Talk:Fan History Wiki

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

Quick question: Why the redirect? Website and Webmaster are not really the same thing.Michelle 19:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I went by the discussion on the Talk:Wiki page. I think people were going by the tight control Hale keeps over the wiki, and how the entire thing is shaped by her own personal decisions -- a conversation about the FHW winds up being a conversation about Hale, even if only indirectly. I'm not married to the redirect, though; if there's enough need for a separate page, it can be broken back out again, no problem. --Arduinna 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Personally, I think it would make more sense to add some general stuff about the wiki on its own page and then link off to Laura Hale, but to be truthful, I don't care enough about either to bother. I just asked, because I feared missing a general rule or concept. Michelle 19:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I should've put the link in the summary of why I was redirecting -- brain isn't working right today! My guess is probably there will wind up eventually being a brief page; I just spotted the link on a different page and didn't want someone else to waste their time duplicating efforts unnecessarily. --Arduinna 20:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Things recently announced on the Fan History Blog

I'm not sure the extent to which there's a plan to write about things that haven't happened yet, but:

The latter idea strikes me as worth recording -- it gives me the wiggins. -- Kdcat 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first one -- it seems to be more LH-specific, or even something that would have its own page if people thought it was relevant enough. But I totally agree on the second one, and I've added it in, with some quotes/detail from the post. I restructured the page a bit, too, although it still needs some work to get it into something approaching a final format, I think. --Arduinna 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To the Authors of this Article: Please Correct Your Information

It's annoying to find oneself quoted on FanLore. It's especially frustrating when I have asked -- and clearly stated on the particular LJ post that has been quoted that I not be linked to this wiki. However, it's angering to find oneself quoted completely out of any context, and made to appear that I am rah-rah-rah behind partly_bouncy's vision of selling her FanHistory Wiki for profit. And it is also a blatant violation of FanLore's policies:

Quoting out of context: Quoting out of context involves a contributor posting or paraphrasing material that deliberately makes the material seem to mean what it does not, or gives the wrong impression of the material's meaning within its original context. This may be considered a violation of our Citation Policy.

I also notice that the writer(s) of this article were savvy enough to credit me with what was parsed, yet failed to give attribution within the article (as opposed at the endnotes) to Lennoxmacbeth's comments -- comments which certainly celebrated partly_bouncy's entrepreneurship.

As I stated in my e-mail to the at 23:26 21.01.09:

I'm being misquoted in the FanLore Wiki. . . and I'm mad as hell about it. And would appreciate any help that your wiki administrators could provide in rectifying the situation as concerns this article, specifically reference point #21:
pfeffermuse: Hell, you're doing someone's job, you might as well get paid for it.
partly_bouncy: Yeah. That much I realize. I know enough from my part time work to know my own worth and hourly. Had a great big chat with the major Fan History sysops regarding Fan History and its potential and if they'd be comfortable if I ever sold it, etc. The people who are the sysops pretty much realize that, for some of that, I'm sitting on a really nice, pretty comprehensive market research tool. That doesn't even begin to get into various other things I have compiled, like lists of LiveJournal communities that you can advertise your in fandom material on, contact lists, private demographic studies I've done, polling data, etc. The potential there for using that from a marketing perspective at fandom is nice. (It is why Fan History does NOT have a GNLU license and why our privacy policy is rather vague.)[21]
The way my words have been parsed in this article makes it appear that I support partly_bouncy's goal of profiting from both fandom and her Fan History Wiki -- something I vehemently disagree with. The discussion that's been taken out of context for this article was my belief that partly_bouncy's interest in stats, figures and research was a talent that she could use to secure a research analyst position. From my earlier comment in the thread:
pfeffermuse: I've got to ask. With your interest in figures and demographics, you'd be a natural for work in Nielsen or as a research analyst for any media or commercial-sale company. /// I truly hope you're doing it. My friend, Peter's high school hobby used to be studying the Nielsen ratings. He's now a VP Research Analyst for NBC. You really need to be doing something professional with this.
Both the I truly hope you're doing it and you really need to be doing something professional with this have nothing to do with a suggestion that partly_bouncy should be selling the Fan History Wiki. Rather, I was suggesting she, like my friend Peter, could turn her interest in figures and demographics into a career. And this is re-enforced within the full-text of what was edited for the wiki article:
pfeffermuse: Unfortunately, I don't know anyone in media in the midwest. What contacts I have are all East Coast based. /// But, you should head to the research section of your library and look through Bacon's guides (these are thick, green soft-cover books). They have them for magazines, radio and television in all major markets. Get some contacts from them for commercial sales and research. /// Hell, you're doing someone's job, you might as well get paid for it. As far as I recall, Peter didn't have any educational background in market research; he just took his hobby and ran with it.
I do not now, nor have I ever believed that any fan should attempt to profit from either fandom or their fellow fan, and I would never have made any suggestion to partly_bouncy encouraging her to do so. And to see it stated in print -- completely out of any context -- that this is/was the case is mind-boggling.

