Talk:Laura Hale (fan)

From Fanlore
(Redirected from Talk:Laura Hale)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived Discussions:

Fanworkers Finder

I'm not sure where mention of this should go, but a Whois search shows Fan History LLC as the registrant of -- Kdcat 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ScrewtheDaisies gave it to her a while back. When Laura acquired it I removed my stuff from it.Q 08:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Laura would like this page about her deleted and locked. In talking with her, she doesn't mind connecting her real name and various fannish idents in general, but within the context of the Organization for Transformative Works and affiliates it's really bad form, IMO, since as she was accused of outing people with information that she believed was public at the time. Understandably it's a sore point for her when a group of people who accused her of outing someone with public information end up doing the same thing on their own wiki. 'Tis horribly wanky and frankly beneath an organization that is presenting a professional face of and for fandom. Thanks. (Hope my name and stuff shows up, I'm wiki-challenged.) --Kayjayuu 03:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)--

Um. I think you and Laura are both seriously confused about what outing means. Like, no one can "out" me by saying "Grace goes by the names kyuuketsukirui and megchan", because I freely associate by real name and my pseud(s). So does Laura. On her own wiki, she lists her various pseuds. No one can out her because she lays the info all out right there. On the other hand, the people outed on her wiki against their permission, do not do so. They would like to keep their real names and pseuds separate, which is why they take pains not to associate them. --Kyuuketsukirui 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Committee Response

