| abstract
| - __NOWYSIWYG__ As you may know, there's a link going around of a user claiming to have had a conversation with Bryan and Mike "confirming" that Kya and Aiwei to be a member of the "LGBTQIA" community. However, as I search for any reblog or mention by either the creators about this sudden "realization". I found that neither Bryan nor Mike have ever commented or confirmed such a meeting. Bringing the validness of the link questionable. While true, the source is recent, I have a sincere doubt that it's a legit link. We all remember the infamous, supposed image of Mike saying that Korrasami was confirmed on Facebook (before Bryan confirmed it on his tumblr), you know the one. The one where he misspelled "Asami" as "Assami". I do not believe that the source is reliable in any way as literally anyone can make such claims and so branding the characters like Kya and Aiwei as "LGBTQIA" is premature until further information and/or confirmation comes out. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 02:36, March 23, 2015 (UTC) There is a source here that has another person corroborating this fact. The fact is that it didn't occur during the official Q-and-A—this occurred after the session during an autograph time. 07:00, March 23, 2015 (UTC) I see no reason to doubt the validity of that point. It wouldn't be the first time that we allowed info from someone else's Tumblr -or even someone's mail- to be on the wiki. Example: Mako and Korra's heights, and Kori Morishita's age and initially also her last name, respectively. Kori's details were gathered during a private interview between The Bos and Gene Yang. Bos published the interview here as a blog, but by the OP's logic, we should also doubt that since it was never confirmed by any other formal source. While I am definitely on board that we should be critical about such "unofficial sources", we shouldn't blindly dismiss them just because Bryke hasn't posted it on either of their main accounts. 08:25, March 23, 2015 (UTC) I don't see a reason to believe that blog either. Again, we have no confirmation besides two people who claim it happened without any physical evidence or support by the creators (Who do indeed see these kind of blogs online and have reblogged them before in the past). While yes, we shouldn't automatically dismiss sources, we do have to realize that people on the internet lie and lie quite a bit. Now, rather or not this person is lying is up in the air but it's still premature for the link to be a valid or legit source of information and as is very sketchy. If I could do something similar, I could say that I asked Bryke at a book signing about Aang's sexual orientation and confirmed he was bi and another confirmed it without any real confirmation of being legit. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 13:20, March 23, 2015 (UTC) And we do realize that, doesn't mean we need to be overly critical without a reason and doubt everything that's been said by anyone. There is nothing premature about citing that link, especially not we've accepted a similar link with reason in the past. There is nothing sketchy about it. It is often that questions are asked and answered on such events -or right after- and are verbally confirmed. We have acknowledged that in the past if it was reasonable, no need to change now. Your last "argument/example" is just ridiculous and has no place in this discussion. I started out by outlining that we need to be critical about these things, which would flatten your example in a second. 13:36, March 23, 2015 (UTC) It's just a little silly example I created a bit ago and while true, it might not be warranted it doesn't automatically dismiss concerns about validity of the link. True, we have accepted links similar in the past. They at least have some weight to them. We have no way validate this claim which only has one person backing it up as legit and others following along with it. There have been many claims before similar to this and it's hard to see which are real and which were fabricated. In the end, I don't trust this link. I could be wrong, I could be right. But I am very doubtful over it's worth. And if any previous examples I made which are "ridiculous" dismisses my concerns, then that in turn is just silly and if it really has any weight, I apologize. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 13:50, March 23, 2015 (UTC) They have just as much weight to them as this one, especially since the other examples were accepted without even anyone backing up those claims. However, in light of this discussion, could you please show me to some of those "many claims before similar to this". As of now, I don't see any reason there is to doubt the validity of the link, especially not when there have been similar instances accepted on this wiki. As for your last sentence, my dismissal of your ridiculous example solely referred to your Aang statement and nothing else, so there is no need to try and broaden the intended scope of what I said. 14:47, March 23, 2015 (UTC) (This is some odd error I'm seeing here. Is it common for it to be like this?) I am aware