I would appreciate having this corrected post-haste. Also, I would appreciate that FanLore respect my wishes (as stated in the original post that was quoted on FanLore) that none of my journal entries be quoted by FanLore.

Thank you.


As I have not heard back with even a courtesy form letter from the wiki administrators, I'm forced to raise this matter here. The FanHistory Wiki vs OTW FanLore is a hot topic within fandom, and I have no desire to have my words -- words which were parsed and taken completely out of context (whether accidentally or purposely) -- used as canon fodder for this internecine conflict.

Thank you for your help and prompt attention to this matter.

Pepper (edited 26 Mar 2009 @ 21:46 to replace person's real name with the name they used in posting to my journal, as per their request)

I am not a member of the wiki committee, but I'm happy to edit your remarks in the context of the page. I'll make it clear that you have not spoken out in favor of Laura Hale's actions.
I will say, however, that having read your comment in the full, it wasn't clear to me that you didn't want to support Laura's actions. But that is no excuse for a lack of context. --Emma 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Emma, thank you very much for your help and promptness in correcting this. Though, as my remarks have to do with a suggestion of a career direction for partly_bouncy as opposed to do with the FanHistory Wiki, is it really necessary for me to still be quoted here? If that's impossible, I can [grudgingly] live with it.
Thanks again.
I thought about it ... but to me her comment doesn't make sense without your quote at the top. But, you know, I'll leave it to other editors to decide if they've got a more elegant way to handle it. (Or a better quote to use?) Best of luck. --Emma 01:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Emma, in truth, the first three sentences of partly_bouncy's reply could be removed (Yeah. That much I realize. I know enough from my part time work to know my own worth and hourly.), and the quote begin ". . . Had a great big chat with the major Fan History sysops . . .", and the comment make perfect sense in conjunction with the article's author's paragraph above it. I really do not want to be quoted/referenced/linked on FanLore, especially in a situation where my words have no relevance to an article. Thank you. ~~ Pepper
Hey Pepper! The pages are open to editing by anyone with a user account, so you can go ahead an make the edits yourself, without having to wait or pass the changes by anyone. So go ahead an adapt the text as you want. Later, other users/editers will look at the article and make additional tweaks that they see as required, so it's one big group project. So if you want to pull out your text, leaving the gist of the rest of the article, please feel free! --rache 16:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Rache, the fact is I don't want to be in a back-and-forth with the article's authors: I remove it; the authors put it back in. Firstly, I don't want to have to keep this page on "watch" (it was only because of a random Google search that I stumbled upon this). Secondly, my removing it doesn't acknowledge the fact that 1) the article's authors parsed and took the quote they used of me out of context (a clear violation of FanLore's policies), and 2) that the article's authors disregarded my wishes in not having anything from that particular LJ post referenced/linked to here. (I'd already put up a notice on that LJ post back on 31 Oct 2008 asking that it not be quoted at FanLore -- per the article's author's notes, the LJ post was accessed on 27 Nov 2008, nearly a month after I'd placed the notice.) This isn't a case of random fan winding up with hir posts/comments as fodder for the latest post to a meta/wank/rant comm, which blows over and everyone forgets about it in a month as they move on to the next shiny. FanLore aims to be the definitive one-stop-shop for fandom/fannish history, and this particular fan has no desire to be catalogued.
I'll make the changes, as you suggested, and hope for the best, I guess. ~~ Pepper
Hi Pepper! I'm the one who did most of the initial page, and I clearly owe you an apology. I never saw your note that you didn't want to be quoted on Fanlore. When I accessed your post, it was via a link that led directly to the comment thread I quoted; since I wasn't trying to quote your post, I had no reason to go back and re-read it, and thus didn't notice that you'd added an ETA. While I mainly wanted LH's response, I also wanted to provide a little context for it, so pulled your final line as a general summation of what you'd said.
I admit, though, I did read your comment as saying that LH should profit off the work she'd done on her wiki, although it's possible that I was influenced by the fact that LH clearly thought the same thing, given her reply. Given that, I also wanted to include that line from you because I was trying to include a variety of responses to LH, from supportive to opposing, to try to keep the page balanced. I'm very sorry to have so badly misrepresented you in the process.
And all that said, please don't feel that you can't make edits here! I certainly don't feel any sort of ownership about this page (or any other page I've worked on, for that matter), and fully expected that it would be changed by other people to be more accurate/representative. --Arduinna 19:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Didn't think I'd be back here for any reason ever, but I received a request from partly_bouncy asking that I not use her real name in my discussion. As the quote taken from my LJ was from partly_bouncy, and my comments in this discussion page are relative only to the discussion I had with partly_bouncy on my LJ, the request was a reasonable one. I've only corrected my own comments here, and the quote (and reference to it) taken from my LJ on the wiki page, since the comment came from LJ-user partly_bouncy. ~~Pepper 21:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it really pointless (and potentially confusing for readers unfamiliar with the topic) to use her different psuds rather than stick with her name, after this issue has been repeatedly discussed on the Laura Hale talk page and also decided by the wiki committee, that there is no reason to pretend these are separate, when Laura herself has always openly connected these user names. For consistency we should use one name in the article.--Ratcreature 08:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent mentions