Hi Kayjayuu! As kyuuketsukirui pointed out, this isn't an outing situation, as at no point is Laura's privacy compromised given that she herself has linked her real life and fannish identities in public posts and on forums other than fanlore. We do appreciate your concern for our public image, but as there has been no violation of the deceptive practices policy, there is no need to modify the information. If Laura has any other concerns about the page that she feels that she needs to address with the wiki committee, she can email us via wiki at transformativeworks dot org. --rache
Thanks for responding. I withdraw the term "outing" as it was my use and no one else's, and wasn't really relevant (sorry, lack of sleep last night). How does someone get their information removed from the wiki, whether her or me or someone completely random? The point still stands that Laura would like her page deleted and locked, and I'm not sure how to request that here at Fanlore. She would like contact with an individual rather than a communal committee email; could you email her laura at fanhistory dot com? I appreciate your time. --Kayjayuu 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment from a random passer-by . . . I'm afraid you used a term incorrectly again. It's not "her page". It's "Fanlore's page about her". Like any website, Fanlore has the right to display both facts and opinions about a person, as long as false factual claims resulting in a negative opinion of that person are not asserted (defamation).
It looks like the wiki committee here is already saying "we heard your request, but we're not going to do it" - and rightly so, because it's silly. Friends-locked posts aside, when people write stuff about themselves on their own websites, it's fair game to report it elsewhere. It's also unreasonable to put yourself in the limelight and expect to avoid comment on your actions. The tone here appears snarky in places; but given the circumstances, perhaps that's to be expected.
I'm understand Laura is quite capable of editing a wiki page, so I'm unsure why she's not here herself. Laura, if you have any issues with the facts stated here, I would encourage you to specify them so they can be corrected. If the content is accurate - you don't like how it looks - there's not much to suggest other than not saying or doing the kinds of things that look bad to others in the future. GreenReaper 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the long, involved, and frankly wanky very public history between Laura and others deeply involved in FanLore, imo it would be within their best interest to not include a page about her. Those kinds of things are best left to Encylopedia Dramatica and the Delicious links, not an association with a respected academic and professional slant, one attempting to establish a foundation for the legal basis of fandom fair-use and the obvious legitimacy of the hobby.
Yes, "very public" allows for inclusion. Good judgment in the cause of moving forward and not being associated with past fandom drama would dictate far more discretion -- link to ED or Delicious, rather than repeat it here. It's about balance, and to anyone knowing the history, this can come across looking like a grudge even if it's not. As of this writing, there is no page on Cassandra Claire, there is a small, two paragraph page on Charlotte Lennox -- two fans who have far more notoriety outside of most circles. There is a page on Laura Hale, an astoundingly long and involved data dump of over 54K and many links. Laura Hale just happens to have past bad history with most founders and participants of FanLore and its parent, OTW.
I am here as a favor to a friend. If Laura were to come here herself it would immediately become controversial, and it doesn't need to be. She would like to discuss this one-on-one with an individual and has extended the invitation for email. As an aside, I'm learning how to edit a wiki, in a way, so that's a positive! Thanks. --Kayjayuu 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I speak only for myself and am not on any committee, but I'd like to say 1. So far there hasn't been any wank here. 2. This page is a work in progress, and there is always the possibility of shifting info to other pages in the future. I believe the info was all put here to keep it in one place until editors had decided how to organize and develop it. 3. No doubt some enterprising individual will start a Cassandra Claire page eventually. 4. It's a little weird to "extend an invitation for email." Since the most pressing concern--outing--has been addressed, it is Laura's responsibility to initiate email if she wants to demonstrate that she has serious concerns about the page. 5. As for your concern about the wankiness of the article as it stands, it would certainly be worthwhile for unbiased editors to reread the article and consider how or whether to edit. --Aethel 00:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been hoping somebody else will create a Cassandra Claire page so that I don't have to. (Currently she's got a stubby paragraph in the Plagiarism page.) I suspect part of the reluctance is the size of the job, and also the sense that it's already been written (by the aforementioned Charlotte Lennox).--Vee 04:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No wank here yet, and I hope it continues that way. Where Laura's name is involved, it inevitably follows, unfortunately. (I was googled in relation to Laura Hale, however, immediately upon posting my first comment here, which makes one ponder.) I'm trying to be neutral here. Laura has not had good luck in the past with committee responses to email, from my understanding, so an individual's contact point would be much better. And I've tried my hand at editing a few of the high points, but due to the large amount of text I think I edited quotes without meaning to. Hopefully someone can revert those, I offer sincere apologies, it was inadvertent and I'm still a newbie at this. I'll keep hacking away at it a bit at a time, but I've devoted enough time to this tonight as it is. Thanks. --Kayjayuu 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The contributors here are terrific. I'm sure that someone will jump on and fix things if they haven't done so yet; minor wording changes don't need administrative oversight, and the gardeners can handle most non-policy related issues, other than those that require higher level technical privileges. As a group, we're big proponents of the idea that the people editing the wiki can work out most disagreements without admin involvement. That said, Fanlore is run by committee, so Laura will need to mail the wiki committee with her issues first, and then we can assign someone as the primary contact person for the rest of the conversation on what would need to be done. All correspondence will still need to go to the wiki committee mailing list, so that everyone on the committee gets a copy of all correspondence, keeping the group apprised of what's happening, and so that there is an archive of the exchange created. That way when new people join the committee, they can quickly get up to speed on outstanding issues and why decisions were made, and as old people leave, that tribal knowledge isn't lost. The main contact addresses are listed in Fanlore:Contact, along with a link on the Managing Conflict policy. --rache 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the page again, I was a bit startled by its massiveness.--Aethel 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to split the content. Does the FHW have a page yet? And the Writer's University could be moved to its own page or the page. -- Rodo 01:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fan History Wiki redirects to Laura Hale right now; we could probably move a lot of content to a "controversy" section on that page and have an abbreviated list of controversies here with pointers--Aethel 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

page too long!

Fellow editors, this page is too long! I'm getting warning messages when I go to the Edit page. Some solutions were bandied about higher in the talk page, but may have gotten lost in the larger discussion. Generally, the idea is to break off some FanHistory-related chunks and put them in a separate FanHistory article. Another possibility I just thought of is to put all the specifically controversy-oriented sections into a sub-page and leave a more general overview and less controversy-oriented info (which exists, but is currently hard to find in the page) on the main page here. Thoughts?--Aethel 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support doing both. Although the controversy is important information, it's a 'lot' of information. --Emma 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd second pulling together the FanHistory info in a separate page and then see where this one ends up; hopefully 'light' enough. I guess I'm leery of breaking the article into too tiny segments. To me, the scope and the cohesiveness of LH's behaviour need to be really clear from the main article, because dissemination and lying about these pieces of 'incriminating' information have served her so very well. --lian 20:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I've pulled out most of the FHW-specific information onto its own page, and left just an overview of it here. The page is still a little bit long, but not as bad, if someone else wants to take another crack at it. I do agree with lian, though; I don't want to split this up too much, because part of the problem all along has been that it's been so hard for people to see the larger pattern. --Arduinna 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam on LiveJournal