it was directed towards the Aang remark. And while I will receive the links to other such examples, you've already brought said examples earlier. Such as Mako and Korra's height and Kori's details. I'm still very open about debating unofficial sources and will receive the links (Which will take awhile considering my current situation, so please excuse the probable amount of time of absence between posting and researching). AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 15:01, March 23, 2015 (UTC) ^Sigh I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to questionable claims made on Tumblr and similar sites, not to accepted sources on the wiki. Again, while there is a need to be critical, there is no need to be overly skeptical. As for your problem, are you using the Visual Editor? If so, that may be the reason why you keep placing nowiki tags around your posts. While it is a known bug, it doesn't hurt to send in a new report via Special:Contact to alert them that it is still an issue. 15:13, March 23, 2015 (UTC) I am referring to that. Sorry for the confusion (or contradiction if you may). I maybe overly skeptical but I'm still rather critical of it's "officiousness(?)". And yes, I am indeed using the Visual Editor. It's a default for me I guess, have not found a way to revert to the original editing format (if that's even possible). AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 15:25, March 23, 2015 (UTC) The question is whether we feel the source is reliable enough to justify its addition. I agree that we do not always need "word of God" from Bryke when adding new information to the wiki, but at the same anything we add needs to have come from a reliable place, that we trust has valid information. If we have something new stated in an article on a site like (as a random example) IGN, we trust that the info is reliable; regarding Bos' email as was given as an example, it is coming from someone we know and thus we trust the information is reliable. But information coming from an unknown tumblr user, I don't see how we can consider that reliable. There has to be a line at which we say, this information might be true (and as I said in my thread post, I don't want to suggest in any way that the user is lying) but its source is questionable enough that we need something more reliable to justifying adding it to the wiki. I would add as well that I feel the character heights (which I will say I always assumed came from an official source) are coming from an unreliable source (unless there is an official source which does corroborate the info), and would support removing them for the same reason. Summing up, I do not feel the source for the new info is reliable enough to justify adding it to the wiki, and I feel that doing so would invite the addition of every manner of "Bryke told me this" statements that we have no way of knowing if they are right or wrong. As an encyclopaedia, we have to back up information with reliable sources, and I do not feel this is coming from such a source. 23:39, March 23, 2015 (UTC) No offense, but it's not because we know someone, that they are therefore by default more trustworthy and reliable, so that's absolutely no argument to dismiss information. There has to be a line, yes, but there is zero reason to draw the line here, just because we apparently want to have a prejudice against people we don't know -because in the end, this is the internet. For all you know, you could be talking to spirits know who after "Lady Lostris" left her account open at a public library and now I could say spirits know what and be believed for it because I'm "someone you know". The line should be drawn at "be critical and use common sense". There is no need to fear for some invasion of "Bryke told me this" posts. Reading those few posts that pop up now and again with a critical mind, we'll go a long way. So as an encyclopedia, we have to back up our sources, which we did. Anyone doubting the source can just choose not to believe it if they are too skeptical towards strangers. As an encyclopedia, we also have the duty to report information that more than likely is true and sourced. In the end, it's a trivia note, a sourced trivia note. Whether you choose to believe it, is up to you, but there seems to be zero reason to doubt the source and, again, readers can still make up their minds for themselves, which is thus again, not a reason to remove any of those trivia points. 00:02, March 24, 2015 (UTC) I'm gonna be dropping out of the discussion for a bit but I agree with HammerOfThor and would argue that Korra/Asami/Kya/Aiwei being a member of the LGBT community is a very notable trait that falls a bit higher than the usual trivia affairs. