First, take a
little caution in interpreting these statistics. We're still getting rank back for more generic topics after our move, and only recently regained a position on the first page of search results for "furry"; we used to be right up top.
There's a few questions there - whether I mind the public's concentration on certain topics, whether I care that they're covered on WikiFur, whether I'm bothered when editing such articles . . .
To these, my answer is the same: No, it really doesn't bother me. I am happy to host or edit articles about any topic reasonably related to furry fandom, and I do not mind that certain controversial topics are popular. WikiFur's editors are trying to provide a service to the fandom, after all. If we didn't provide what the our readers wanted, we wouldn't be doing our job.
When editing, it's important to keep your personal opinions at arm's length. It also helps to have a sense of humour. I mean, a
SPH'd Meeko at the Museum of Sex? That's pretty funny.
Clearly, people are interested in these topics - and each visit is an opportunity to teach our readers more about the fandom. Would it be neat if people spent more time on some of the great but lesser-known artists or writers? Sure, and that's what our featured content is about. (Not that
High Tail Hall and
Softpaw achieved their popularity without a modicum of quality.)
Controversial topics are often difficult to cover, and so demand the attention of our more experienced editors. That doesn't mean I spend
all my time editing articles about prominent porn artists, babyfurs, suppliers of realistic animal dildos, or the joys of
vorarephilia. But an article is an article, and I'll do
whatever seems necessary. Many of our admins act similarly as "editors at large".
LordNagetiere is in good company; I was awarded "Most Likely to Become a Serial Killer" by the Bath Computer Science Society (as well as "Most Geekiest" and "Worst Dressed" - significant achievements, given the awarding body).
His suggested means lack subtlety, though. AC's convention center has already had
chunks fall out of it twice - given the
defects, who's to say it wouldn't happen again? And surely no-one would question someone "refreshing" the headless lounge water supply during the fursuit parade? (I'm sure this will be taken out of context as an "Internet posting" anytime now . . .)