I happened across what I would label spam posts by partly_bouncy on a number of wiki-related LiveJournal communities: DC Wiki Project, Wiki, Wikia, WikiFur, Wikipedians. I'm not sure if it's worth documenting in the article here. At any rate seeing that made me wonder if she has a history of spamming. -- Kdcat 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone with the username betsyb-fh on livejournal and betsyb on insanejournal has been spamming ads for Fanhistory on fannish comms, although the Livejournal account was suspended a few weeks ago.--Esther a 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
She's now using betsyfh on livejournal, so I assume the spamming will recommence shortly (if it hasn't already!) And it looks like she's also attempting to drum up excitement and hits as a result of the closure of Lycos' European services (see for instance Vissy 06:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonyms and RL name connection

Apologies for not being quicker to thank the editors here at Fanlore for their work on this page. It is appreciated! In light of the recent events concerning the use of someone's fannish pseudonym and someone's real name, when that person has already publicly made the connection themselves, may I request that the committee revisit the inclusion of fannish and RL information on this particular page? Laura has made it very clear she would like to have those connections removed from this site. Thanks! --Kayjayuu 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Kayjayuu -- has Laura decided to remove the connection between her fannish pseuds and her real name?! I didn't know she was trying to go pseudonymous now. I thought she remained open about her identity, and was just unhappy we were quoting her here. If she's decided to try to conceal her identity I'd be happy to take down her pseuds but I'm pretty sure the mod comm would need to see a quote from her on the topic --Emma 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Her "partly_bouncy" LJ info still links to the FH wiki as her website, and has a long list of links to all kinds of other profiles, some as Laura Hale, some as purplepopple on various services and so on, so I have no clue which pseud this page supposedly links to that she doesn't connect herself.--Ratcreature 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I see the confusion. Kayjayuu probably thought (this rumor has been going around!) that coffeeandink had posted her identifying information herself all over the intarwebs, while in fact that was not the case -- her unique first name was on her profile page, and there were I believe two other links that connected her full name and her LJ name prior to the outing, both done out of ignorance and later removed and fully apologized for.
In fact, the people who have confused "being quoted about words that I have publicly owned under my own identity" with defamation have been Kathryn Cramer and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, not coffeeandink. If there's a comparison to be drawn, it's there, and since it's rather unflattering I'm pretty sure that's not where any of us want to go. --Emma 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Official Response Mar 15, 2009

Kayjayuu, thank you for asking for us to reevaluate the current identity policy. We have made some updates, and will be going live with those modifications later today. However, Laura's issue is still that she has historically made the connection between her identities publicly, so this is not an outing situation by our definition. If Laura has concerns about it, she can contact us at: [email protected] --rache 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion request

This article is one of your most edited. I had other people request my deletion. I am here to request it myself. You originally removed references to me when asked and then restored them later with out consulting me. It smacks of exactly what ester_a accused me of. Stop being hypocrits. --Purplepopple 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone with official standing here will come along shortly to address your request. In the meantime, I see that you still publically associate your full name with your pseudonyms in several places (for example). Are you planning to or did you try to remove these links between rl name and pseudonym? If so, then obviously the page title should be changed. If not, the discussions on Fanlore have been quite clear on the matter. Not wanting bad press is understandable, but quite a different issue from protecting identity: see Fanlore:Identity Protection. Since I don't know what ester_a accused you of, could you clarify what the grounds for your request are, if not privacy concerns?--Æthel 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look above, you will find that this question has been answered already. A few times, even. The original editing out of names happened, as far as I know (not on the committee or anything), before the official wiki policy on connecting RL identity and fannish pseuds was decided on. As GreenReaper mentioned above: I'd be happy if you would tell us in detail what is wrong so that it can be edited to be more neutral. --Rodo 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

section order?

