Talk:FanFiktion.de

New Conflicts Section

This section requires more documentation and source cite. I have restored pieces that were deleted by Helge, the FanFiktion.de founder as part of the mutiple PPOV policy, but it would help to know where the original claims came from.--Morgandawn 20:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we move some of the restored bits to the conflict section to allow multitple POVs without clogging up the timeline. --Morgandawn 20:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a bit of clean-up - mainly offered context to people (like me) who are not familar with the conflict between the 2 German fan fiction archives, added a few translations and finally created a Conflict section. My thinking is that if Helge or any other interested parties want to add more content regarding the dispute, they can put it in the conlflicts section. This will avoid having to make more extensive edits (and restores) to the timeline. --Morgandawn 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification purposes, the discussion was on the FFP mailing list, the mailing list associated with the archive. The spidering referred to the author contact information at the archive, not the mailing list. As with most older archives, you could send feedback via mail, that means the author email addresses could be found on the story and author pages. The people who archived at FFP got an invitation email to come archive their stories at FF.de. ETA: The photo wasn't used with permission (Atti said so herself in her own blog post, now f-locked), it was publicly available. I think it was from an article about Atti in a professional context but I'm not sure about that. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a fannish context. The way it was used in the blog post felt mean-spirited to me because the only point it seemed to be making was "look at that fat woman and her weird slash hobby" and then distancing FF.de from that kind of thing. Left a very bad taste in my mouth. --Doro 22:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Helge

moved here from Morgan Dawn's talk page. "Hello, I wrote down some points, which should be corrected, into the discussion site to Fanfiktion.de. I'd like to ask you if you could review them and perhaps do the corrections since Rodo may have problems to appear neutral in this matter. (She was a member of the FF.de-Staff and was recently "fired" from the team, which led to some bad blood.) Thank you very much.--Helge 02:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Rodo has not made any edits since Sept 2010. The most recent substantive edits appear to be from you, Helge. In any event, Fanlore adopts a Plural Point of View policy so multiple - even contradicting, perspectives are welcomed. --Morgandawn 05:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 1

"It turns out everyone active on FFP has received an invitation." --> Unprovable and hearsay. To verify this every member of the fanficparadise would have to testify positively, which is hardly believable.--Helge 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DONE. Modified the section to read: "many" and dropped a comment to document the plural POVs on this point.--Morgandawn 03:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 2

"From a FFP mail (09 April 2004): "wir haben nach der Infoaktion bereits wieder alle Emails gelöscht, daher kann ich nicht genau nachprüfen, woher wir jetzt deine spezielle hatten. Aber wenn du bei FFP registriert bist, ist das durchaus möglich, da wir die Seite einmal gespidert hatten." --> Is that supposed to be a quote? Someone said someone said something? Who is supposed to have said that to whom? Where is a reliable source?--Helge 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See footnote #6. Citation source is already there and was added in this revision by Frogspace who accessed and quoted from an email that was sent to the FFP mailing list in 2004 (presumably by FanFiktion.de in response to FFP mailing list queries as to why they were getting invites from a new archive). If this is not correct, then Frogspace can clarify.--Morgandawn 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats not exactly what I meant. The thing is, that this appears to be an excerpt from an email from and to an unknown person. This is what makes it unprovable. For example if someone writes in Frogspace "Morgandawn is a cannibal" and later someone links to this post, this wouldn't make the post true in any way or even provable, would it?--Helge 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see Frogspace has made the cite much more specific (date of the message, to whom the message was sent, actual message number, clarifying that the language above was an actual quote from a message you sent in response to questions about the unsolicited e-mail invites). Let me know if there is something factual you'd like to add. --Morgandawn 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How about some sense about the trustworthiness of emails cited on the web? It should be clear why such sources can't be taken seriously without the need of me pointing this out, but then I am not really concerned about this matter.--Helge 02:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Email is neither more nor less 'trustworthy' than any other form of communication. Perhaps the fastest way of cutting through the trustworthiness question is for you to drop a footnote explaining your position on the 2004 email spidering and the sequence of events. Currently, all we have is the one POV. --Morgandawn 02:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really so difficult to understand?? The point is not if a form of communication is trutstworthy or not the point is if it can be reliably cited. eMails are forged far to easily. As I pointed out, I could easily produce one correct with header and all necessary details in which for example Rodo states that she murdered her mother. And than I could cite that on frogspace. And you wouldnt be able to prove that it is a forgery. And in this case its even easier, since its in essence just a "someone said so" thing. You can compare this to some person telling tales in the marketplace about you being a pedophile. How are you going to disprove it? Should you even try? It makes about as much sense as needing permission to set a link, doesnt it? ;)--Helge 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No-one denied that emails are easily forged. However, so is everything else that is cited anywhere on the web. It doesn't need a special note when citing emails. Hence the best way to solve this would be to add another POV, as suggested above. Cesy 22:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 3

