At the Crossroads
The first part of this manual was about how to write articles, in the matter of decent prose. Starting with this chapter, the second part goes over what more is needed, to ensure the articles are worthwhile, and free in a sense that takes into account the rights of authors. Here "worthwhile" means serious work that is reusable. Everything is brought together in the final Chapter 9, with summaries to help with reviewing articles, your own or those written by others.
This chapter introduces some concepts that may be unfamiliar. They center on "objectivity", which is often thought to be something good in itself. We extract two ideas from it: being self-critical about the basis for decisions, and the kind of description that is carried out at arm's length. These ideas then make for a better understanding of the needs of Lunyr articles, the appropriate "house style".
The sections in this chapter are:
- The Crossroads Inn
- The in-universe Wikia model
- Changing the model
- The way of neutrality
The Crossroads Inn
The major conflict in Game of Thrones is between the Starks and the Lannisters, two families unable to come to terms. But how does it start? Catelyn Stark comes across Tyrion Lannister by chance, at the Crossroads Inn. She suspects him of involvement in an attack on her son, and takes him prisoner. The consequences are very serious, but George R. R. Martin's plotting means we see in time that Catelyn acted impulsively, not checking her information for reliability. We can infer, later, that her suspicion against Tyrion was ill-founded, and was "faked" for the benefit of another character (who expects to thrive on the chaos of a war).
Martin is not a didactic author, but one who contradicts normal expectations. Here, though, from the heart of contemporary popular culture, is a lesson: check your sources like a skeptic, rather than be led astray by what seems right to you. The lesson is therefore about breaking out of feeling and what is easy to accept, into what more we can know by checking further and examining sources for their credibility.
The in-universe Wikia model
Let's now look briefly at the model used by Wikia, now officially FANDOM powered by Wikia, a successful popular culture site. If you don't know much about Game of Thrones, and are not worried about spoilers, you can read about Catelyn Stark on its Game of Thrones Wiki. That page is written in the in-universe style, in other words stating fictional events as facts. And it applies to the television series, rather than Martin's original books. That means, in particular, that it simply interprets what is available on video.
Wikia is a wiki, as the name implies. Its content can be edited (by those logged in). What then emerges is a consensus version of a topic, based on the television series. As "fandom" also implies, an in-universe consensus version is supposed to exist, rather cutting across a general feature of popular culture: everyone is entitled to their opinions about it.
We assume that the discussion in the previous section would not be welcome on that Wikia page: it "breaks the wall" by not remaining in-universe. Material in the nature of a plot summary can remain behind the "fourth wall" of performance convention, but commentary on the plot disrupts it.
Changing the model
The Wikia model was not introduced as a pattern to follow. Here are the main features of a contrasting, "take it seriously" style, for reference articles quite generally:
- Don't use the in-universe view, except in the case of an actual plot summary.
- Adopt instead an external view, suitable for reporting on the topic.
- Build up what you say from what other external observers say.
- Treat people in the action as fallible witnesses, for example by quoting from an autobiography, rather than accepting its content at face value.
You could sum this up as "everyone is a (theatre) critic" - though a muted critic who doesn't venture subjective opinions. It's a rigorous approach. It uses a distanced point of view, and doesn't assume that everyone's perspective can be reconciled. Calling it "objectivity" is an actual philosophical leap in the dark, therefore.
How does this model work out, in terms of practical writing? It comes out like (a) summaries of events, where we are sure of what happened, for 1, (b) "According to Alice", where Alice is external to the action, for 3, (c) "Bob said", followed by an exact quotation, where Bob is an actor in the events, for 4.
Contrast therefore these two passages. From the Wikia page:
"Returning to Winterfell, Catelyn and Ser Rodrik stop at the Crossroads Inn, planning to stay overnight. They are surprised by the arrival of Tyrion Lannister. Catelyn fails to stay incognito, then she calls on several knights present who are sworn to her father's bannermen to help her take Tyrion into custody. Catelyn publicly announces that they are traveling north to Winterfell, but instead takes Tyrion east into the Vale of Arryn."
And:
"Alice witnessed a road accident. Bob, as she reported, was driving recklessly round the corner, and failed to stop in time when a pedestrian, Clem, stepped off the sidewalk. Clem was taken to hospital with internal injuries, according to Doctor Delia, and placed in intensive care. Bob stated to police "I know this road, and I was not driving too fast for the conditions.""
The points 1-4 do add up to one version of objectivity. It is not only distanced, but also dispassionate. It combines testimony, allowing for issues of subjectivity by leaving room for doubt whether involved parties are necessarily reliable sources. It is not intended to place blame, or to come to any other judgments. It is compatible with the issue of tone raised in Chapter 3, where understatement had a favorable mention.
In any case, these detailed instructions do much more than the simple request to be "objective". They amount to a definite recipe for putting together an article on a given topic, as a matter of reporting.
The way of neutrality
At the crossroads for writers of reference material, there is a signpost. One direction leads to the land of Entertainment: material that reads well, but may contain gossip, rumour, and urban myths. The sign in the other direction used to read "Academia". That has been crossed out, and it now reads "Take it seriously".
There was another way at this junction, and the sign to it still says "Hobby". But that road is becoming overgrown. Leisure is often taken seriously, and fandom can even be a vocation.
To back out of the metaphor, Web publishing means anyone can produce reference articles of quality: one requirement of quality being neutrality. .It is important, whether we are talking about academic or social stature of the result. Academic writing usually makes a case, but if the opposite of "neutral" is "partisan" then to write in a partisan style falls below the usual academic standards. For the sake of concision, material has to be used selectively, but the selection must be fair, rather than one-sided.
There is a knack to be acquired here, not just a metaphorical signpost. Trying to be neutral may in practice be demanding, but it also leads somewhere.