Findra's Wake (How Not To Keep Secrets)

[Jim Demintia]

Continuing in it's own thread:

Findra was 44, and a member of furry fandom for at least a decade and a half; plenty of time to build meaningful relationships.

I don't know what happened, either. As a reporter, I'd like to find out; as a friend, I'd prefer to remember him as he lived, rather than as he died.

It's too bad. Findra was one of those who worked in the back rooms to make the community a better place for everyone - well, almost everyone. He'll be missed.

You would do well to just STOP TALKING if you really want people to stop asking questions. You see how this works? That article for Flayrah was written just like WikiFur is written- excessively deferential to the subject, unless the High Dork Command of furry has deemed them an outlaw (as with your last link above). Which, you know, whatever- I have to admit, not knowing the first thing about the situation, the lack of information struck me the minute I read the article. It was an offhand observation, and I would have moved on, but for the fact I come to find out I'm not exactly alone here. Not only are people asking questions, but you and the people who DO know the answers are acting as though there is something to hide. You, for what it's worth, almost sound like you don't want to know; lest any illusions you have be challenged. Which seems to be how you run WikiFur- the less bad stuff you know the better you can do what you do at WikiFur.

So by being freaking weird like this, people who would have otherwise let it go now see that there's a seekrit somewhere. Good job.

Anyone dead at 44 immediately begs the question of why/how. But- there are a handful of non-embarrassing possibilities for people to die suddenly even younger than that. I have a cousin who came within hours of dying of a previously-unknown genetic heart condition (they operated, quite literally, just in time), and one of my father's former coworkers almost had his wife die of a brain aneurysm. It happens.

So if you have something to hide, and there's a perfectly feasible excuse JUST STANDING THERE, for god's sake shut up and let people draw their own conclusions.

[GreenReaper]

I didn't say I wanted people to stop asking questions. I'm just afraid they won't like the answers if they get them, myself included.

Obituaries are no longer restricted to praise, but nor are they the place to look for neutral coverage of a subject - especially when they're written by a friend mere hours after hearing the news.

As for WikiFur, it is not easier to write a good article without knowledge of a subject; however, it does help to have distance from the subject. I rarely write in depth about the people I know . . . but then I rarely spend much time on articles about people, period (unless they're porn artists, since those actually get read ).

Most articles about people are written by their friends, and as such are likely to highlight the positive aspects of their subjects. This is not ideal, but we have limited resources; the alternative might be no article at all, and such articles soon improve if they gain actual readers.

[MazelTovCocktail]

I didn't say I wanted people to stop asking questions. I'm just afraid they won't like the answers if they get them, myself included.

Only asking questions that we're certain we'll like the answer to doesn't get us very far in life, now does it?

[Jim Demintia]

Most articles about people are written by their friends, and as such are likely to highlight the positive aspects of their subjects. This is not ideal, but we have limited resources; the alternative might be no article at all, and such articles soon improve if they gain actual readers.

First of all, your naivete about user-generated content/crowdsourcing is very...2008, let's put it that way.

The articles to which you refer are the result of your deliberate decision to not adopt something along Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For WikiFur, that's an absolutely appropriate decision, but those articles are not those to which I refer.

I'm talking about the fact that the articles about notable people are very much affected by that person's social standing within furry. That is to say, if someone has been deemed an outcast, there is no effort to maintain control over negative information inserted into the article. Perhaps more to the point, people who have high social standing generally get away with having articles that gloss over negative information, or omit it entirely.

I didn't say I wanted people to stop asking questions. I'm just afraid they won't like the answers if they get them, myself included.

That's honest, GR, I have to give you that. But there's a real big difference between "there's bad stuff and I am not interested in hearing about it", implicitly acknowledging the reality of whatever situation it is, and the "see no evil hear no evil speak no evil" attitude that comes about when you deliberately do not look into certain aspects of things in your position as editor of Flayrah.

Maybe that's the editorial tone you want to take, I don't know. Nobody's saying you have to be furry Gawker. But take that too far and you are damaging your credibility.

[GreenReaper]

...if someone has been deemed an outcast, there is no effort to maintain control over negative information inserted into the article. Perhaps more to the point, people who have high social standing generally get away with having articles that gloss over negative information, or omit it entirely.

Would you like to be more specific? In most of the cases I can recall, nobody has actually tried to insert the information that the complainant assumes was deliberately removed. We have a complete edit history and logs, so you can see if revisions have been partially hidden or deleted.

As a wiki, WikiFur is subject to the whims of its editing community. In theory, if their collective opinion was that "negative" information is appropriate for certain articles, and not for others, then that is how it would be. In practice, though, "outcasts" tend to be created through concrete actions. The reason you don't hear about the restraining orders filed against, say, Kage is that nobody has needed to file one.

