The Canon Rule

[Amanda]

This is Amanda, (a) doing a drive-by from work and (b) speaking only 
for herself, not as any sort of duly designated representative.

> Tom, in his first post to Feedback:
> Hey all! I've been following along here since Day One, but haven't 
> yet been able to post my concerns due to time constraints and, uh, 
> the fact that everyone else is very on top of the ball in their 
> observations and suggestions. It's quite easy to feel rather 
> redundant once one actually gets through everything that everyone 
> else has to say.

Welcome! I was hoping you'd come over; I remember you made some 
superb points before, when you wrote the MEG team.

> When I first joined HPfGU in January 2003, I read through the 
HBfile 
> and was struck by the extensive explanations concerning canon: what 
> it is, when to use it, how to use it, and so forth. From my *first* 
> impression, canon was a Big Deal, and it was important to cite it 
> correctly and copiously. 

I'm not dissing or denigrating or diminishing the use of canon here. 
But I think one reason that its explanation was so prominent, is that 
the discussions of what was and wasn't were so extensive. Lots of 
discussion and debate went into trying to formulate some parameters.

If you read an earlier post I made here on list rules, you will have 
seen my "take," that they are in some cases an attempt to distill and 
codify something that longtime posters just got to where they 
intuitively knew, did by feel. I think the canon rule is probably the 
very best example of that.

(assumes sepulchral voice) In the Beginning, anything could be 
discussed on the main list. (coughs, goes back to normal voice) 
Seriously, I think it was only after list volume necessitated the 
splits into OTC, Movie, etc., that canon content became such a 
measure of appropriateness for the main list. And every time this has 
been discussed, there are new approaches to just how best to phrase 
something that is still very much something that people feel, know, 
intuit, about what makes one post canon-based and another not. Every 
permutation solves some problems and leaves room for other 
borderline "is it?" situations.

I don't know that there will ever be One Rule that makes it black and 
white. As I said in the earlier post, this list has also always been 
very self-correcting. The serious posters, new or not, learn through 
interaction what degree of canon is appropriate, what skates the 
line, etc. The nonserious posters, the ones who didn't understand the 
sort of group they were joining, are usually ignored, leave, or are 
filtered out in the moderating process.

> Therefore, in order to not look like a buffoon in front of so many 
> prolific members, I made a concerted effort to buff up my own 
> knowledge of the books; I also took to carrying them around with me 
> so that I'd be able to cite the canon properly.

You, my dear, sound like LOON material. Somebody remind me to write 
something up on list culture when I have time. Like, 2008. Too many 
people don't know what LOONs are. 

> When the HBfile was revised a little while ago, I noticed that - in 
> contrast to the old file - the new document gave canon almost no 
> attention. I mean, 'canon' was mentioned as a word, and it was used 
> in explanations of the prefixes we use on the boards, but a full-
out 
> description of canon and its various attendant uses wasn't to be 
> found anywhere in the new HBfile.
> 
> I wrote a letter to the Administrators at the time, but don't 
recall 
> hearing anything back on the topic. And the HBfile hasn't since 
been 
> revised to add more information about canon.

Actually, the HBfile is becoming quite the "living document." I know 
some sections have been re-inserted, as the need for them became 
clearer. In the effort to smooth it down to a size people would 
actually read, I think we may indeed have cut too much.

I believe the current version of the Bigfile used to be periodically 
sent out to everyone--am I remembering wrong? Does that still happen? 
It might be good to make sure everyone has a current edition, on a 
regular basis.

Anyway, I'm not terribly involved with the updating of the HBfile, 
but whenever a lack is pointed out it is checked for a possible need 
to update.

> Would it be at all possible for the Admin Team to re-add that canon-
> section from the old file? You know, not necessarily the whole 
> thing, but something more than what is there now?

I think they're looking at it. If you have the number of the old 
section, it'd be helpful, because as I recall, it was in there a 
couple places. (wonders if she kept all her old Bigfile versions)
 
~Amanda, really wanting to go home because of an upset stomach and 
swearing to get the other editor for out-sicking her and not coming 
in at all