Sage Nazia Returns to fChan

[Freehaven]

It would be nice if you stuck to facts and not included me there. As my contribution page shows, as well as the diffs linked there, the above does not even come close to applying to me: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xenofur

Doesn't matter -- you're basically in league with Noriko (who, might I add, did suggest that you should be the only other person besides her that gets to edit her article).  You two shouldn't be allowed to control that article, because that flies in the face of a public Wiki system.  Like I suggested multiple times to Noriko: if you want to get your side of the story out on a Wiki-style platform WITHOUT having to deal with other people editing the article, set up a personal Wiki and do it there.

[Xenofur]

Ok, wait. So since i'm a friend of hers it's completely ok to attribute actions to me that i've never done? Please tell me that doesn't actually make sense in your head. :|

And for the record: I couldn't care less if the whole thing is removed. I only began editing the specific parts that you got wrong based on hearsay information and left the rest intact, because it doesn't directly pertain to me or fchan.

[Kindrift]

I am actually referring to your comments in the IRC channel.  I'll quote you properly when I return <Xenofur> goddamn it, thanks [Kindrift], due to your policy of "let's not check fact if it's juicy", freehaven has ejaculated factual bullshit all over the article.  And then, without discussing anything on the talk page, you hammered her lies back into place.

You're a completely worthless tool, you should know.  There is absolutely zero reason for you to be here, other than Noriko's sudden reluctance to avoid incriminating herself yet again.  There's a rule somewhere about multiple accounts (don't look for it); enjoy your ban.

[Käferkopf]

If you want things to start sticking, then you had better start providing references for facts, and avoid writing your own opinions as a plain facts (instead, write facts about opinions - which you should still reference). Without providing any proof, editors have far less reason to believe you "know what the hell you are talking about" than they do for Nadia, who is at least the author of her own actions.

How come Nadia and most of the other autobio authors (who, let's be brutally honest, are just putting up a bunch of autofellating wank) don't have to provide any references or proof? Are autobios held to a different standard than all the others? If so, it makes a mockery of your incessant talk of NPOV to have exceptions to the rule.

[Freehaven]

How come Nadia and most of the other autobio authors (who, let's be brutally honest, are just putting up a bunch of autofellating wank) don't have to provide any references or proof?

>.>;

Seriously, though, even though I wrote my WikiFur article, I made sure to stay away from making it sound like I was some sort of Furry Deity -- in fact, I just recently added in a link to the thread on CYD that contains the first known usage of the phrase "GODDAMMIT FREEHAVEN", and if other people were in my place, some of them might consider it humiliating or embarassing.  But I put it in as the point of origin for the phrase because CYD -is- where it started, and to omit that just because it might be a tad embarassing is ridiculous.

[MoheyPori]

I may be pulling an off-topic-er, but hey GreenReaper, I was browsing some stuff on the CYD fourms about Sage Nadia, and i come across your posts about Wikifur's relation to it all.

if you don't mind i will quote this part i found interesting:

Many of you seem to imagine that a wiki's highest purpose is truth - the whole truth, above all else. But that is not what the furry fandom - as represented by our editors - appears to value most. It is compassion. We love one another. And we do not wish to hurt members of the fandom, past or present, without a good reason.

Now, just out of curiosity and i mean this in a sincere way ( i think ), what exactly do you guys do when you deal with topics or person who does not have any love or compassion towards anyone else in the Furfandom/Imageboard_culture? Just simply turn the other cheek and respect not posting the whole truth, or what?

[LordNagetiere]

I thought the established way of dealing with dramabomb articles about dramabomb people who have a lot of e-nemies was to just blank them. I could see the protected article status for say, a politician's article on Wikipedia, because it can be whittled to facts by someone who may support them, but not outright lie for them, and then be locked from "He screwed the little guy!" or "Liberal as a gay pride parade." type vandalism, but in this case, you're basically giving registered members a carte blanc for mercilessly hacking their own history into something grand.

Anyone with enough notoriety could generate shit over the minor edits (that's not what I'm saying happened here, at least not initially) and cockblock anyone from editing out the falsifications because you assume everyone to be in a state of error until proven otherwise... except the autobiographer. Not because it's damaging to their character, per se, but just because they could brew a big enough stink over it.

That seems fucked up, no offense.

It reminds me of a real issue Wikipedia has, where senators or big businesses will actually remove shit from their own articles without registering. 

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

[rodox_video]

I thought the established way of dealing with dramabomb articles about dramabomb people who have a lot of e-nemies was to just blank them.

    PROBLEM SOLVED

[ProvincialTwit]

    PROBLEM SOLVED

I think he meant the articles, not the people.  Sorry. 

[LordNagetiere]

No, no, no. You don't want to be using blanks for that. Fire the real thing.

[GreenReaper]

Many of you seem to imagine that a wiki's highest purpose is truth - the whole truth, above all else. But that is not what the furry fandom - as represented by our editors - appears to value most. It is compassion. We love one another. And we do not wish to hurt members of the fandom, past or present, without a good reason.

Now, just out of curiosity and i mean this in a sincere way ( i think ), what exactly do you guys do when you deal with topics or person who does not have any love or compassion towards anyone else in the Furfandom/Imageboard_culture? Just simply turn the other cheek and respect not posting the whole truth, or what?