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 18:18, March 24, 2015 (UTC) Wait, how reliable is the source? Do we have something from Bryke or Nick to confirm it? Otherwise, I wouldn't think that there's a particular reason that we would put it as official. I'd call that jumping the gun. --Mageddon725 - talk File:Zuko-dobs-c7.gif 18:21, March 24, 2015 (UTC) The validity of any information should not be based on whether the information itself "seems" likely, but whether the source of the information is considered reliable. There have been a number of instances in the past when we had information cropping up that could have been correct but was later proven false (the facebook post with episode titles for, I think, Book 2 comes to mind). We've also had instances in the past were we have held off adding something because the source wasn't completely reliable: we don't add things from IMDb because the source cannot be confirmed; we held off calling the Triad waterbender "Viper" because we couldn't be completely sure of the source. I don't see that this case is any different. 00:09, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Yes, we've had those, and just like those, we've had those that held up true and were accepted. The difference is that these two sources seem to be rejected based on a rather unfounded fear of "things said by people we don't know/trust". Which is a ridiculous notion. We have to be critical, which means taking the source and the information into account. Remember how we used to have a discussion about whether or not we were going to list Amon and Tarrlok as dead? For a while, we listed them as MIA or something because "there was no confirmation of Bryke" and thus we became the laughing stock of Tumblr and Twitter for a period of time. Yes, that example is different than the current because that was something on screen, not something that was confirmed afterwards, but the point I am highlighting with it is that using common sense and not automatically defending ourself with "we need the word of Bryke or it didn't happen" will get us a long, long way. And this is such a way, especially since the sole reason to doubt this still seems to be "we don't know said person", which, as I explained in my previous post is an unfounded notion. 08:02, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Except the difference between the Tarrlok/Amon being dead issue and this one is that the former actually occurred in the show, while this is simply a user on Tumblr claiming that an interaction happened without having any proof (that I was able to find, at least). So, anyone with a Tumblr can say that Bryke told them something and we'd accept it? What's the criteria for their trustworthiness? Or is it that they "feel" trustworthy? --Mageddon725 - talk File:Zuko-dobs-c7.gif 08:29, March 25, 2015 (UTC) I'm just going to copy the point again I made with that example, since I you didn't read it based on the start of your reply: "Yes, that example is different than the current because that was something on screen, not something that was confirmed afterwards, but the point I am highlighting with it is that using common sense and not automatically defending ourself with "we need the word of Bryke or it didn't happen" will get us a long, long way. And this is such a way, especially since the sole reason to doubt this still seems to be "we don't know said person", which, as I explained in my previous post is an unfounded notion." For the rest of your reply, please read this entire discussion again, since those points too have been touched upon. This would definitely not be the first time that we accept a source that wasn't Bryke or nick to confirm something, so I'm really waiting for anyone to point out a good reason for us to doubt the validity of this source beyond the baseless fear of "we don't know them/this will open a flood gate of etc." 08:33, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Fair enough in regard to the difference. I missed that. However, I hardly think "we've accepted other dubious sources before" is a solid argument for the validity of this source. We may have accepted other such sources, but I'd argue that it's a poor way to go about it, regardless. That said, I will ask again: What makes this source trustworthy? Do we have any reason to believe what's being said? Any at all? Beyond, that is, "we've done it before?" So far, it seems as though the two main reasons for keeping it are "we've done it" and "we shouldn't dismiss info because we don't know the source." But none of these address validity because, frankly, the source is not valid. It's a random Tumblr with nothing concrete to back it up. Plain and simple. It'd be like using Wikipedia, only instead of having annotations where actual sources for the info can be found, there's nothing. There's zero reason to trust the source. --Mageddon725 - talk File:Zuko-dobs-c7.gif 09:01, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Please elaborate on the "dubiousness" of this source. Because just throwing the word around and declaring it so just because it "doesn't come from Bryke" doesn't actually make it dubious. Also, what makes the previous similar sources we've accepted dubious? What backs up your claims? Because the previous sources we've accepted based on a critical use of common sense still hold up, so what's your new information to suddenly declare them to be "dubious"? If you'd read the discussion and the source, you'd know that this is something that occurred after a Q/A