...when you deliberately do not look into certain aspects of things in your position as editor of Flayrah.

I asked. I was told what was quoted in the article. I have seen others push harder for answers and get nowhere; one get a severe talking-to by SpinDizzy's head wizard. I considered getting a death certificate, but they are only available after six weeks in Santa Clara County.

As you say, Flayrah tends not to pry into personal matters unless they have a wider impact on the fandom; you don't see articles like "101 Secret Taps Alts" or the latest falling-out among celebrity artists. Findra's life was relevant to the fandom; the manner of his death, less so.

[Jim Demintia]

It seems pretty clear he either killed himself or died in some sex related way. What else would be "embarrassing" to the point of hiding stuff?

It sounds like he wasn't exactly as active in amorous endeavors as he wanted people to believe, so weird sex is probably not it. I would imagine it's probably suicide. Which is sad, but you know who needs a "talking to" is the people who are turning it into a giant issue by trying to keep secrets. Just be honest and get rid of this black mark, so that we can celebrate this person's life, as you claim you want to do.

[ProvincialTwit]

I've got 20 e-points riding on autoerotic asphyxiation.

[Freehaven]

you know who needs a "talking to" is the people who are turning it into a giant issue by trying to keep secrets. Just be honest and get rid of this black mark, so that we can celebrate this person's life, as you claim you want to do.

There's a way of thinking -- "I prefer to think about how he lived, not how he died" -- that ties into this sort of thing.

The problem is that even if we want to do that, leaving the question of "how did he die" unanswered means that people are going to say awful things about how he died...

I've got 20 e-points riding on autoerotic asphyxiation.

...until the question is answered. Once we know how he died, we can get the joking and the snide remarks and other such bullshit out of the way in order to focus on how he lived and what kind of life he led (even if it was an unremarkable life).

If his death was truly more interesting than his life, then that's sad -- but that's life, and life isn't always smiles and sunshine...and it isn't always interesting.

[rodox_video]

JimDementia, you might want to consider that GR probably gets enough crap from his peers just for posting here, much less acknowledging we even exist. There are compromises he has to make in order to stay on speaking terms with people high up in the subculture, and even bigger compromises he has to make as the admin of more than one major site.

He has to avoid getting involved in bullshit, and he has to avoid stirring up trouble. He is not interested in turning WikiFur into a battleground; neither am I and neither should you. It's not worth it. Just about everything (and everyone) controversial (except for uncontroversial controversies like Sibe) is excluded anyway.

As for Findra, I guess we'll just have to wait for the death certificate.

[GreenReaper]

Baiting much? :-)

Vivisector really isn't the issue. I'll speak to just about everyone, but my occasional muckracking means the reverse is not always true, and the tone is sometimes strained. The fourth estate have few peers; even their fellows hesitate to get too close. Of course, the alternative is worse - reporters who hobnob with celebrities risk becoming mere publicists.

There are limits, though. When I fly to Findra's memorial tomorrow, it will be as a friend, not as a reporter.

[Jim Demintia]

Eh, maybe I am wishing for accountability that will never exist for these people. It is fair to point out that GR comes close enough to walking a tightrope with what he does; that he's not (always) a sycophant, but I'd still like to see more edgy/cynical coverage of furry out there. Which is hard to do successfully for any number of reasons. Basically that blog we have but never update, but writing formal articles can be a lot of work. And in the fandom there's often a lot of missing information to any narrative that you'd need for a good piece of writing- which is why this forum sees far more traffic. Things develop in fits and starts, don't develop fully, and when/if they do; no one cares anymore to write an article.

Oh well.

[Spip]

I suspect the simplest (not necessarily the easiest!) thing to do would be to use one of those combined blog/forum "content management systems" like Drupal, phpnuke, slashcode, etc. (you can tell how well I keep up with this stuff, eh?) for greater ease in cleaning up a forum post and promoting it to the front page. Unfortunately that'd probably require axing the forum and blog that are already here, and the monolithic anti-furry conspiracy probably doesn't see any need to complicate things more than they are already.

Besides, the vast majority of furry drama nowadays is FA-related and the rest is infantile interpersonal grudges, so it's not like extra background is going to be really edifying.

[camellia sinensis]

but I'd still like to see more edgy/cynical coverage of furry out there.

pffhahaha

[Spip]

I asked. I was told what was quoted in the article. I have seen others push harder for answers and get nowhere; one get a severe talking-to by SpinDizzy's head wizard. I considered getting a death certificate, but they are only available after six weeks in Santa Clara County.

Tick tock tick tock...It's been six weeks. Anyone still give enough of a damn to shell out the necessary $12?