WikiFur talk:Why help?

The reason I didn't put . ..

 * You can use your spare time doing something more productive than looking at pictures of naked vixens - because, let's face it, that gets old after a while . ..


 * *grins* -- 03:56, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that there's anything wrong with looking at naked vixens once in a while... :D Carl Fox 05:39, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Why help? (No, seriously.)
* You can help build something that's bigger than any individual person, site or country

Providing an encyclopedia about Furry fandom is a noble goal, but it is unclear whether or not this is the goal of WikiFur.


 * The title bar heading of every single page on WikiFur displays "WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia." I'd say that makes it patently clear.  --CodyDenton 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If WikiFur is intended to be an encyclopedia about Furry fandom, its policies and procedures should reflect that. &mdash;Xydexx 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

* You can let others know about your interests, and perhaps get them interested, too

Is WikiFur about Furry fandom, or "what furry fans are interested in"?


 * Does it have to only be about one or the other? We are of, by, and for the furry community.  Seems to me like there's room here to encompass not only articles specifically about Furry, but also articles that are relevant to the tastes and interests of furries.  Certainly we do not have the same standard of notability that, say, Wikipedia requires -- because in a relatively specialized fandom (and one that is small by comparison to mainstream society) it would be awfully subjective to define "noteworthy."  I think it's sufficient to say that if an article is likely to be of interest to at least a subset of furries besides the original creator, the article is probably legitimately within our scope.  --CodyDenton 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be about one or the other, but again, if WikiFur is intended to be an encyclopedia about Furry fandom, its policies and procedures should reflect that. Yet there has been (and apparently continues to be) an attitude that articles totally unrelated to Furry fandom are within WikiFur's scope, based on no other criteria than "it's interesting." So, again, is WikiFur's goal to be an encyclopedia about Furry fandom, or an encyclopedia about Furry fandom and a Bunch Of Other Stuff That Isn't Related But We Think Is "Interesting" So We're Including It Anyway. &mdash;Xydexx 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

* You can work with others to get the facts straight over contentious issues

Past experience has shown that 1) the standard for facts on WikiFur is "if you believe it" and not any sort of verifiable facts, 2) WikiFur admins believe in reaching consensus with trolls over contentious issues, and 3) attempts to get assistance from WikiFur admins to step in and mediate edit wars will be ignored. What policies and procedures, if any, have been implemented to remedy these problems?


 * My apologies for being direct, but I don't think we accomplish anything by making sweeping, incendiary declarations. (1) WikiFur has a higher tolerance for unsourced material, precisely because in a small, niche community like Furry, there simply are not that many published sources.  We do require sources when there is controversy over an issue, and we strongly prefer that articles be sourced whenever possible -- even partial sourcing is better than none.  We do have a published standard of verifiability.  It may be a different standard than, say, Wikipedia, because there just isn't that much reference material out there -- so verifiability must rest on a "best effort" standard and not a strictly academic one.  (2) Consensus building is a required and necessary part of the survival and growth of any wiki-based medium.  Wikis are, by nature, a community asset-  one that is freely editable by anyone.  Sometimes this results in edit wars as different factions stake their claims over what they perceive to be right.  Consensus means working to hash things out in a way that reaches common ground as much as is possible at the time.  It also means being willing to set aside one's own prejudices and avoid calling people "trolls" and whatnot, just because they disagree with one's own point of view.  In other words, consensus is about building bridges and finding a way to work together, rather than tearing each other apart.  In a small community like Furry where we already face enough prejudice from the outside, shouldn't we be striving to work together?  Consensus building is a community process, and it means giving everyone a voice.  (3) WikiFur admins are not demigods with superpowers.  They are normal editors who have, because of their demonstrated skill and their longevity with the project, been granted extra tools to perform tasks that, for purely technical reasons, are not wisely left open to the entire community.  It is a common misconception in Wiki communities that the admins are supposed to jump in and exercise special powers to mediate disputes.  Remember that admins are editors, just like the rest of us.  Unfortunately the word "administrator" tends to be laden with connotation from the business sense of the word -- someone who does wield special authority.  In the sense of a wiki project, admins are really "sysops" -- users with an extra set of tools to fix what's broken.  Admins are not content judges nor dictators.  They may, at their discretion, act to preserve community standards... but those standards are set by the community through consensus, and not by the admins themselves.  --CodyDenton 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may respond in kind, I don't think we accomplish anything when negligent WikiFur admins allow issues to drag on unresolved for half a year instead of dealing with them when they're first brought up.