session. The question was asked, answered, and then reported about. What makes it any less official than the questions asked, answered, and then reported about after that during the Q/A session? What makes it any less official than fan-reports of things that transpired during a comic-con session of which we only have that fan's word to go on and yet, we still accept it? Why? Because that is a reasonable thing to do based on common sense. So what's the difference now? What makes none of that valid? You're currently completely hiding behind "we need Bryke's word otherwise it's not valid!" That's just not a workable attitude, since information is not always put in writing by them. It is also shared verbally and then just reported on by a fan. Saying that there is zero reason to trust this source without actually giving a decent reason as to why is no longer being critical, that's just putting your head in the sand because "Bryke didn't write it themselves". Also, we basically are a Wikipedia. 09:28, March 25, 2015 (UTC) And, Mage, there is a source above that has //another user corroborating what was said—something far //less "dubious" than a single user "claiming" to have spoken to the creators. 10:50, March 25, 2015 (UTC) (Still out of the discussion but had this to add) That doesn't make it less "dubious", it's still two unknown, unreliable sources claiming something (I am however doing more research on the two users). And speaking of Wikipedia, I took a look on both of their LGBT in Animation/Television articles and the The Legend of Korra page and saw no mention of the link. While granted, the argument given would be "but we're an encyclopedia based on Avatar and have sources Wikipedia doesn't have" and that's true but when it comes to the LGBT articles and a source "confirming" the addition of two more characters, they would have added the characters based on the source but they didn't. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 14:40, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Please show me what does make those two people be a "dubious" source? Because again, the rather unfounded fear of "things said by people we don't know/trust" doesn't hold up without a sound reason. I'm still waiting for a sound argument to tell me why we should doubt and dismiss the word of those two people. The Wikipedia comparison completely falls flat when you take into account that we're not only a more encompassing encyclopedia on everything Avatar-related, not just this. 14:44, March 25, 2015 (UTC) I will add that I don't think we should doubt this user. Clearly, they were at the event and got to see Bryke. They also got the chance to log the entire Q&A session as well-regarded fan site DongbuFeng picked up on. I know they are just an anonymous person, but I don't like the idea of just outright dismissing them. We've picked up info from event attendees before, whether at Comic-Con or something else. Now, if it comes out later that this information proved unreliable, we can remove it. However, while Bryke may not have confirmed it, they certainly have not denied it either. As their Tumblrs and drop-by AW have proven, they're well in touch with what the fans have been talking about and keep them in the loop. Thus, if this was not true, I think we'd see one or both of them say so. 14:49, March 25, 2015 (UTC) "The Wikipedia comparison completely falls flat when you take into account that we're not only a more encompassing encyclopedia on everything Avatar-related, not just this." As I said, if the LGBT link was a reliable source, they would have added it to the LGBT articles no matter what, which has had many sources confirmed and coming from Tumblr. They did not. Wikipedia's Korra page is operated on reliable sources that justify notability, the wiki encompasses the less notable attributes to the franchise but still have a reliable source to back up the claim. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 15:00, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Ah, so you have undeniable proof and can link us to the location on Wikipedia where this source was denounced and therefore not used? Or was that just your own speculation as to why they're not listing it? 15:11, March 25, 2015 (UTC) It's not speculation when you know how Wikipedia works, Lostris. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 16:53, March 25, 2015 (UTC) So, that's a yes, you are speculating that that's their reasoning, since you have no prove for it either way beyond your own claim. 17:01, March 25, 2015 (UTC) It is their reasoning. They usually do not accept that kind of sources but if you want me to test it, I'll be happy to. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 18:11, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Test what? So let me get this straight, two by all standards reliable users -because up till now, no one has given any decent reason as to why we should dismiss their credibility- not believe because Wikipedia doesn't follow them? So what, everything Wikipedia does is what we should do? Excuse me for also not being on board with that reasoning. 