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

Context Behind The Art and Further Thoughts on User Input

[morgandawn]

To give a context, to date I know of only 4 artists who have expressed strong preference as to how their zine covers and art are being displayed. Last year, we had very little artist buy-in (and a bit of hostility and suspicion about Fanlore's motives and how it plans to use the art) so I approached 3 artists to see if they'd allow us to populate their pages with as much fan art we could find to help 'sell' the idea that fan art and Fanlore could be successfully combined. The bulk of the feedback (before today) had to do with them asking for images to be displayed slightly larger than thumbnails. This is the first time I've run into an artist asking that artwork be removed from their profile page. Most everyone seems to understand the reasons behind the request for removal of the explicit artwork. The request for the removal of the non-explicit artwork is now being discussed.

Which is why I mentioned up thread about us not letting a few examples drive policy. I do agree that spelling out when to escalate and to whom when someone requests removal of art would be a big help to editors. Not all fans are willing and able to engage directly with horde of wiki editors asking them "why?why?why?", so having a central contact as another option is a wise move. Note I say 'as an option,' because some fans seem to be very willing to debate on the Talk pages. ;-)

The larger issue that ratcreature raised in her OP should be taken out of the artwork context and reframed into an issue that cuts across all of Fanlore: how much user input will Fanlore allow on the user profile page. What to do when the user requests deletion of info. And when to escalate? Because this question (user control and deletion) will not be an 'exception' and will be something the community will most likely face more often.

Re: Context Behind The Art and Further Thoughts on User Input

[graycardinal]

The larger issue that ratcreature raised in her OP should be taken out of the artwork context and reframed into an issue that cuts across all of Fanlore: how much user input will Fanlore allow on the user profile page.

Um -- I think you mean on a non-user profile page, right? Because isn't the "user profile page" the one you acquire when you create a Fanlore account and become part of the editing community, as distinct from a page about you that might exist because you're a fan or a creator? And one of the things about those user profile pages is that the user does have control over what appears thereon.

OTOH, I entirely agree about framing the issues as general policy questions wherever it's at all possible to do so.