Speaking only for myself, and not on behalf of “ze Wiki”, I’d like to comment on Sarah Toton’s talk in a raw “stream of consciousness” way. What I mean to say is that these thoughts are more or less unpolished, but I would like to bring them to the forefront for discussion.
Before getting to that point though, I’d like to issue a few corrections to some inaccuracies that Toton introduced into her talk (located here). Minor housekeeping, if you will, but basically she mentioned that I’m a part-time employee at Best Buy, whereas I’m actually a supervisor of the media department. Supervisors are full-time, get paid more, and, on occasion, get bonuses, but more often than not get paid in headaches.
Secondly, my last name is pronounced “Bode-win”. No “dean” sound at the end.
But enough about me. 
Anyway, I’d like to discuss some of the points that Toton brought up in her presentation, but also point out a few observations I had as a result of her talk, the talk of her fellow presenters, which I have only started listening to, and the reactions people have had as a result.
The first point I’d like to bring up is an observation that both Steelviper and myself have had, regarding the results of Toton’s search on the word “queer”. While this elicited laughter from the audience, she made the point that the wiki didn’t cover homosexual relationships.
This is, in my view, a fallacious assumption. If one searches for the word “pope”, “holy spirit”, or (for the fun of it) “condom” one would get the same message as Toton did; it doesn’t make the wiki against religion or against family planning (or safe sex). It only highlights that no such articles exist.
(As corollary to this, I should note that we are starting to cover sexuality in the Twelve Colonies.)
Which naturally leads into my second point… What homosexual relationships?
There haven’t been any, amongst the Colonials. Doesn’t mean that there weren’t any gays on the Colonies, or in the Colonial Fleet for that matter, but it’s not a subject that RDM and company have brought up. The only tangible instance of any deviancy from heterosexuality would be in “Hero“, with the Baltar/Six/D’Anna pairing, which is neither strictly homosexual or heterosexual, but bi-sexual. (And the Gaeta thing with Baltar’s marine guard from the gag reel is funny, but doesn’t count.)
In my general observations of not only the Battlestar communities, but of other sci-fi communities, there are segments of these communities who want there to be a homosexual presence, writing “slash” fiction and the like to express and manifest this desire.
And that’s fine. But that’s not what the Wiki’s mission is. Outside of some speculations that we do on wiki, mainly with the “Humanoid Cylon speculation” page, we don’t delve deeply into depths that may or may not be there, because that’s not the mission that we’re on. We’re an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias deal with facts, not perceived depths or subtexts that may or may not be present, as most subtexts (by their very nature) are far too subjective to be considered factual or encyclopedic.
With that in mind, that’s the reason why I want to direct people over to BattlestarPegasus.com, because Battlestar Wiki cannot be everything to everyone. It is impossible to serve as both an encyclopedic reference and as a opinionated viewpoint for subtexts whose existence is fleeting, at best, without sacrificing the core principles of the Wiki.
BSP.com aims to be a voice for the fandom of both the original series, as well as the re-imagined series. So interpretations, reviews, and, yes, even fan fiction based on the source text are more than welcome there.
So that’s all I have for right now, and I’ll have more later. Hopefully this is enough to begin deeper discussions into the wiki’s purpose, and inspires others to contribute to these discussions.
The above points don’t really tackle, in my current view, why we don’t have more active female contributors on the wiki. However, some of the responses to my original blog post which has made much the splash (much to my delight nonetheless) from people who otherwise “lurk” do indicate other external influences that may more realistically explain the lack of additional female participants.
This entry was posted on Friday, May 4th, 2007 at 4:14 pm and is filed under Discussions, Drifiting Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Some quick thoughts. The PDF doesn’t appear to do any research that properly defines the true nature of Battlestar Wiki. In fact, it appears to attempt to distort the wiki’s purpose to further the purpose of the paper.
One item I noted that supports this assertion is a screenshot of the article on “Toaster”. This article would normally redirect to the re-imagined Cylons article. But, for the sake of humor, is a page that pokes a little fun at the BSG universe. Battlestar Wiki purposely doesn’t have many silly pages to keep from diluting its intent as a “serious” resource. What makes me concerned is that this screenshot appears doctored. The “silly page” category appears, but the “Silly” banner (which must appear if the Silly page category is visible) is missing.
My opinion on this paper is that its writer misses the difference between fan fiction and resources like Battlestar Wiki, which, while not an official resource, attempts to be so as to allow fans to note information about the show that they can use in whatever way they legally see fit.
On a less objective viewpoint, not everything on television needs to have a sexual (homosexual or otherwise) “bent” to it. To criticize the show about its lack of homosexuality would be like complaining to the KKK that their membership needs more blacks. Perhaps it’s not the purpose of the writers to display all viewpoints, no matter what a viewer wishes. This article, in conclusion, attempts to search for a story that doesn’t yet exist in the series. Perhaps some patience is in order, or perhaps someone might write a story in another show that could make this group happier. Fans don’t write the stories for a show, and good shows are generally not managed by fan committee. Homosexuality is not a necessity to make a show realistic or authentic per se.
Judging by how recent the screen captures were, in addition to Toton’s comments on Alan Johnson in both her presentation and document, I would definitely agree that the proper research was, to say the least, lacking.
I will agree that I found the “Toaster” screenshot to be a red flag, particularly since the “silly page” banner is conspicuously absent.
While I do need to stress that Ms. Toton brings up an interesting point, I will reiterate that were the paper better and more thoroughly researched, she would have been able to make her point more objectively.