18:59, March 25, 2015 (UTC) "Also, we basically are a Wikipedia." You're the one who brought that up. And no, I don't think we should operate exactly like Wikipedia (Though, you've argued against that point multiple times to the point where I'm confused) and also the one arguing that I was speculating on a rule in their policies directly talking about what counts as reliable or not. AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 19:17, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Yes, a wikipedia, a specified wikipedia, an Avatar-specified wikipedia. What we are not, however, is Wikipedia. Which means that if Wikipedia suddenly decides to ask for donations -which they are- we don't have to do that, we are not even allowed to do that. We are not Wikipedia, so whatever they do, doesn't mean the slightest thing here. I apologize if it wasn't clear that I was just comparing us to Wikipedia in terms of being a (specified) encyclopedia. Also, what I was arguing against is doing whatever Wikipedia decides to do. We're not them, we have nothing to do with them, and it's not because they do or do not do something for spirit know what reason -because it's basically just your speculation claiming that they're not listing Kya and Aiwei because they don't think the source is reliable, unless you have some real evidence for that, of course, then I completely retract these words- that we should follow them or even consider that course of action in any of our discussions. To make it clear: there is no set rule that we can say "yes, that account, but no, not that one." As said and then repeated many times by now, it depends on the context of it all and common sense. It's not because we don't know a source beforehand, that they can't be reliable. Those two users have given us zero reason to doubt their word, especially not since, as PSU outlines, they've correctly reported on everything else to do with that Q/A session. So why on earth would they lie about that? Why doubt their word? Why, please tell me? 19:29, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Quite frankly, no one on here has given a good reason to accept the source, either. I would like to think that we don't just accept anything that comes along, but I'm missing where exactly the critical eye on this source is. Basically, what we're doing if we accept this link is saying that Bryke was confirmed as saying something, which isn't true. Bryke was not confirmed as saying it, which is what we would be saying if we allow this thing to stay without knowing whether it's actually legitimate. So if we're content with the possibility of perpetuating false information, of putting words into the creators' mouths for the sole reason being "seems legit", then by all means, leave it be. --Mageddon725 - talk File:Zuko-dobs-c7.gif 19:58, March 25, 2015 (UTC) Why accept the source? It seems reasonable, they've reported truthfully about anything else, there seems no reason to distrust them, the context it was gathered in. And you are correct to like to think that we don't accept everything that comes, because that's exactly what we do: we don't accept anything that comes along. However, I'm starting to became a bit tired of having to say the same thing over and over: BE CRITICAL, use common sense. Can we give a specific definition for this? No, we can't, because it will always depend on the information, where/how it was gathered, who's reporting on the source. Those are variable parameters that needs to be gauged every time again by their own merits. So now, based on what information are you declaring their report to be false? What about them makes you doubt? And please, give something good, because you've once again just threw the ball back without actually answering the question yourself and let it be something more substantial than "we don't know them" or "they're not Bryke", because we've been over that already as to why that's not a reason, especially not since it never had to be the only possibility to accept something. Everything that was verbally answered on the Q/A would be considered "confirmed by Bryke". Why wouldn't the same count for everything that -by all means gives us no reason to doubt it- has been asked a few minutes after that Q/A to Bryke? So please, do not overdramatize things and put words in people's mouths by drawing false conclusions as to what we are defending and what we want to be doing. 20:10, March 25, 2015 (UTC) RIGHT WHEN I GOT THE THIRD REPLY DONE AND WRITTEN I GOT ANOTHER EDITING WARRING, AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH-- Anyways. As I've stated in my last replies that I'm currently lazy to recreate: blah blah, can't research at the moment. Blah blah blah accusations. Blah blah blah research. Blah blah blah go to the hospital, mom ;_;. Blah blah blah don't have the time. Blah blah blah wasted 15 minutes of my life. Sorry for the unprofessional and inappropriate response but after the last few edits blocking my old ones, had to post something. Taking a break from discussion AvatarKatar (wall • contribs) 20:25, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)