Author Topic: Of loremasters, "facts", and cronyism  (Read 8946 times)

Daric Gaersmith

  • Visitor
  • Posts: 3
Of loremasters, "facts", and cronyism
« on: December 03, 2013, 11:27:29 PM »
On a particular Elder Scrolls wiki, well respected and considered by many to be authoritative, I challenged the monkey-truth that malachite in the game Skyrim is volcanic in origin. Sure, we all know that malachite can be used to create glass armor, and that in Morrowind volcanic glass is used for this purpose. But can we really draw the assumption that malachite is therefore volcanic? My challenge drew the attention and the ire of the loremasters on the wiki, who defended their position that malachite is volcanic, with the assertion that if I couldn't prove that it isn't volcanic (through in-game texts) then it must be so, because that is what their wiki says. In essence, if a "fact" has already been established, then it cannot be challenged without evidence. Even if that "fact" isn't supported by in-game texts itself.

On the same respected and authoritative wiki I began a new article about gemstone geodes, in response to the release of the Dragonborn add-on for Skyrim, which featured the new geodes. In the draft of my new article (which at the time was in my userspace, not in articlespace), I made the assumption that the sundering of Solstheim (as mentioned in the in-game text The Guardian and the Traitor), altered the geological landscape of Solstheim such that the minerals required to form a ruby geode, for instance, could now be found close to the minerals required to form an emerald geode. My little bit of monkey-truth here assumed that generally, prior to the sundering, such geology would not occur naturally and geodes of different types would not have formed so close together as they are seen in the Solstheim of the Dragonborn add-on. This assumption drew immediate attention from one of the loremasters (interestingly, the same one who strongly defended his own monkey-truth earlier about malachite being volcanic), and basically said "If there's nothing factual to say about the geodes, it's best to say nothing at all".

Harrumph! So monkey-truth is accepted as "fact" if it was posted on the wiki long ago, by a recognized loremaster, but not if it is written by a newer neophyte? Doesn't this smack of cronyism? What is it that gives someone an unchallengeable right to create baseless "facts" and peddle them as canon? That malachite is volcanic is no more factual than my assertion that the sundering altered the geological landscape of Solstheim. Why is one baseless "fact" accepted as more real than the other?