"The post included a photo of the FFP archivist, Atti. While the photo was not used with permission, it had been publicly available prior to that point somewhere else on the net in connection with her name." --> Untrue. The photo was linked not posted on the blog. Since when is permission required for links on the web? Please correct this.--Helge 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know the details behind the photo's origin - it appears to be on a website whose connection to the FFP is not immediately clear. It is not easily accessible from the main website etc. Whatever its origin and original purpose for being on the Internet, the *use* of the photo on the blog (and how that use was interpreted by some readers) is the main focus of the contraversy. I made it clear that the photo was linked and not re-uploaded to your blog. The 'publicly available on the Internet' goes to your second point and I wouldn't recommend deleting this section because removing it might raise the implication that security or privacy was breached.--Morgandawn 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no permission required for the use of a link on the net. If you post a picture of you somewhere then you still have the rights to it, yes and it may not be sold or changed without your permission, but anybody can link to it. The phrase "it was used without permission" implies that permission is required in such a case and that is simply untrue.--Helge 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I took another stab at rewording the objections that others have written to make them clearer and also added your comments above. These will be in footnote (currently #19). --Morgandawn 17:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 4

"Absent a cease and desist letter, other controversial fandoms are often handled inconsistently. For example, posting RPF about two German celebrities, violinist David Garrett [20] and the soccer player Andreas Görlitz [21] is forbidden, even though there has been no confirmation of the site receiving a cease and desist letter." Untrue again. We were asked to remove the offending material from the involved parties. Please correct this.--Helge 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DONE, correction made. --Morgandawn 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 5

"Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, a fandom that has often been the focus of the author's attempts to remove fan fiction, however, still has its own category on FF.de." --> We never got anything from Anne Rice or any other party representing her. Where is the inconsistency please? The only point of inconsistency to date is Gabaldon and that was explained. So please correct that.--Helge 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DONE, correction made to Anne Rice and possible inconsistencies. Although I have no clue where Gabaldon fits into any of this - your comment above is the first time anyone mentioned it. I've made a note about her in the C&D section and linked to 2 of your blog posts on the subject. Hopefully, that will offer some context. --Morgandawn 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 6

". Still, its use seemed superfluous to some and disingenous to many who felt that its purpose was to higlight the fact that the FFP archivist was an overweight woman." --> Repeating of irrelevant hearsays. The link was set because it put a face to the name, nothing more. It would have been set too if Atti were the most beautiful person on the planet.--Helge 02:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DONE, added the additional POV. --Morgandawn 03:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Point 7

"The blog would subsequently become a source of controversy as it repeated the history of disagreements over the nature of the two main German fan fiction archives, Fanfiction Paradies and FanFiktion.de: moderated vs open fiction postings, ad-supported vs ad-free, web design and color schemes etc." --> This is minor, but the FFP was never a "main german fanfiction archive", not even in 2004, far less in 2008. The most important archive at 2004 was probably Animexx with ~40000+ stories. The FFP had from 2004 to date just ~ 1000 stories. Even some of the more specialized archives held more stories than this.--Helge 13:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a Fanlore article about Animexx or one about Fanfiction Paradies. Why not create one for each, with details of its importance? --Cesy 22:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)