WikiNarnia

Narborg

Narborg

New member
Hey guys,ersial

haven't been here for a while, hope all is well.

I was waiting time on the net today, and ended up on WikiNarnia, and I must say, I have big issues with it. There seems to be a lot of content up there which is not for the books, or movies, or even for the controversial timeline, but which seems to be the invention or interpretation of whoever put it up there. A few examples include: The "Dark Age of Narnia" which is said to have been from then the Pevensies leave until the Telmarines arrived (which I think contradicts what Jewel said in The Last Battle), the dubious naming of Narnia events and other things, such as the White Witches reign as "The Winter Revolution," it claims that Terebinthia was under Narnia (I recall no evidence to suggest this) and there are many more. What is also frustrating is that there is no referencing in it, so there is no way to see where information is coming from.

I know that theoretically anyone can edit it, but there is usually someone or someones behind these pages. Anyone know whats the deal with it?
 
Narborg! How nice to see you here, welcome back! We miss you.
Hope all is well with you.

WikiNarnia sounds like Fan-Fic you know, like a fan's explanation of a lot of stuff that's not covered in the books. But like PoTW, I have never heard of it before.
 
Inkspot and POTW, I think you can find WikiNarnia here:
HTML: 
http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia_Wiki

WikiNarnia is basically a Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) for everything Narnia related, or that's what it purports to be, anyway. After the success of Wikipedia, a lot of fandoms have set up their own online encyclopedias modeled after that style. These wikis are supposed to be collections of facts about places and characters collected from books, movies, interviews, letters from the author and other relevant sources to provide a quick reference for people in the fandom. There is a Harry Potter wikipedia, for instance, and a Star Wars one creatively named Wookiepedia. Since these sites claim to be encyclopdias, they should have citations for the information they provide on characters and on places, and they shouldn't be like fanfic.

OP, I haven't been on WikiNarnia much. I basically use it the same way I would use Wookiepedia or the Harry Potter Wiki--to check a fact for a fanfic that I am not certain that I have right, or to do little research on a background character. It is troubling what you say about the lack of citations, though:( I'll have to careful about using it as a reference source in the future. You could perhaps use the Talk feature to make comments about specific articles--asking for sources or presenting quotes from the books that point out that something presented as factual may not be right--but that seems like it would be very time-consuming if the site as a whole lacks adequate citations and is content to present personal speculation as fact.
 
SunshineRose said:
Inkspot and POTW, I think you can find WikiNarnia here:
HTML: 
http://narnia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia_Wiki

WikiNarnia is basically a Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) for everything Narnia related, or that's what it purports to be, anyway. After the success of Wikipedia, a lot of fandoms have set up their own online encyclopedias modeled after that style. These wikis are supposed to be collections of facts about places and characters collected from books, movies, interviews, letters from the author and other relevant sources to provide a quick reference for people in the fandom. There is a Harry Potter wikipedia, for instance, and a Star Wars one creatively named Wookiepedia. Since these sites claim to be encyclopdias, they should have citations for the information they provide on characters and on places, and they shouldn't be like fanfic.

OP, I haven't been on WikiNarnia much. I basically use it the same way I would use Wookiepedia or the Harry Potter Wiki--to check a fact for a fanfic that I am not certain that I have right, or to do little research on a background character. It is troubling what you say about the lack of citations, though:( I'll have to careful about using it as a reference source in the future. You could perhaps use the Talk feature to make comments about specific articles--asking for sources or presenting quotes from the books that point out that something presented as factual may not be right--but that seems like it would be very time-consuming if the site as a whole lacks adequate citations and is content to present personal speculation as fact.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I should have given an explanation as to what it was, but this is a good one. The Harry Potter is quite good, as there seems to be a team of people who quickly get ride of anything which is not canonical. This does not seem to be that case with the Narnia one, so I would teat anything on there with caution.
 
Narborg said:
Yeah, I should have given an explanation as to what it was, but this is a good one. The Harry Potter is quite good, as there seems to be a team of people who quickly get ride of anything which is not canonical. This does not seem to be that case with the Narnia one, so I would teat anything on there with caution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Harry Potter and the Star Wars wikis are pretty reliable. Everything seems to be well-referenced and edited on those pages. (At least, to the degree possible with the Star Wars one, since the Star Wars canon is a bit of a mess with contradictory information and changing timelines and retcons, but that can be blamed on the people making Star Wars products, not those running the wiki and trying to provide a good source of established information for fans.)

I was just looking at the Charn page on the Narnia wiki, and it does seem to have some speculation portrayed as fact. It does seem like caution needs to be used with the Narnia wiki. I wish that the Narnia one had people monitoring it, making sure that the material contained on its pages was accurate and not just speculation. Speculation is fine in fanfiction and forum discussion, but not in reference pages, in my humble opinion.
 
SunshineRose said:
Yeah, the Harry Potter and the Star Wars wikis are pretty reliable. Everything seems to be well-referenced and edited on those pages. (At least, to the degree possible with the Star Wars one, since the Star Wars canon is a bit of a mess with contradictory information and changing timelines and retcons, but that can be blamed on the people making Star Wars products, not those running the wiki and trying to provide a good source of established information for fans.)

I was just looking at the Charn page on the Narnia wiki, and it does seem to have some speculation portrayed as fact. It does seem like caution needs to be used with the Narnia wiki. I wish that the Narnia one had people monitoring it, making sure that the material contained on its pages was accurate and not just speculation. Speculation is fine in fanfiction and forum discussion, but not in reference pages, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I wondered if anyone here was involved with it?

I've just had a look at the Charn page. There is a lot of speculation on it, but at least it comes across as speculation. I did find one mistake on it: they say that the race of charn had Giant blood in it, but as I remember, it was just the royal family of Charm which was said to have Giant blood.
 
Last edited:
Mr Beaver explained that Jadis was descendent of Lilith and giants. I don't think anything was said of it only being the royal family.

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
Mr Beaver explained that Jadis was descendent of Lilith and giants. I don't think anything was said of it only being the royal family.

MrBob
Click to expand...

I'll have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that in TMN it says something like " Some say that there is Giant blood in the Royal family of Charn."
 
Back
Top