"Unlike her predecessors at IDW, Erin Brady does not continue the tradition of localization maintained by the so-called "Core Four", instead opting for a far simpler direct translation (advertised by IDW as "Fresh and modern"). Regardless of whether this is her personal choice or down to new editorial guidelines, it has sparked controversy among Disney fans. [insert two or three references to specific criticisms, preferably on Joe's and GeoX's blog]
Steth, his is the sort of neutral tone I was aiming for. If by your analysis I failed to achieve it, then it's a failure of execution, not intentions.
And perhaps you would have done a better job of it than I did. But you weren't on the Wiki then. And we needed a page on Erin Brady; it was getting ridiculous not to have one with how important she'd become to Disney comics in the U.S.A.
"Unlike her predecessors at IDW, Erin Brady does not continue the tradition of localization maintained by the so-called "Core Four", instead opting for a far simpler direct translation (advertised by IDW as "Fresh and modern"). Regardless of whether this is her personal choice or down to new editorial guidelines, it has sparked controversy among Disney fans. [insert two or three references to specific criticisms, preferably on Joe's and GeoX's blog]
Steth, his is the sort of neutral tone I was aiming for. If by your analysis I failed to achieve it, then it's a failure of execution, not intentions.
And perhaps you would have done a better job of it than I did. But you weren't on the Wiki then. And we needed a page on Erin Brady; it was getting ridiculous not to have one with how important she'd become to Disney comics in the U.S.A.
I've been on the Wiki a while (I joined almost a year ago). But I'm laaaaazy Every once in a while I log on and change something. But then I forget all about it again.
The problem is to avoid making it look like the writer of such an article is pissing all over the person in question. And by the wording and also explicitly praising the previous team, your article did exactly that, no matter what the intention was - sorry if I'm being harsh, but I want to be completely honest. But it's the last thing I'm saying about this issue. I hope
On the other hand, you may be advocating for someone with a positive opinion on Ms. Brady to write an article about her. If that is case, couldn't it be said that is having a bit of a double standard? Sometimes negative feelings can be valid and rooted in truth. Are we to make sure we write positive articles about everything? Even things that are widely agreed to be dangerous or harmful. Let me just note here once again that I'm not specifically referring to articles on Brady. Instead, I'm referring to article writing in general.
Let me give an example to explain where I'm coming from. The president of my country, the U.S.A., is, as I'm sure all or most of you know, a very controversial figure. He has many, many people who strongly dislike or even hate him. He also has a very loyal group of supporters. He is a polarizing figure, and I think nearly everyone has a strong opinion on him one way or the other. Finding someone who has neutral feelings about him would be near impossible. Anyone who knows enough about him to write an article on him is likely going to have feelings, and possibly very strong ones, about him. Thus, we can rule out the "let a person neutral on the subject write the article" route. We could get someone to write a positive article on him, but is that not unfair to so many individuals who may actually have valid criticisms about him? Maybe not on him as a person, but on his political beliefs and his work as President. An article that paints him in a positive light would be entirely wrong and would help stifle negative criticisms. Instead of getting someone who feels positive about him to right an article that avoids negative things or trying to get someone neutral on the subject to write the article, I believe the article should be written by whoever wants to write it, whether they be for or against him, and that said writer should try to write the article in a very neutral way, simply stating the facts, avoiding stating their opinions, and trying to use words with neutral connotations.
I just simply don't see telling someone that they shouldn't write a Wiki article about someone else just because they have negative personal feelings. As long as they know how to write well and can avoid stating their opinion, it's fine. At least it is in my opinion. Please feel free to tell me what you feel I said wrong. I hope this ramble didn't come across as provocative in anyway. I wish for peaceful discussion, and I'm open to hearing your opinions more. I just felt that I needed to bring out these two main points: 1. Negative criticism on people's work should be allowed. 2. It is unfair to write a positive article on someone when there may be genuine complaints against them, thus the article must be written someone who can write it as neutrally as possible in spite of their personal feelings.
It's not called a "fan" wiki for no reason, the hosting site is called "fandom", etc.. Read my Casty article - it was rejected by Wikipedia because I wasn't neutral enough. So by nature, this is a site which tends to gravitate towards extolling people's virtues. In that context, a markedly negative article is odd. And although you may be right that somebody with negative feelings could still write something neutral about her, but this isn't the case with SMD's article. Likewise, if I had to write an article about Mark & Laura Shaw or Michael T. Gilbert I'd be in serious trouble. And I was told off by Ramapith because my negative comments (on this little forum!) could hurt the Shaws' career, hence my pointing out the issue here.
But back to Ms Brady: How could an article be worded without completely cutting out the negative parts? Let's see:
"Unlike her predecessors at IDW, Erin Brady does not continue the tradition of localization maintained by the so-called "Core Four", instead opting for a far simpler direct translation (advertised by IDW as "Fresh and modern"). Regardless of whether this is her personal choice or down to new editorial guidelines, it has sparked controversy among Disney fans. [insert two or three references to specific criticisms, preferably on Joe's and GeoX's blog]
As for Donald Trump... the comparison doesn't stick. He's too big to be affected by a negative article. And even then Wikipedia (which you must be referring to, since he's not a Disney character) has very specific guidelines that forbid putting one's own opinion in it. Yes, criticism can be included, but only as direct references to newspaper articles and the like, without any view of the author shining through.
