Log in

No account? Create an account
Time to stir up trouble. - Laurion [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Time to stir up trouble. [Jan. 24th, 2008|10:10 am]
[mood |deviousdevious]

In honor of the excellent Star Trek vs. Star Wars panel at Arisia, I present a slightly different debate:

Which is the better Wiki, Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia? Remember to support your argument with cogent (not necessarily logical) arguments. Please keep the arguments about the wikis themselves. You may argue the merits of content, layout, visuals, authority, creativity, accessibility, practicality, comprehensiveness, etc.

View the Original Post Here


[User Picture]From: lucky_otter
2008-01-24 03:20 pm (UTC)
Measuring the aspect ratio of the sidebar navigation boxes on the two sites, I find that Memory Alpha has several different rational ratios for their navigation boxes, while Wookieepedia instead has irrational ratios with strange nonrepeating in decimal expansion numerators and, in one case, even the denominator. Due to this, I conclude that Memory Alpha is the more rational choice.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: laurion
2008-01-24 03:38 pm (UTC)
Based solely on the sidebar navigation?

And yes, thank you, you've forced me to go update the language of my post.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: asdr83
2008-01-24 05:35 pm (UTC)
You, my love, are a weirdo. *HUG*
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: taellosse
2008-01-24 06:52 pm (UTC)
I judge Wookiepedia to be superior because it is the one I already knew about and use when I require stunningly over-detailed information about anything to do with Star Wars. For whatever reason, I have yet to require something similar regarding Star Trek.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: laurion
2008-01-24 06:55 pm (UTC)
Well, I'd hardly call that a substantial argument. *grin*

Especially because I come from the other side, having used Memory Alpha several times, and Wookieepedia not really much at all before today.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: taellosse
2008-01-24 07:03 pm (UTC)
Strictly speaking, you didn't ask for substantial arguments, only cogent ones. According to dictionary.com, that word means:

1. convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2. to the point; relevant; pertinent.

And my argument seems to me to fit the second definition. ;-) At least I wasn't arguing that it's superior because wet birds don't fly at night, or something.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: laurion
2008-01-24 08:01 pm (UTC)
True enough. Your argument is cogent, by the second definition, but not by the first. I don't think that argument is going to inherently convince anyone that one wiki is superior to the other.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: taellosse
2008-01-24 08:11 pm (UTC)
No, I will freely concede that. But you didn't actually specify what you meant by cogent, so my statement stands!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: v_cat
2008-01-25 07:38 pm (UTC)
BTW, love the icon.I want it as a bumper sticker!
(Reply) (Thread)