Forum:Site missions re fiction and entertainment

< Index | Site-related discussion

Following on from a discussion at Talk:Iain M. Banks, I've been thinking about where we draw the lines on writing mainspace articles about subjects relating to fiction, art, music, etc. & It's probably a good time to discuss it as a site, since enthusiasm for the Book Club could easily spill over into mainspace, & since we now have a fourth mission statement regarding the media, which could certainly be interpreted as including literature & entertainment.

My feeling is that our coverage of these subjects should be much more limited than coverage of science, religion & politics. Otherwise there's a risk of getting lots of fanboy style articles about authors & musicians which are tenuously justified because they've referenced some kind of pseudoscience in a story or written a few protest songs, but which don't really contribute substantially to the site missions.

It's hard to draw a line, but as a rule of thumb, I think we should only write about artists, authors & entertainers who've had an impact (relating to RW missions) beyond their field of work. E.g. if they've significantly influenced philosophy or science or politics, or provoked some kind of major media hysteria, then they're fair game for writing an article about. If they've just sold lots of books or records & expressed a few ideas or opinions, but aren't really notable beyond that, then they probably don't really need to be covered by RW.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should only write about artists, authors & entertainers who've had an impact (relating to RW missions) beyond their field of work. Agree with this sentiment and would like to add that authors whose body of work contributes to scientific endeavors or whose fiction became reality (like Arthur C. Clarke) are relevant also. i⁹ 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"would like to add that authors whose body of work contributes to scientific endeavours or whose fiction became reality (like Arthur C. Clarke) are relevant also." Why?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Crazy ideas people wrote into fiction or there own ideas of what the future may have held becoming reality. i⁹ 00:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

But the future's not here yet. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In Clarke's case (geosynchronous orbits for comsats) it wasn't hare-braned, it was solid predictography. But I still don't really get the point. ħuman 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And Ace means their future, which is now in our past, not our future. ħuman 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nerdwiki

I think that - with apologies to everybody - our mission tends to attract nerds. Even elderly nerds like me. Nerds are interested in computers, science fiction, science, computer games - and often the things which the RW missions are associated with.

But we are not Nerdwiki. And however much we would like to include other nerd-like things they are outside our (self-imposed) remit. We could of course create Nerdwiki and have lots on our favourite SF, computer operating systems, computer games or whatever, but that's not what we are doing at the moment.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

^What Bob said. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate Sci Fi. Fuck^that 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I love it when ideas like that just spring out of nowhere. NerdWiki has been created. --Onion^talk/edits 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NerdWiki? Surely that's every wiki. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

The new site NerdWiki can be used to store nerdy articles that have been deemed off-mission, so they don't have to die. --Onion^talk/edits 00:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Old nerds never die, they just... oh, screw it. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)