a question of being accurate

[Cindy C.]

Gwen wrote:

> Regarding Steve's concern about using "Marauders,"
> etc. Actually, I'm wondering if the central intro page
> to all the FAQs should say something to the effect
> that many of the terms used within are either unique
> to HPfGU or else commonly recognized intrafandom
> shorthand, but that these terms are not necessarily
> canonical, nor are they univerally accepted among the
> fandom.

Hmmm.  I understand the concern, I think, but I was taking a 
somewhat different conceptual approach to our mission here.

I see the FPs as compilations of *discussions* of canon.  The FPs 
really aren't meant to be a compilation of or summary of canon 
itself -- that is the function of the Lexicon.  Because the FPs are 
compilations of discussions, they will necessarily capture certain 
ideas, theories, and terminology that do not explicitly exist in 
canon or the fandom at large.  I think that is intuitive.  So I 
don't think we must clarify the fact that we are preparing 
narratives to direct people to posts that they might find 
interesting on various subjects and that the narratives or posts 
might sometimes go outside the four corners of canon.

Actually, I think we discussed this briefly last month, IIRC, and 
the feeling at the time is that we didn't want to generate a master  
glossary for the FAQs -- a sort of FAQs for the FAQs, if you will.  
Instead, I think we decided to leave it to the judgment of each 
editor to decide whether any unusual terminology requires 
explanation and how best to explain it.  Since each editor might 
handle the issue differently, it is probably best not to make a 
global statement on the index page.

So on balance, I think we needn't clarify that our FP essays may 
contain terms or theory names that are not strictly canonical or 
common in the fandom.

Cindy