Terminator movies makes no sense & contradict each other.

[Gomess]

The science of reliable sources is actually a pretty huge issue, but I'm guessing Sparky and Tigs are taking the approach of the only reliable source- when it comes to media analysis at least- being the media text itself? Or perhaps the Voice of God? Which is an odd one, since I'm almost positive Terminator- and TF, and bla bla- isn't a creator-owned property, so really no one individual has the final say on what's "right".

[Sparky Prime]

The science of reliable sources is actually a pretty huge issue, but I'm guessing Sparky and Tigs are taking the approach of the only reliable source- when it comes to media analysis at least- being the media text itself? Or perhaps the Voice of God? Which is an odd one, since I'm almost positive Terminator- and TF, and bla bla- isn't a creator-owned property, so really no one individual has the final say on what's "right".

No where have I said or even suggested anything of the sort. I, for one, certainly do not see the media text as the only reliable source. The only thing I've said here is that wiki pages cannot be used as a reliable source within itself for the given reasons. That's not to say there aren't plenty of *other* reliable sources out there though. Especially when it comes to much more robust topics, like philosophy. And I *have* pointed out wiki pages can be a good place to *start* finding information.

[Gomess]

Dude you've been arguing with Dom and Tigs too much- when I say "I'm guessing" or "perhaps" I literally mean that; I'm asking for your input (hence the '?'s), not being passive-aggressive. No need for the rolleyes. =3

So, in lieu of that, what does everyone consider a "reliable source" for information on this specific topic?

[Tigermegatron]

Wiki is not a reliable source as it's written by fans for fans. With Wiki,It all boils down to which fans have more times on their hands than others,Those with more time on their hands often dominate stuff like on-line polls/wiki,whether their right or wrong with the info they post/edit. I only trust info coming from companies who create the stuff.

You're presumably gonna stop quoting Wikipedia every other post from now on, then...? =p

Saying Wikis are inherently unreliable is like saying *people* are inherently unreliable, and that's just kinda sad. If you disagree with something on a Wiki, change it. That's the point of them.

Those TF Wiki pages can't be trusted because anyone can write or edit a TF wiki page. By anyone this refers to kids in grammar school,kids under 18,someone who is drunk or under the influence of drugs. someone who is mentally insane,Crazy,OCD,In a mental institution or a internet troll. Someone who has never seen the media & thinks their a know it all & the list goes on.

The sheer fact that anyone can re-edit those TF Wiki pages,Makes these TF wiki pages a trolls paradise. Often times fans on the internet have huge ego's,those with more time on their hands often dominate stuff by either trolling or trying to be the king fan all over the internet.

[Gomess]

That's all great in theory, but it's just not true in practise. I could go on any given TF Wiki page right now and find you a ton of provable facts. Hey look, they say Beachcomber appeared in these episodes and his tech spec gave him this personality. ...Whaddaya know, they were right!

Which is why I'm asking what you consider to *be* a credible source for such things?

I mean, you reference Wikipedia constantly (such as in our recent "debate" about Japanese culture). Surely you realise that it's just as disreputable a source as TFWiki?

[Tigermegatron]

Which is why I'm asking what you consider to *be* a credible source for such things?

I consider the companies that create the TF stuff to be the most credible sources.

[Gomess]

The same companies who mistransform their own toys in catalogues and allow character names to get mixed up in spinoff media...? =3

Ok, so let's say for the sake of argument the aforementioned 'companies' are Hasbro and TakaraTomy (which is a pretty big generalisation, but, sake of argument). What, then, is the equivalent for the Terminator franchise? Which company makes up the rules there?

It seems like Sparky already agrees with this, but I think both the 'creators' of a property and its fans have a role to play in constructing that property's canon. And assuming you just flat-out can't trust fan reporting is a pretty dangerous slope to be slipping down, Tigs. Would you just not believe me if I told you what Hardhead was like in the Japanese Headmasters cartoon, until you'd seen it yourself?

