Talk:Vivisector (website)

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

"A neutral and factual resource"[edit]

So I come across this article and think: "huh, maybe Vivisector isn't just about nasty attacks on furry fandom as a whole and specific furry individuals when they see a target of opportunity." So I go to Vivisector's front page blog.

  • "Angry About Furries": "The Chewfox Incident and it's [sic] unfolding follow-up once again reveal that the furries have no clue whatsoever how to deal with the real world."
  • "Big Hot Tranny Mess": "A tale of David Simpson's slow descent into madness."
  • "The One That Got Away": An accusation that Allison 'Javachickn' Reed "molested her dog on camera and got off scot-free."
  • "Welcome to Your Doom": Introducing Vivisector as "committed to bringing you the weirdest, fruitiest, dumbest, most fucked-up shit the furry scene has to offer."

Okay then.

I know WikiFur doesn't have the same rigorous insistence on a NPOV as Wikipedia does, and I'm as much a fan of deadpan humor as the next guy, really, but... c'mon, folks. Is there any indication that Vivisector's editors have even a passing interest in looking for "fucked-up shit" from the "anti-furries," or indeed any indication that they're interested in any "philosophical discussion" that's deeper than "ooh, I found more freaks to mock!"?

It's standard operating procedure on WikiFur to give sites like Vivisector far more credibility than they actually deserve because Greenreaper himself says WikiFur isn't based on facts, it's based on "what you believe". So if someone believes Vivisector is a "neutral and factual resource", that's perfectly acceptable by WikiFur's standards.
I'll leave the question of whether Greenreaper's habit of providing soapboxes and megaphones to nutcases makes WikiFur a credible resource for information on Furry fandom as an exercise for the reader. —Xydexx 14:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If someone believes that, then yes, their belief should probably be mentioned, though not necessarily stated as fact. Would you rather we only included your belief that it is not? --GreenReaper(talk) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather we had an encyclopedia that focused on Furry fandom instead of documenting fetishes and drama. Maybe some day someone will start one. (A reliable Furry news site would be nice too, since Flayrah's partnership with Burned Fur-owned and nutball-owned Vivisector doesn't inspire confidence.) —Xydexx 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-page-related follow-on moved to User --GreenReaper(talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting back here rather belatedly, my point was simply that the article tries so hard to avoid the slightest suggestion that Vivisector is a troll site that it gets, well, a little comical. Spirou suggested "hey, you have a keyboard" (which is indeed true!), but... how do I put this. I'd like to know whether there's an editorial preference that these things aren't brought up, or if it's simply that nobody with a keyboard has taken the time to do so. Chipotle 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just fixed the lede to be more accurate. SilverserenC 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It's generally a mistake to attribute any oversight, inaccuracy or other deficiency in WikiFur to editorial preference when it could be due to laziness instead. What was true when the article was created in January 2008 may also not be true in May 2010. This is why we recommend that you try fixing an article first, and ask questions later (though this is not a license to ignore templates, edit summaries, talk page edits, email, or brickbats inviting discussion). --GreenReaper(talk) 01:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)