how much say do fans get over their wiki articles?

[ratcreature]

I think this should be discussed and laid out more clearly, because the practice for some articles seems to differ from what the policies say.

From looking at the policies it seems to me that a fan's say over their wiki article (unlike their personal user page) is mainly due to the Identity Protection policy (when it comes to a say what name(s)/pseud(s) the wiki uses), and the Fanlore:Ethical Standards for Community & Content, which lay out how to be careful when writing about living persons. The most relvant bits of the latter seem to be that things said about fans ought to be accurate and not harmful to them or the communities.

In practice on artist pages in particular we seem to accommodate detailed display and content wishes of the artists, that seem to take precedence. (see the discussion pages for Gayle F and Caren Parnes) The gist of the argument I took away from the last time this came up was that the wiki should accommodate artist's display wishes because otherwise they might ask to have the art removed, especially the higher quality samples they scanned themselves. And while I'm still not sold on the idea that the best way to have artist pages on the wiki is with these huge galleries with many pictures -- aside from the page load issues it seems to me at odds with the "Fanlore is not an archive for all fanworks from every fan" policy that claims "Fanlore will not act as an index of all of the fanworks that any individual fan may have created, though references to individual fanworks and pages for controversial and/or significant fanworks is always desired." -- I was fine with that, but display is one thing, the most recent issue is wrt the content.

I could perhaps see an artist making the argument that she'd rather not have the explicit art displayed prominently on their profile article as falling under the "no harm" rule (depending on public image questions, whether it's the legal name that is associated, also the nature of the pornographic art etc), but the "Back to Back" for example is not pornographic in any way, so I guess it's because the artist doesn't like that piece? I mean, I have no idea, but it was removed because of the artists preference. And it is not so much that I think displaying that cover is essential to the article, but I think it's worth discussing this as the precedent this seems to set.

IMO as much as I enjoy looking at pretty fanart on the wiki, especially for artists who don't have much of an other online presence elsewhere, it is still not a gallery display site, and I'd rather make do with a few crappy pictures than have some special wiki pages that are "endorsed" by the fans they cover, and fully or partially exempt from the standard editing procedures (whether formatting or content), while regularly with all other articles the editorial control is shared between all wiki editors collectively.

At the very least I think there should be discussion of this on a wider basis than a few talk pages.

Comments

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

I could perhaps see an artist making the argument that she'd rather not have the explicit art displayed prominently on their profile article as falling under the "no harm" rule (depending on public image questions, whether it's the legal name that is associated, also the nature of the pornographic art etc)

That's how I understood it and I can see the point of not wanting to have explicit art on a "legal name" page. However, I agree that removing art just because the artist doesn't like it anymore or removing the name of the artist from a zine articles where the art is displayed goes too far.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, there are different issues. For one I can follow the reasoning, the other I'm still confused about.

And I mean, I'm not out to be confrontational in the wiki's presentations, but with this handling we seem to go in a sort of "veto" direction, giving (some?) fans the final say what is put into their article, even without a policy reason. And I don't like that, and it that is not what we did during that Melody Clark kerfuffle for example either. There the fan who objected to the content on their page edited and deleted stuff, and that wasn't let stand, but worked out with edits, until iirc the article was balanced enough so that everyone could at least somewhat live with it. And sure, that is a different case in that was more confrontational, and maybe having some cover there or not is not as crucial, but I don't want this to go entirely unremarked either, because IMO it gives a wrong impression of the wiki's overall approach.

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

And I don't like that, and it that is not what we did during that Melody Clark kerfuffle for example either.

True. That one was a different situation and I was actually really impressed that we managed to solve it like that.

I don't want this to go entirely unremarked either, because IMO it gives a wrong impression of the wiki's overall approach.

Good point. I guess what it means for the artist pages is that we need more transparency when an artist has a request about removing something, changing the way it's displayed, etc. so that the discussion page can document the consensus of the editors and other people can read up on why this or that decision was made. (I just searched for the squiggly line to sign my comment. Too much wiki editing! *g*)

[ratcreature]

Yes, transparency would help a lot. I think that for most pages it's achievable to get to a result that is okay and satisfying for all sides, but I'd prefer that it is still an editing consensus, unless there is a clear policy-founded grievance (like factual inaccuracies, identity exposure, some harmful effect etc.) when of course fan in question can expect swift correction/removal and their position is the deciding one.

(I keep wanting to link with brackets...)

[msilverstar]

what was the solution?

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

You can find the whole discussion here: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Talk:Melody_Clark

The page went through many changes at the time and the solution was to add more of her fandom involvement (see the long list of zines with dates and details) so that her fan page wouldn't be about that one wank and all the editorializing from the part about the wank was removed so that mostly just two quotes remained, the original comment about her story and her response to that. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

[morgandawn]

Actually no names were removed. just brought into conformity with the pre-1995 name usage - on the page with explicit art. The request came after a google search by a non-fan led them to the adult art.

We did have permission to use the full real name, but like many, I don't think it is clear to fans that by using their real name that if, somewhere in the depths of time, they have written or drawn adult material, there may be linkages.

of course, in this case since some of the adult art is still being displayed on the fanzine publisher's page with the full real name...which tells me that Fanlore is moving up on Google Page stats and that's a good thing.

ratcreature can you stress that there are no names being removed from zine pages? It is important to keep facts at the forefront of the conversation.

[ratcreature]

I don't get what you want me to do.

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

ratcreature can you stress that there are no names being removed from zine pages? It is important to keep facts at the forefront of the conversation.

I think you meant me? I was referring to MPHs suggestion (on the talk page of the artist in question) to shorten the name on the zine pages to initials only.

[morgandawn]

ah it was you. I was wondering why the discussion had made a sudden left turn. :-)

yeah, I didn't even consider that one (initials only) as an option. The pre-1995 naming conventions allow a lot of leeway for muddying and it is my go to suggestion when someone feels uncomfortable with increased visibility.