From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
"Lose your questions and you will find your answers." --D'ni proverb (from the Riven manual).

I am yet another Red Fox, and furry, to me, just means that I would like to see more attention to the non-human characters in movies, books and TV. Humans don't need to get all the attention all the time, especially when their anthro-sidekick looks and behaves way more interesting!

“You know, I’ve had the opportunity to travel around the world and I’ve seen monuments and statues to great leaders, explorers, artists and writers. But you know what, I’ve never seen a monument to a critic.” --Joyce Meyer

“Cheaters never prosper.”

”Nice guys finish last.”

“I feel like all the albums I’ve made and all the music I’ve made haven’t really taught me anything. It’s taught me a lot of things to avoid. Like, uh, if it’s taught me one thing it’s that somebody playing a real instrument with 100% love and affection and concentration for what they’re doing is know, everything.” --Mike Oldfield

The Guide: a summary of my experience exploring WikiFur[edit]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times over the many years and under many different editorships. Its current editorship is a rather obscure corporation somewhere in an unimportant outskirt of the galaxy named "Wikipedia." The Guide has since taken this as its new, shorter name.

It contains contributions from countless numbers of travelers and researchers, with the end goal being the complete compilation of all knowledge and wisdom in the universe.

This goal presents an enormous problem: given the sheer amount of knowledge to document, something could easily be overlooked and lost in the shuffle. This is why Wikipedia has created no fewer than fifty subdivisions, each of whom is responsible for an individual slice of the pie of wisdom and knowledge. These specialists, working independently, will be less likely to miss the little details that one group of generalists might let be forgotten.

One of the subdivisions, known as "WikiFur," specializes in what is perhaps the most obscure slice of knowledge known to the galaxy. If not for their efforts, knowledge related to anthropomorphic animals would have been forgotten completely--which outsiders seem to be actively trying to achieve, and which is the very attitude the editors at WikiFur hope to reverse. For this reason the Wikifurians take their work very seriously. Their theory is that if they take themselves seriously, others may one day take them seriously by virtue of being a legitimate part of the whole.

It is unfortunate that the more of their knowledge is collected in one place, the more absurd the knowledge has become, and may in fact have had the opposite effect, earning it the perception as the most laughable and useless information in the universe. Now more desperate than ever to be understood, this has only encouraged WikiFur editors to collect even more information. It is a very effective dynamic indeed.

(Heh heh. Had to post it somewhere since I didn't want it to go to waste.)

"Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." --George Orwell, 1946

(There's a man who understood...)

“Mature” should mean “grown-up,” not “offensive”. --Tagenar

How Consensus is Reached: WikiFur deleted from Wikipedia[edit]

Isn't it amazing that people who do not understand issues, and how they matter to others, seem to be able to control those issues better than the ones to whom the issue matters?

Example: WikiFur deleted from Wikipedia

Here’s the process by which it was deleted:

  1. A random person passes by, doesn’t like the article or doesn’t want to take the time to understand its importance to the people it represents. Logically, anything this person doesn’t understand must not be important.
  2. This random person nominates it for deletion.
  3. More random people show up and deliver glancing, uninformed, one sentence opinions as to the article’s importance using the same logical process as the first random person.
  4. As logical as counterarguments are in an effort to save the article, even the most well-stated facts fail against those who simply don’t want to take the time to understand the topic ("Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." "The voice of the majority is no proof of justice").
  5. After a week of this, a consensus based on the passing opinions of six random people decides the article’s fate.
  6. Other random users who liked the article but had not heard of its nomination for deletion are appalled that it is deleted based on such an overwhelming consensus, and write a rant on their user page.

It means something in the big picture. I just know it.