About ten years ago that would've been a wise decision on your part

[Tigermegatron]

The same companies who mistransform their own toys in catalogues and allow character names to get mixed up in spinoff media...? =3

Ok, so let's say for the sake of argument the aforementioned 'companies' are Hasbro and TakaraTomy (which is a pretty big generalisation, but, sake of argument). What, then, is the equivalent for the Terminator franchise? Which company makes up the rules there?

It seems like Sparky already agrees with this, but I think both the 'creators' of a property and its fans have a role to play in constructing that property's canon. And assuming you just flat-out can't trust fan reporting is a pretty dangerous slope to be slipping down, Tigs. Would you just not believe me if I told you what Hardhead was like in the Japanese Headmasters cartoon, until you'd seen it yourself?

About ten years ago that would've been a wise decision on your part

I don't like the Terminator francise,So I have no comments on this.

I've seen all the TF cartoon series that were released in America & Japan dating back from 1984 thru 2013.

I've read all of the USA Marvel TF G-1 & G-2 comics. I've read about 40% of the Marvel UK TF G-1 comics. I've read all the Dreamwave TF comics. I read almost all the IDW TF G-1 comics minus January 2012 thru March 2013. I read 2 years worth of TFCC comics.

Gomes,Why are defending wiki with such a passion? Have you written a few TF Wiki pages?

Gomes,My Characterization of the average on-line fan seems like the direct opposite of yours. You seem to view the average on-line fan as being the equivelant of Albert Einstein. While I view the average on-line fan with the persona that Steve Carell played in that "Dinner for Schmucks" movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427152/fullcredits

[Dominic]

"Terminator" was initially creator owned if I recall correctly. Cameron ended up on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, and the property got split up, hence the contrary show and movies. For the sake of this thread, I would say we should focus on the movies, or at least specify if we are talking about the show.

(Also, I'm tired of people saying Wiki isn't "reliable" because anyone can edit it. Sure, anyone can edit it, but if you edit it with bullshit, it's going to get edited right fucking back.)

Bada-frikkin-bing!

Wiki might be a good place to start when looking for information but it really doesn't matter what format you're citing the information for. If it isn't a reliable source you shouldn't be citing it. Period. You wouldn't be citing some personal website when citing even something like a dictionary definition.

In theory, people are supposed to use wikipedia as a shopping list. After reading the wikipedia article, readers are supposed to go to one of the cited sources and confirm the information they just got.

In practice, people do not often do that. And, to be honest, that is generally okay if somebody is just double-checking something that they know or clarifying something they sort of remember. (Wikipedia is my general "go to" for checking what abbreviations mean. Pages like "ask.com" are so messily set up that I would prefer to avoid dealing with them at all.)

Saying Wikis are inherently unreliable is like saying *people* are inherently unreliable, and that's just kinda sad. If you disagree with something on a Wiki, change it. That's the point of them.

Uh, no. The point is not to change something to make it more agreeable. The point is that, in theory, a wiki is something that anybody can meaningfully add to or correct.


Dom
-those are two different things.

[Gomess]

Gomes,Why are defending wiki with such a passion? Have you written a few TF Wiki pages?

This... says so much about your whole perspective on debating. No, I have never contributed to the TF Wiki. Why are you criticising it with such a passion? Did you have a bad experience with a Wiki in 'Nam?

I should also point out that I'm "passionately defending" (lol) *Wiki*, as in the software, not the specific website *TFWiki*. Since it seems that Tigs is criticising the use of Wikis in general, and I honestly couldn't give a crap about TFWiki.

Gomes,My Characterization of the average on-line fan seems like the direct opposite of yours.

I think that's understatement, since I don't characterise "the average on-line fan". Because I'm not a glossy magazine. And neither are you.

You seem to view the average on-line fan as being the equivelant of Albert Einstein.

man

i

what colour is the sky in your world, dude????????

Sorry Dom I'd love to rebuttttt you but Tigs has officially exhausted me. I agree that "adding meaningfully" and "changing to be agreeable" are two different things, and think you may've inferred something I didn't intend there

EDIT: AND MY NAME HAS TWO "S"S