wiki, or it could be the OTWs, or it could be someone else who makes it. Only time will tell, but I don’t think the *second* to make a wiki should have to take any more heat than the third or fourth or five hundredth, just as I don’t think anyone really has a right to be upset when another is made. And I think fandom can only benefit from having more than one option available to them, if only to see how different people cover the same thing to get varying opinions.