A Conversation for 'Airwolf' - the TV Series
Rho Posted Mar 31, 2003
This post contained only a crude personal attack of BBS - no content that didn't break the <./>HouseRules</.>.
Bright Blue Shorts Posted Mar 31, 2003
It's unfortunate that it had to go. There was potential for some good points in there ...
If I recall it was that:
- he didn't plagiarise my entry (even though the general construction and order of the entry were almost identical - but perhaps that's a technicality).
- he was watching Airwolf as a baby on his grandad's knee, so actually we'd both been watching it for as long as each other. Apparently it is written in his baby book that it was his favourite programme.
- in response to my comment about preferring to lose credit for the entry because it had been fixed within 5 minutes, it was suggested that the whole error-filled process started when I first wrote my entry.
- the new entry doesn't use his style because it took him three months to write and learn GuideML ... (I couldn't quite understand the logic of this argument either).
- he wrote the entry because he tired of having people criticise Airwolf and say how poor it was.
- his view is not rose-tinted (even though I could never find anything negative within his entry).
- he and his friends are grown-up and knows it's only a programme.
Shame that he couldn't have made them without feeling a need to put me down
Rho Posted Mar 31, 2003
GreyDesk Posted Mar 31, 2003
Editorial Response to the Issues with 'Airwolf'
Smij - Formerly Jimster Posted Apr 1, 2003
This just isn't going to go away, is it...
Just to remind us of how this first came about, Researcher 211403 (who has since introduced himself as Mr Robert M. Cassidy) first posted to Editorial Feedback on Dec 9, 2002, (F47997?thread=229225) to complain about the Edited Entry on 'Airwolf' (which was based on Bright Blue Shorts' original entry, A491050). You can see in the original posting, Mr Cassidy drew our attention to a number of issues a fan of the series might have with our Edited Entry, and Ashley (from the h2g2 Team) suggested he might want to write an entry of his own.
On Feb 17, 2003, Mr Cassidy submitted an entry on 'Airwolf'. Realising that Mr Cassidy intended this as a proposed update to the existing one, we decided that when the Entry was eventually picked we would simply use the new information to update the old one. As has already been said elsewhere, h2g2 does not currently have a formal update process - a volunteer system was run by Jimi X until very recently, but we have not been able to establish a replacement process, which is where the ensuing conflict really stems from. When the new entry was accepted, the intent to update, rather than 'sit alongside', the existing entry was forgotten. We could offer a number of very sound reasons why this happened, but it doesn't excuse the fact that we cocked up, which we've apologised for.
When Bright Blue Shorts drew our attention to the fact that we now had two entries on the same subject in the Edited Guide, we realised the mistake and set about amalgamating the two entries as originally planned. As the second Edited Entry (based on Mr Cassidy's original) had been created in error, it was deleted, and its Conversation Forums were moved to the (now sole) Edited Entry. In all this, both Bright Blue Shorts's and Mr Cassidy's original versions remained untouched. Only the Edited versions were affected.
Okay, so now we move onto the entry itself. First of all, a comparison between BBS's version (A491050) and Mr Cassidy's (A970436) reveals that the new version was structurally very similar to the old one, and that despite Mr Cassidy's claims to the contrary, BBS's contribution was sufficient enough for him to have been credited in the new version. That he was not credited appears to be down to Mr Cassidy's own dislike of the original entry, which we do not condone.
Conversely, we also took into account Mr Cassidy's comments about the existing entry being offensive to fans of the show. While we do not set out to pander solely to fans of each topic on h2g2, we are aware that some readers might be sensitive to criticism about their particular favourites. We felt a fair compromise would be to present much of the material in as neutral a tone as possible, but also included the sections from the originals which drew attention to some observations on perceived weaknesses of the show, for balance.
We are always receptive to suggestions for how entries might be improved. We do not see any need to deliver these suggestions alongside personal abuse as your point will be considered regardless. To address some of Mr Cassidy's points:
>> The whole point of me writing that review was to REPLACE the currently existing one, and what have you done? You've merged them.<<
Your own version still exists, untouched and still searchable via the BBCi Search engine. The merged version is a copy created from the two entries, as explained above.
>> You didn't have to point out that St. John is pronounced "Sinjin".<<
Some readers might not be aware of this fact, hence we added it from BBS's original entry.
>> Airwolf no longer fills 4am gaps.<<
Although the show has, we understand, been screened in this timeslot before (which suggests it could be again), we accept that this is perhaps misleading and have amended the entry accordingly.
>> Jean Bruce Scott was not simply brought in as somthing for the guys to "..focus their testosterone urges on".<<
It's a fair assumption that the addition of a female character to the show would follow the same rationale as any other show making such an addition. This isn't to denigrate the actress's ability however, it's a light-hearted comment not intended to cause offence.
>> Airwolf is not the 'star of the show'; it is the tool, not the tale. The crew do not wear 'G suits' (in fact, this whole paragraph is unneccessary). <<
The phrase 'star of the show' and the term 'G suits' are taken as examples of artistic license, a short-hand that non-fans might appreciate.
>> The bit about the computer game is unneccessary.<<
It illustrates that the series was successful enough, initially at least, to be considered marketable as a computer game. Is there anything there that you feel is inaccurate?
>> If you are not going to use my article as a replacement, like I intended, please remove all of my content from this 'merged version', including the links I provided. I am sure that you are not allowed use links to the sites without permission of their respective owners, and I will personally suggest to the site creators that they make sure you remove the links. If you do not remove my content from the 'merged version', I will take this to mean you are using my material without permission, and I will see where I stand legally.<<
As I have already noted, your own version still exists untouched and will do so for as long as you wish to have it as part of h2g2. The very nature of this Community of one of collaboration. Entries that are submitted to the Edited Guide section of h2g2 can be used *as the basis* of an entry that might require additional input from our volunteers or from the in-house staff. You still own the copyright to everything you contribute to h2g2, which means you are perfectly free to take what you have written and re-publish it somewhere else. However, By agreeing to our <./>HouseRules</.> (which you did when you first registered with h2g2), anything you create on h2g2 is done under the condition that you grant us a non-exclusive licence to distribute and edit the material in any way that we want, and in any media. (See the Terms and Conditions on <./>copyright</.> for the full terms of our rights.) As we may wish to distribute the Guide in various formats over time, we need to be sure that we have the right to publish everything that's on h2g2.
Although we would like to start moving towards a final solution for this issue that doesn't result in further name-calling and door-slamming, if anyone has any additional comments on the factual content of this entry, please feel free to contribute them here.
[h2g2 Editorial Team]
Editorial Response to the Issues with 'Airwolf'
Bright Blue Shorts Posted Apr 1, 2003
TBH I've lost interest in all this, although the name-calling bit was fun yesterday. It's really not worth any more effort ...
Even so as a point of light-hearted argument, I think the helicopter was the star of the show. Obvious Jan-Michael Vincent and Ernest Borgnine might disagree, but I doubt it would have been much of a show if left to them, and no appearance from the chopper.
And I think they did wear G-suits (ie something to avoid the G-forces created at high-speeds). I may recall incorrectly but I'm sure I remember the suits inflating/deflating as they did those incredible manouevres ... JMV and EB definitely wore matching jumpsuits though.
Key: Complain about this post