I agree that Scrooge MacDuck's article does veer towards the negative, if that's what you're implying. I was not so much arguing that the article on Erin Brady was the best possible or that it was entirely neutral, I was just arguing against the notion that he shouldn't be able to write an article on her just because of his own feelings. He should only refrain from writing an article on Ms. Brady if he doesn't believe that he can do a proper job of burying his personal to make a neutral article. Essentially, I was arguing that someone with negative feelings can write a neutral article, not that Scrooge MacDuck's "Erin Brady" article was neutral. I can certainly tell that it tried to be, and it's not all negative. It just tilts towards the negative.
As for Donald Trump, I wasn't referring specifically to the Scrooge McDuck Wiki or Wikipedia when I was discussing writing an article about him. I was just referring to my general belief that in situations which call for neutrality, it can be hard to find someone who is neutral, thus we must find good writers who can and desire to write as neutral as possible regardless of their personal feelings. I would think we agree on that.
I would ask for some clarification on your statement that "He's too big to be affected by a negative article." This is true, I believe. He's had negative things written about him for years, yet he still has a strong base of supporters. That said, I question the principle behind this statement. Are you suggesting that if Erin Brady were "too big to be affected by a negative article", it would be okay to write something totally negative on an almost academic and somewhat encyclopedic website? I believe that, as concerns projects such as wikis, which are largely about spreading information, articles should be written fairly and neutrally, regardless of whether the individual being written about is big or small. It's just a matter of principle for me that information-spreading projects should strive for neutrality and strive to present facts over opinion whether they're covering a big personality like Donald Trump or someone who's less known like Erin Brady.
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.
(…) it would be okay to write something totally negative on an almost academic and somewhat encyclopedic website? (…)
And now, the new official $crooge McDuck Wiki tagline! "Almost Academic And Somewhat Encyclopedic! Sort Of A Wiki! Very Nearly Catalogues Facts!" Hahah.
I would ask for some clarification on your statement that "He's too big to be affected by a negative article." This is true, I believe. He's had negative things written about him for years, yet he still has a strong base of supporters. That said, I question the principle behind this statement. Are you suggesting that if Erin Brady were "too big to be affected by a negative article", it would be okay to write something totally negative on an almost academic and somewhat encyclopedic website? I believe that, as concerns projects such as wikis, which are largely about spreading information, articles should be written fairly and neutrally, regardless of whether the individual being written about is big or small. It's just a matter of principle for me that information-spreading projects should strive for neutrality and strive to present facts over opinion whether they're covering a big personality like Donald Trump or someone who's less known like Erin Brady.
Well... I know SMD has said he didn't have negative intentions when writing the article, but to her it must have come across like that (= part of an agenda to get her out of her job). If Joe Torcivia believes that a few negative remarks on this forum and on various niche blogs could have had such an impact that he was not asked to do any more translations for IDW, then imagine what a negative wiki article about somebody who's currently active can achieve. That was my line of thinking, and I think probably the main reasoning behind Ms Brady's asking for removal - besides, perhaps, personal hurt. I can't fault her for it. It's a bit like those doctors who've sued people for writing or hosting negative reviews. Not a great comparison, but I hope you get what I mean. You don't want an encyclopedic article about yourself being read by anyone.
Remember also, that, despite the Wikia not being as strict w/ regards to citations and the like, it is still going to be taken as gospel by a lot of people simply because it's a wiki. With posts on this forum, it's clear that there is one person writing from his personal opinion, and others can reply and disagree - as indeed several did, when the infamous "job claim" happened. That's not the case on Wiki pages.
I would ask for some clarification on your statement that "He's too big to be affected by a negative article." This is true, I believe. He's had negative things written about him for years, yet he still has a strong base of supporters. That said, I question the principle behind this statement. Are you suggesting that if Erin Brady were "too big to be affected by a negative article", it would be okay to write something totally negative on an almost academic and somewhat encyclopedic website? I believe that, as concerns projects such as wikis, which are largely about spreading information, articles should be written fairly and neutrally, regardless of whether the individual being written about is big or small. It's just a matter of principle for me that information-spreading projects should strive for neutrality and strive to present facts over opinion whether they're covering a big personality like Donald Trump or someone who's less known like Erin Brady.
Well... I know SMD has said he didn't have negative intentions when writing the article, but to her it must have come across like that (= part of an agenda to get her out of her job). If Joe Torcivia believes that a few negative remarks on this forum and on various niche blogs could have had such an impact that he was not asked to do any more translations for IDW, then imagine what a negative wiki article about somebody who's currently active can achieve. That was my line of thinking, and I think probably the main reasoning behind Ms Brady's asking for removal - besides, perhaps, personal hurt. I can't fault her for it. It's a bit like those doctors who've sued people for writing or hosting negative reviews. Not a great comparison, but I hope you get what I mean. You don't want an encyclopedic article about yourself being read by anyone.
Remember also, that, despite the Wikia not being as strict w/ regards to citations and the like, it is still going to be taken as gospel by a lot of people simply because it's a wiki. With posts on this forum, it's clear that there is one person writing from his personal opinion, and others can reply and disagree - as indeed several did, when the infamous "job claim" happened. That's not the case on Wiki pages.
I generally agree with you with about every thing you've said. Overall, I wasn't trying to agree that Scrooge MacDuck's article was perfect or as good as it could have been, I was more so trying to argue that Erin Brady deserves and has merited for an article to be written on her. I think we both agree on that.
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.