First off, I want to thank you for this suggestion. It's really an interesting idea and tries to strike a balance between the needs of contributors and readers, and I'm going to take it back to the committee for discussion. I'm not sure we'll want to go this way (because I'm not sure how well or consistently this would work in practice), but it's certainly worth discussing.
But that said, I do want to ask you to consider the ways in which the functions and expectations regarding an archive are being mapped on to a wiki here, in your "pros and cons" list. Fanlore is not an archive, and we can't approach it with the same expectations and assumptions as we would for the AO3. Readers use it differently than they do an archive, it runs on very different software than the AO3 does, and contributors occupy a different position than do fanwork creators who are uploading their work to the AO3.
this subpage idea preserves what was entered, or should be entered, and allows an article to remain "as nature intended," you know, the whole censorship thing
Fanlore is a wiki, and by definition anyone who creates a page there is accepting that it can and will be edited by other users later on. There is no "as nature intended" on a wiki page, although there is the expectation that a fanwork should remain as the artist/creator intended on an archive page. So, I have to respectfully disagree that editing an image summary template is "censorship" on a wiki, although I probably would see it as "censorhip" if some admin went in and did so for the warnings, etc. on an AO3 fanwork.
AO3 will eventually accept all sorts of fanworks, including art and vids, is my understanding. And there, page creators will have much more permanent control.
more work for people to set up and police
That is a problem, yes. The committee and gardeners just don't have the resources or time to police all image pages and how they're used in articles. Fanlore already has thousands of images uploaded, and the number (including those with explicit content) is only going to grow (I hope!).
We're trying to design a policy and user interface that is fairly simple and easy for contributors to use, that produces an end result that is reader-friendly, and which will pretty much function without the committee intervening or policing much at all!
no subject
But that said, I do want to ask you to consider the ways in which the functions and expectations regarding an archive are being mapped on to a wiki here, in your "pros and cons" list. Fanlore is not an archive, and we can't approach it with the same expectations and assumptions as we would for the AO3. Readers use it differently than they do an archive, it runs on very different software than the AO3 does, and contributors occupy a different position than do fanwork creators who are uploading their work to the AO3.
this subpage idea preserves what was entered, or should be entered, and allows an article to remain "as nature intended," you know, the whole censorship thing
Fanlore is a wiki, and by definition anyone who creates a page there is accepting that it can and will be edited by other users later on. There is no "as nature intended" on a wiki page, although there is the expectation that a fanwork should remain as the artist/creator intended on an archive page. So, I have to respectfully disagree that editing an image summary template is "censorship" on a wiki, although I probably would see it as "censorhip" if some admin went in and did so for the warnings, etc. on an AO3 fanwork.
AO3 will eventually accept all sorts of fanworks, including art and vids, is my understanding. And there, page creators will have much more permanent control.
more work for people to set up and police
That is a problem, yes. The committee and gardeners just don't have the resources or time to police all image pages and how they're used in articles. Fanlore already has thousands of images uploaded, and the number (including those with explicit content) is only going to grow (I hope!).
We're trying to design a policy and user interface that is fairly simple and easy for contributors to use, that produces an end result that is reader-friendly, and which will pretty much function without the committee intervening or policing much at all!