With the nomination for the LJ thing having gone nowhere, and thus not being not a current issue anymore, maybe that shouldn't be the first sentence, but somewhere further down fitting in the chronology? I don't think it is the most important thing.--Ratcreature 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It didn't seem to fit anywhere, so I removed that paragraph entirely, but if someone feels strongly about it, they can fit it in somewhere... I also added a neutral intro; check it out!--Æthel 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Professional History

I moved the "professional history" section that was added by User:Sidewinder_72 because this is a fannish wiki and the fannish history is more relevant here. I also removed links to a site where you have to log in to access the information and because that site is mostly used for job/professional reasons. It makes me deeply uncomfortable to add that kind of information to a fan page and I only left the information in there because it's well known that Sidewinder is a friend of Laura which means she probably doesn't mind having it here and it's likely she wants to have it on her page. However, I removed the link to her "Resume" because it was just there to prove that she has a job history and experiences (it was linked from the word "worked") and when it comes to looking for a job, there are better sites to place an ad.--Doro 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


She's a founder of Fandomnews on LJ. Should this be mentioned anywhere? Q 08:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd put it on Fan History Wiki as it seems to be a public service of/advertisement for that site. The maintainers are all editors there, I think.--æthel 12:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Info

The recent edit about Laura Hale and Wikipedia reads like unpleasant gossip to me and I don't see any relevance to Laura Hale as a fan or to Fan History Wiki. Anyone else have thoughts on if this should stay in whole or in part? --facetofcathy 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, most of it doesn't seem relevant to fandom, and the speculations about motive bothered me--[redacted]. I had previously been linked to the netball wank and thought it was odd that she accused someone of outing her, but I'm not sure that there's a way to work that in. We could include a brief mention that she also edits Wikipedia and has been involved in wank there. I dimly recall there was some issue awhile back about her getting in trouble for adding links to FanHistory from Wikipedia.--æþel 17:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, there is a paragraph that switches in the middle from talking about fanhistory to talking about Laura's behavior on Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia counts as fandom, so unless this is going to tie back into fandom somehow, I'm going to delete it: [redacted]--æþel 23:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Since TruthTeller2 has not responded to requests to explain the fannish relevance of this section, I have removed it in its entirety. I have transferred the only portion that has any relationship to Fan History Wiki to that page as a cite for the reference to an attempt to have FH Wiki join the WMF.
It is my belief that the rest of this information falls under the Deceptive Practices Policy on Attack Pages. I believe the history of these revisions should be blanked, since even hosting this information buried in the history of this page is not in keeping with what Fanlore is and how Fanlore editors should behave. I don't know how you make a decision of malice, as the policy discusses and as is defined on Fanlore:Managing Conflict, since that seems like judging intent to me. However, the effect of this information can be perceived as an attack on Laura Hale's reputation, so I think it should be permanently erased.--facetofcathy 18:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Laura Hale's attack on Erik Moeller as "sexist" is a result of her unsuccessful negotiation with him regarding the purchase of the Fan History wiki. I will rephrase. TruthTeller2 19:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that in general, Wikipedia is not a fan site. However, Laura Hale is traveling to give seminars in a number of locations (most recently New Zealand) to explain to sports fans that they should set up wikis and use Wikipedia to publicize their sports. There is a large tension between what Laura Hale is advocating and general Wikipedia policies. But that does not stop her from trying to cash in on her fandom experiences vis a vis Wikipedia.