It would depend, but we usually don't have anything to say about them. If they don't have any compassion towards the furry fandom, they're probably not part of it, and so why would we be writing about them? I guess Rush Limbaugh is one counter-example to this. But he's a public figure, and his public comments about the fandom on a radio station would probably be viewed as public information. Of course, we probably wouldn't go around posting where he lived or what his real name was without cause (I presume that's not his real name . . .).

We have less compassion for people who are not members of our fandom, since if our report on their activities - while neutral - results in them looking bad, we are not hurting a part of our community. To temper this, we also try to separate public deeds (such as comic creation) from personal matters. If their creation was notable in its own right, it would not be affected by any exclusion. For example, some non-furs consider their artwork "not furry"; we might respectfully disagree and keep our page about it, but exclude the page about them.

As LordNagetiere says, the ultimate solution is to say nothing. That way, we are both compassionate and unbiased. We try to avoid this for prominent members of the fandom - because a blanked page about someone people wish to read up on is not very useful to our community - but it is available by default, and granted on request in the vast majority of situations. Edge cases come down to community discussion, and so for a complete answer I refer you some discussions establishing exceptions to the rule.

[Arche Kruz]

The problem with your argument is that it runs on the assumption that every single member of the furry fandom, without exception, are respectable. If there's anything this site and forum would tell you, that clearly isn't the case. The furry fandom, like any other fandom that exists, has their notable share of bad blood and withholding information pertaining to them may result in hurting the fandom far more in the long run. It sometimes pays to use some factual information to serve as a warning to fellow furries who, without the information on said person, would have gotten burned by the person in question.

Case in point : Starfinder and her deplorably unprofessional way of handling commissions. Banrai and castrating male rats with a pair of unsterilised scissors amongst many other things.

If you're talking about the image of the fur fandom to outsiders, then it is an exercise in futility and I hope I don't have to spell the reasons for that out. Is that why you reject any and all reference to EncyclopediaDramatica.com ; For the reason of it lacking compassion towards the person in question and not because it is factually inaccurate?

[LordNagetiere]

The issue is intrinsically one of invested interest and the defensive nature of such.

GIJoewiki, or Stargate Wiki or whatnot won't say "The Cobra Bike-Squad were a very poor concept." or "Season 7 is regarded as the worse" because, well, fanboys cannot admit 'defeat' of their favored thing, even minor defeats.

Take this concept, and make the object of invested interest other people, and you can see why criticism is avoided at all cost. It's not only viewed as a black eye for all of furrykind if YiffyGoat's secrets are revealed, it's an admittal that in some ways, the grand challace of furry has a leak.

[GreenReaper]

The problem with your argument is that it runs on the assumption that every single member of the furry fandom, without exception, are respectable. If there's anything this site and forum would tell you, that clearly isn't the case. The furry fandom, like any other fandom that exists, has their notable share of bad blood and withholding information pertaining to them may result in hurting the fandom far more in the long run. It sometimes pays to use some factual information to serve as a warning to fellow furries who, without the information on said person, would have gotten burned by the person in question.

Case in point : Starfinder and her deplorably unprofessional way of handling commissions. Banrai and castrating male rats with a pair of unsterilised scissors amongst many other things.

If you're talking about the image of the fur fandom to outsiders, then it is an exercise in futility and I hope I don't have to spell the reasons for that out. Is that why you reject any and all reference to EncyclopediaDramatica.com ; For the reason of it lacking compassion towards the person in question and not because it is factually inaccurate?

No; it relies on every single member of the furry fandom deserving respect, at least by default. As a human being, or otherwise.

And you have not done your research: there are exceptions made in circumstances where public interest trumps any respect we might have. Starfinder was denied an exclusion because we felt that others should know about her problem with fulfilling commissions, even if doing so might harm her reputation. As for Banrai, I previously wrote a four-paragraph summary of certain notable prior activities (said rat didn't make the cut) and put it on the article about her. At the time, it was right for that information to be there, if in de-dramatized form.

The thing is that the sort of issues that editors deem worthy of exceptions are not the moments of stupidity, but serious and reliable evidence of criminal acts, typically those which would impair those within the fandom who interact with the person concerned. We aim to be Serious Business, not an encyclopedia of drama. And, on that note . . .

There are several references to ED in WikiFur. It is not used as a reference for much beyond itself because it is willfully unreliable. Think about it: Either they're reporting on a post elsewhere - in which case we should link that - or they might just have made it up for the lulz. Read their general disclaimer, where it warns: "This is strictly a parody, satire and humor site, all content herein should be treated as such." The "common misconceptions" section is also revealing, in that they admit to being - in part - an attack site. Doesn't sound like a reliable reference to me.

[LordNagetiere]

And you have not done your research: there are exceptions made in circumstances where public interest trumps any respect we might have.

Read: If someone is an art thief, then we suddenly care, otherwise we couldn't give a rat's ass (or balls).

[GreenReaper]

Read: If someone is an art thief, then we suddenly care, otherwise we couldn't give a rat's ass (or balls).

Pretty much. It's something the community gives a shit about, since a lot are creative types themselves (and yes, some are less than great, but that doesn't matter).

Personally, I'd like to see a more use of Creative Commons licenses, but I don't blame people for bothering, since many furs seem to feel free to ignore the lack of any license whatsoever.

[Arche Kruz]

Well then, if the furry in question is desperate to erase all references to ED in an article on them, wouldn't it be quite telling on the status of the contents? Wouldn't it arouse suspicion on the possibility as the admission of guilt?