![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
I think the committee is the right place if an article goes against policy and needs to be corrected without question, maybe because it got something wrong, like an attribution of art or worse factual errors (and the fan can't or doesn't want to figure out the wiki editing themselves), or there are issues of unwanted exposure (whether whole names or problems like that the wiki connects explicit material with a name in an unwanted way that an artist otherwise doesn't etc).
But I think for other concerns, less critical things, the regular editing process and talk page and such is the way to go, whether initiated from the fan directly or even reposted from whomever they mailed and then discussed on the talk page. That may seem a bit overblown in this particular case, because it does not concern many covers (as most removed were the explicit ones which is the different issues), and not any article text, but for me it's more the appearance that is given by these edits upon requests. Like I said above, I'm not against fans having input on their own pages, the goal is after all to gather a fandom history, not to be needlessly confrontational, but it should be a process with the wiki editors who sometimes also invest a lot in articles.
WRT picking and choosing I agree with your point. I mean, in general I would love artist pages that discuss more of the artist's development, and illustrate the text with specific and relevant to the text art examples, and then a gallery maybe in addition to that rather than the main thing on the page, but I actually do not understand the point of the policy that fanlore shouldn't be an index that I linked and disagree with that policy. Sure we don't want to *archive* all this stuff on fanlore itself , but I find bibliography type lists useful to have, and would actually think them a useful thing in a fandom history.