I am trying to report on events in as objective and non-emotional way possible. I would welcome the contributions of others. However, Laura Hale's undisclosed relationship with the person that she recruited to promote her Wikipedia articles is an objective fact as was the "Stupid Indian" and "just retarded and blind" name-calling. I hope to find a factual presentation that does not sugar coat or minimize the nature of her conduct. Thanks, TruthTeller2 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fanlore is not about reporting, and isn't about being objective or non-emotional. What Fanlore is, is a wiki about fans and their activities as they relate to creating, enjoying and experiencing transformative works. Which is not Netball fans or Wikipedia editing. The issue here is not tone, trying to nicely word this information won't make it relevant. The issue here is not even accuracy. What Fanlore is not says, "Fanlore is not a forum for a personal autobiography. The people pages in the main namespace should stick to fannish history & engagement." Therefore, I believe all information about LH, wikipedia and activities related to sports sites in Australia are not appropriate to this page. If this information was glowing accolades, I would say the same thing, I just wouldn't be requesting it be deleted from history.
Please show me where in the cite about LH's attempt to have FH Wiki join WMF the word sale is ever used or where the issue of monetary reward is ever discussed, because I can't find it. This one point, which is covered on the FH Wiki page and doesn't really need to be repeated here, is the only thing here related to LH's fannish activities. That she later called someone involved in that conversation a sexist (no scare quotes) is also not, in my opinion, relevant to anything fannish, and that should be removed from Fan History Wiki--facetofcathy 20:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what is cited for the WMF thing here and I don't think she mentioned "selling" the wiki. What she said was that she wanted the WMF to "aquire" the wiki and in the original proposal the wording was that what Fanhistory Wiki needed from WMF was "Financial security". This is from the follow up:--Doro 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
[Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family:
We have certain things that we want to accomplish that have been detailed elsewhere. We're in the process of looking for and determining if we should partner with some one to accomplish these goals, what we're looking for in partnering or being acquired by some one. Our general criteria have been:
1) Non-profit, no-profit or for profit business where the emphasis would be on helping us to succeed with our mission. Monetization of the project is fine so long as major content focus and creation is focused around monetizing. We see our project as fundamentally for a greater good, to preserve and document the history of fan communities, and we don't want that made secondary to commercial interests.
2) Financial issues. In an ideal world, we would want one or two or three of our staffers to get some form of compensation for helping to maintain the content, enforce policies and helping work towards the mission. We also want to make sure that the project has the funding to continue indefinetely.
Yeah, I found that on my own, and I really can't tell, this is LH after all, if that's a typo in point one or a really weird framing of the issue. It would make more sense if it said, "content focus and creation is not focused around monetizing." That post also does not say if she ever put that goal forward to WMF or if it was just her hopes and dreams that they'd get hired on. I thought about including that, but it's meaning is so unclear.--facetofcathy 23:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin action

Per facetofcathy's request, I have removed the Wikipedia section and hidden the edit history on the grounds of the Deceptive practices policy. This is not a judgment on TruthTeller2's actual intent, only on the material. --æþel 00:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User Aethel suggested that I consult with other editors before adding something to the Laura Hale page about her claims that she was "outed." Bear in mind that Laura Hale's Wikipedia user name was "LauraHale". I am willing to work with all interested editors to develop language that is objective and fact based. How about:

As noted above, Laura Hale was linked to a number of controversies for linking fan fiction authors with their real world identities without their consent. In February 2011, Hale began editing Wikipedia under the user name "LauraHale", and within a month became dissatified when three editors refused to give "Good Article" ratings to her work. When one of the editors sought the assistance of a Wikipedia administrator (who it turns out was Laura Hale's boyfriend), the response was, "She was commissioned to write about the Wikipedia and decided to create a featured article as part of the exercise. Her experience so far has been very negative and I can only anticipate a scathing indictment of the Wikipedia, its editors and its policies."<ref>[ Hawkeye7 Talk Page] 21 March 2011. Retreived 2011-07-13.</ref> This lead the editor This led to conflict and one of the involved editors contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about Hale<ref>[ Posting] Retrieved 2011-07-13.</ref> In response, Hale sought to have the editor banned on the grounds of "Outing of my real identity to suspected employer" and "Attempts to get me in trouble by contacting my employer"<ref> Retrieved 2011-07-13.</ref> Of course, Laura Hale was open about her identity and she was never employed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Again, your input and advice is welcome. TruthTeller2 00:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't know what happened, all the details seem a bit much for the purposes of this page. Otherwise it looks fine. :) --Doro 06:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding All the Subpages I Retitled Today

I retitled all the individual essay pages to make them not appear as subpages of the Laura Hale page. This was mainly because we haven't titled any other essays and posts by anyone else on Fanlore with this subpage format; I felt it privileged her stuff. I know that a lot of these individual pages are short (too short), and that some of them have really generic titles. This latter thing bothers me the most, but Fanlore has lots of pages (fiction and meta) that have really generic titles -- while I think this is confusing to users overall, but I'm not sure what the solution is, and it remains a bigger issue.

But, I'm also super open to these Hale pages being reverted to subpages, if folks think that is better. Another solution would be to make a page called Fan History Wiki Blog Posts by Laura Hale and put all excerpts there, each under its own title subheading. It would gather them all together, and allow us to make a statement of context at the top of one big page.

