Science Fiction Encyclopedia beta online


6 Responses to “Science Fiction Encyclopedia beta online”

  1. iucounu says:

    This is SO AWESOME. Thanks to everyone involved.

  2. Graham Sleight says:

    Hi, a member of the SFE editorial collective here. Thanks for the mention (and the advice), Cory; everyone else, we hope you have fun exploring.

  3. CGulow says:


  4. VibroCount says:

    This is the second mention of this I’ve read today.
    The first was from Robert J. Sawyer on Facebook, where he posts: “Seriously? This is the long-awaited 2011 updated online edition of the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE FICTION, and the entry on me IS THE SAME (except for one clause tacked on to the final sentence to enable a few hyperlinks) as the one in the 1996 CD-ROM edition. Seriously?” … and then he comments: “No mention in the entry of the Hugo Award-winning and Campbell Memorial Award-nominated HOMINIDS, the Campbell Memorial Award-winning MINDSCAN, the Hugo- and Nebula Award-nominated STARPLEX, the Hugo-nominated FRAMESHIFT, the Hugo-nominated FACTORING HUMANITY, the Hugo- and Campbell Memorial-nominated CALCULATING GOD, the Hugo-nominated HUMANS, the Hugo and Campbell Memorial-nominated ROLLBACK, the Hugo and Campbell Memorial-nominated WAKE? No mention of FLASHFORWARD, the basis for the TV series? Seriously?”
    He then goes on to mention that at least his entry is updated to 1996, where Allen M. Steele’s ends at 1994.

  5. Graham Sleight says:

    Vibrocount: I can’t see Robert Sawyer’s Facebook post, but I think his concern is covered by our description of this as a “beta text” – see . Put simply, we’ve been going through the author entries alphabetically, and haven’t yet got the S-authors, including him, finished. (We’ve tried to put disclaimers everywhere we could think of about this, but inevitably some people were going to miss them.)

  6. adwkiwi says:

    OK, so the first thing I look at on something like this is the entry for Babylon 5. It’s a fairly complex story with an interesting history in terms of it’s development, impact, etc. And I can’t say I was impressed. Besides the fact I thought it was a fairly harsh description, I just wanted a huge ‘citation needed’ stamp for the whole piece. Plus there was no discussion of B5′s web presence (e.g. The Lurker’s Guide, which was a bible for me while watching:

    So it’s beta, and still coming out; but this entry really wasn’t much use at all in placing B5 in context. It read like something someone just rattled off without doing too much research, and the Wikipedia entry kicks your ass.

    Good luck, seriously – this is a good idea. But wow, you’re going to have to pick up your game some.

Leave a Reply