From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of information[edit]

The owner of the website has contacted me and requested that we remove information about their ownership from this page and the history of the page about them, as they did not intend to link the site to their fandom identity. They have also requested that we remove the article entirely, as the site is "meant to be private" and they are concerned that its users will feel insecure if its presence was widely known.

I'm inclined to agree with the removal of information about ownership, given that the public release of this information (which has been corrected) was accidental on their part, and not represented on the public areas of the site, unlike this recent example. I'm less inclined to remove the entire article, as I don't feel any individual's privacy is affected merely by the presence of an article about the site itself.

What do you think we should do, bearing in mind our current policy? --GreenReaper(talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing the information about them is fine, but I do not think the article itself should be removed. Regardless of the site's privacy, if any of the members tells others that they are on the site, then they are violating the site's privacy in the first place, so this informational page about the site should not deter any of the privacy of the member's themselves, unless they volunteer the information that they are a part of the site. No one outside of the site should be able to know what members there are as it is. SilverserenC 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a password-protected site, so I don't see how hiding its existence is going to make anyone feel more secure. I did a Google search for "murrsuit," and is mentioned in the 7th result down from the top -- so definitely it's on the search radar. Since we aim to be the furry encyclopedia, I think that any website which concerns the fandom (whether public or private) deserves at least a casual mention here. If we fail to be a comprehensive resource on furry, we'll just lose our audience to Google. I don't object to keeping personal info excluded, so long as the factual article remains. My opinion, YMMV. --CodyDenton 04:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)