I don't want these posts to be hanging out there with not enough context, or to be misleading in those ways.

What do people think? --MPH (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Right now, I'm leaning towards making a page called Fan History Wiki Blog Posts by Laura Hale and putting all the excerpts (that are now on separate pages) there. It gathers them together, would allow us to write an introductory paragraph, and would avoid the generically misleading titles. Does anyone have any thoughts about this option? Or other options? --MPH (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of having all the "essays" in one place. The Fan History Wiki Blog Posts by Laura Hale seems like a good approach.MeeDee (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Msilverstar, what do you think? One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them? --MPH (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant, yes! As time passes, her essays are becoming irrelevant and uninteresting to fandom. We should continue to have info here because of the controversies that are part of our history, but most of the details are not very important. --msilverstar (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant right back at you; you said that very well. I'll put this project on my short list. I'm traveling right now, so I'm off and online. --MPH (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've moved info to the base page at Fan History Wiki Blog Posts by Laura Hale. Did I miss any? Next step is for each individual page to be redirected to this base page? --MPH (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this is actually a lot harder to parse than just listing the title and date on the main page and making the individual posts into subpages, especially the ones where we added context to the page so it was a lot more than just a few quotes. There could still be a few quotes on the main page, but condensing all those pages into one is hard to read.--aethel (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. Now I don't know what to do. MPH

I can see it both ways. Something like this is easier to read as a "master". Could there be (1) one link to this summary page from her main page and then (2) links from each topic to the actual essay page. or is that too many links>

  • 1.1 How not to appear on Fan History (April 28, 2008)
  • 1.2 A Statement from Fan History (July 28, 2008)
  • 1.3 Fan History is growing! (September 18, 2008)
  • 1.4 Fandom as a business (October 27, 2009)
  • 1.5 Don't do that! TPTB might find out! (November 13, 2008)
  • 1.6 Announcing paid article services for Fan History! (January 1, 2009)
  • 1.7 On privacy, blogging, and hazardous misconceptions (February 16, 2009)
  • 1.8 The problems FanLore faces are not unique: Learning from Fan History's experience (April 10, 2009)
  • 1.9 The problems of writing personal histories in a wiki… (April 21, 2009)
  • 1.10 Why Fan History won't be moving to Wikia any time soon (September 20, 2009)
  • 1.11 The outing of Astolat and Fan History (December 31, 2009)
  • 1.12 A history and my take on The Slash Debate (January 20, 2010)
  • 1.13 Slash is not gay: Homosexuality, class and fan fiction communities, A historical perspective (January 27, 2010)
  • 1.14 Fandom history then and now (February 25, 2010) MeeDee (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing Some Content from the Wikipedia Section