 * You talk a good talk about the tools and authority Admins have to fix problems. The question is, when someone imports an unrelated argument from another forum onto WikiFur, why do WikiFur admins brand it as a "content dispute" and attempt to seek "consensus" instead of recognizing it as Vandalism and using their tools and authority to deal with it accordingly?


 * Let's be clear: We're not talking about calling people trolls because of a "content dispute" or because we "disagree" with them; we're talking about calling people trolls because they're importing arguments that have nothing to do with Furry fandom onto WikiFur because they were banned from their previous forum for being disruptive. Is it WikiFur's policy to ignore trolls, or to try to get consensus from them? If WikiFur is not just about Furry fandom, but rather things Furry fans find "interesting", does that mean it's acceptable to import arguments that have nothing to do with Furry fandom onto WikiFur?


 * It's nice to know WikiFur has recently added a standard of Verifiability. I'm not sure it prevents people from citing wholly fictitious claims as reference material, but at least it's a token step in the right direction. I guess I'm just curious whether WikiFur is still a faith-based wiki or if it's based on actual facts now? &mdash;Xydexx 13:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

* You can help defend the site against the vandals who would deface it

Past experience has shown attempts to defend the site against vandals who would deface it resulted in six months of stonewalling by negligent admins. What policies and procedures, if any, have been implemented to remedy this problem?


 * Perhaps the question is, what can we as a community do to enhance everyone's understanding of the consensus process, and stop asking admins to act as mediators and god-kings? The admins are not negligent by asking for community input before acting on something, especially when it may be controversial.  Instead, they are precisely doing their job as it was entrusted to them by the community.  WikiFur is a COMMUNITY resource.  Do you want to set a precedent of having a few users with superpowers who can act purely at a whim?  It has happened on other wiki projects, and the consequences have been quite unfortunate.  There is a delicate balance of trust here amongst the members of this community.  Admins are not enforcers, they are facilitators.  It is up to the community to guide policy, not the other way around. --CodyDenton 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is why WikiFur doesn't have, or is reluctant to implement, an Arbitration Committee to assist in dispute resolution. If it isn't the job of the admins to resolve disputes or roll back Vandalism, what are they good for exactly? It seems a bit hypocritical to solicit assistance from the community in "getting the facts straight" and "defend the site against vandals", and then say the Admins are going to do nothing to help with that, and the only way to resolve problems is via a perpetual endless edit war where whoever wastes the most of their free time wins. Again, does it still take the Admins six months to roll back vandalism, or have policies and procedures changed to remedy this problem? &mdash;Xydexx 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

* You can see people take your words in directions you never imagined

Oh, trust me, I get enough of that already.

* You can help decide the policies that govern all of the above 

Good luck with that. Hopefully there will be further clarification of WikiFur's mercurial and contradictory policies and procedures in the future.


 * May I suggest that if you have a problem with the policies, rather than offering rhetoric, you offer meaningful solutions? Explain what you think should be changed, and how you think it should be done differently.  Just understand that ultimately it is up to the community to decide.  Work is underway at this time to expand and clarify the policies and procedures (i.e., the actual written documentation).  We are a young but growing community.  It takes TIME to develop and mature.  Guidelines and policies change and evolve in response to the needs of the community.  We exhort editors to be bold in taking a part in WikiFur.  It's a fact of human nature that it is easier to complain than it is to help craft solutions.  We need people who are willing to do the latter.  --CodyDenton 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The only solutions I can really suggest at this point is that WikiFur admins abide by the policies they set instead of contradicting them, and actually listen to what members of the community say rather than ignoring them. Had that happened to begin with, I'd probably still regard WikiFur as something of value rather than a necessary evil. &mdash;Xydexx 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

&mdash;Xydexx 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)