I've added some recent (mid-2009) mentions of Fan History from more mainstream publications. 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, although I'm not sure how mainstream Dandizette is. Do you mean non-fannish? I'm thinking we should rename the section to something more specific like "Media attention" or "Recent mentions in the media", but without the alliteration. A short list of significant references in non-fannish media, recent or no, might also go in this section.--æthel 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

expanded Outings section

It was pretty terse, so I added some explanation and links, including one to Laura Hale#Outing --Msilverstar 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

cover permissions issue

I noticed that the last sentence in the "positive attention" section contains an implied accusation against Fanlore: This borrowing has been done, in some cases, without the permission of the fan artist when the artist gave permission solely to Fan History wiki. If this is a problem, it should be addressed! And not edited in as a side note--it reads as passive aggressive. (Now that I'm looking at the entries, I see that, unlike the image on Fanhistory, the image on Fanlore is thumb-nail sized.)--æthel 23:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also not sure as to why it belongs in the FHW article. I think a better place for it would be the Fanlore article, which is still a stub. I think it would be best to add a "Criticism" section there and add this and similar things there. -- Rodo 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed this passage about fanzine covers from "positive attention": One Fanlore editor who is working on a massive zine project has borrowed fanzine covers from many places, including Fan History. This borrowing has been done, in some cases, without the permission of the fan artist when the artist gave permission solely to Fan History wiki.[1]

  1. Randomsome1: GIP, posted November 13, 2009. (Accessed 18 November 2009)

As it turns out, it's not about positive attention or attention the FH wiki receives at all, it's about a complaint about adding fanzine covers to Fanlore where it is said that the artist only gave permission to the FH wiki and having the covers here means the artwork is stolen. I'm going to copy this to the page of the artist/publisher and add an attention gardeners tag there because if we don't have permission to use the images, they should be removed.--Doro 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ETA: The issue has been resolved and I moved the passage back. :) For more information see Talk:Sockii Press. --Doro 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait, why did you put it back? It's still not relevant to "positive attention." I like Rodo's suggestion of adding it to a criticism section on Fanlore.--æthel 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I added it back because some covers were taken from FH (although they were reduced in size, covered by fair use, and have been removed since then, see Talk:Sockii Press), so it could be seen as positive attention. But I agree, the way it is written it doesn't really belong in this section. I hadn't seen Rodo's comment (BECAUSE I'M BLIND, OBVIOUSLY!) and added it back because I didn't know what to do with it. *faceplam* I'm going to remove it again, sorry! Please put it somewhere more appropriate. --Doro 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempted Sale?

"Laura Hale tried unsuccessfully to sell the site to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, she continues to use the site as a reference as evidence of her success and expertise." This information was added, and the cite supports the second sentence but not the first as far as I can tell. Is there a citation to support the attempted sale?--facetofcathy 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Buried in the flurry of edits to the Laura Hale page is this link about Laura proposing that FH Wiki JOIN the WMF. At no point anywhere in the mailing list discussion can I find anything about a sale, and the WMF is a non-profit, so... I'm changing the sentence here, citing it and removing it from the Laura Hale page as it's relevant here not there.--facetofcathy 12:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

last edit?

Can someone add a reference for the last edit? I see the last new page was created on 27 July 2011[1], but the last log entry was August 2[2], and I can't figure out how to see the most recent edit when the most recent edit was months ago. If we're assuming that Laura was the last person to edit, then the last edit was August 2.[3]--æþel 22:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I pulled the date from July off the what I thought was the most recent Recent Changes page. But I don't know how to cite that edit ref either. Maybe the wording could be tweaked to say the "last new page" rather than edit? Would that help? --Mrs. Potato Head 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording and added references.--æþel 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Site gone

Can someone confirm that whole site is off-line and if so, a best guess as to when? Also, can any of the pages used as a reference be accessed so we can WebCite them? Also, would someone add a sample screenshot of the front page for historical purposes? Perhaps a sample page or two of another sort? --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Site appears down, though the favicon still shows on my browser. There was no Google cache, so I nabbed a screenshot from someone else's website. I can see Fanhistory on the Wayback Machine. [4]--æþel (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The Wayback access is extremely spotty and extremely unreliable. All the talk pages are certainly gone, along with about 95% of content. --Mrs. Potato Head (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The Wayback Machine has the main page ( but without the skin. However, at least some of the links work okay. --Greer Watson (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools

Browse Categories
Shortcuts for Editors