Hello, I've just removed most of the content from the recent additions to the Wikipedia section as they are not fannish in nature. --MPH (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend removing the Wikipedia section entirely. My recollection is that Laura Hale was active in WikiProject Countering Systematic Bias in 2013-2014. Her specific focus seems to have been on improving coverage of women athletes in underrepresented regions such as Latin America and Oceania. Around this time, there were multiple efforts to address Wikipedia's systematic bias by creating articles on notable women artists, women scientists, etc. This happened concurrently with the rise of Gamergate and a wave of online misogyny. The Gamergaters predictably weren't happy and decried the WikiProjects as a feminist indoctrination campaign. In early 2014, a Wikipedia administrator expressed concerns over the reliability of Hale's Spanish translations, leading to a community decision that her future translation work would be overseen and reviewed by another admin. The Gamergaters accused Hale of being in a secret relationship with the overseeing admin (just as they smeared any games journalist who said a kind word about Zoe Quinn). The admin who questioned Hale's translation work apparently carried out a years-long harassment campaign against her culminating in him receiving a one-year ban in 2019. Hale seems to have voluntarily left Wikipedia around this time.
In short, Hale's history of abusive and deceptive behaviour in fannish spaces is well-documented, but we ought to be cautious not to uncritically present a bully's version of events just because the victim has a chequered history. I feel it's beyond Fanlore's scope to try to disentangle the threads of this situation. Better to not cover this particular aspect than to have Fanlore serve as a platform for a misogynistic hate campaign. Night Rain (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with who Laura Hale is, but the content you described could probably be safely removed because it is not relevant to Fanlore. Fanlore's articles on people are not Wikipedia articles about them, but rather document their notable activity and history in fandom. Documentation of people outside of that sphere is best limited to basic background information, and context required to understand their fannish history, activities, and works. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the section on Wikipedia as Hale's contributions, history, and behavior at that site is beyond Fanlore's purview. MPH 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I already went ahead and removed the section ("be bold" is difficult to unlearn) but I'm glad there is consensus here. However, I disagree that we should refrain from covering Hale's Wikipedia activity on a policy basis. For me, it's a matter of practicality. A brief, well-sourced section could serve as a helpful postscript to Hale's late-2000s fandom activity, but the amount of research necessary to create such an overview would be a big undertaking. TruthTeller2 evidently came to Fanlore in 2011 to grind an axe over Hale's Wikipedia contributions (one seemingly rooted in anti-feminist grievance), and only returned eight years later to grind that same axe some more. While documenting Hale's fannish history is fair, I feel that TT's additions are unsalvageable. As an example TT's claim that Hale never worked for the Wikimedia Foundation appears to be false (she briefly served as vice-president of Wikimedia Australia). If we were going to cover Hale's Wikipedia activity, it would be better to start from a completely clean slate. Unfortunately, this isn't something I want to take on personally, and I expect others might also wish to focus their energies elsewhere. Night Rain (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Unless Hale was editing fandom-releated articles on Wikipedia, any information about their activity on Wikipedia should serve to give background information or context on their fandom activities. Fanlore's articles on people are about them as fandom members, creators, and so on, not about them in general. If you don't feel comfortable adding such background information yourself, you could add a {{to do}} list here on the talk page to leave reminders for both yourself and communicate with editors. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Night Rain: Wikimedia Australia is technically unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation. It's also not 100% accurate that Fram (the admin you mentioned) conducted a "years long harassment campaign", and it's entirely unconfirmed as to why he was temporarily partially banned by the Foundation for a year. A lot of people guessed that Fram's treatment of Hale was why that ban happened, but no one who has seen the actual evidence for the ban has said as much (some even denying it was the reason, iirc). I also don't know how accurate the rest of your re-telling of events regarding Wikipedia/GamerGate was. I wasn't around for that whole mess, but I don't believe it was as simple as you said? I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't be right for me to spread unverified rumours to explain why I think that's the case.
As for my part, Hale has exercised her right to vanish on Wikipedia. To me, that says she is trying to move on from her involvement on Wikipedia. I think it's fair for Fanlore to respect that (though I'd prefer much of the page history to be restored...). –MJLTalk 05:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Can a gardener please step in here? Gamergate was a vicious misogynistic hate campaign that specifically targeted women, queer people, and their allies, including death threats, bomb threats, and SWATing attempts. Dismissing real harm to marginalized people as a "mess" that wasn't "simple" is gross and totally inexcusable. Night Rain (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm absolutely not excusing GamerGate. In fact, I'm insulted that you think I am. My point is that (a) Fram has nothing to do with gamergate. You are equating something that he was accused of with something that happened years prior. Secondly, (b) I was referring to GamerGate on Wikipedia which was anything but simple.
Finally, (c) you left out key details regarding what people were accusing Hale of. I'm trying to avoid saying their unproven allegations, but it wasn't exactly what you said (which mind you, I wouldn't repeat as you're just spreading the rumours Gamergaters started even farther).
Also, for the record, I'm allowed to call the Wikipedia GamerGate thing a mess. I've had to live in the aftermath of that whole thing as a publicly queer person who edits Wikipedia. I've not going to go into detail, but it hasn't exactly been a great time for me either. I also know many of the people effected by what happened because they were there (including that other admin you mentioned). –MJLTalk 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm taking this page off my watchlist. I agree with MPH that the Wikipedia section isn't relevant to Fanlore. If you include any summary of it, you're just "teaching the controversy" which will always backfire if the goal is to prevent further harm. That's all I have left to say. –MJLTalk 20:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia section is outside the scope of Fanlore, as it is not fannish activity. As this section has been removed with the agreement of those involved, this subject is now closed. Thanks everyone! -- FBV (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)