Talk:Laura Hale (fan)/OutingDiscussion2008Oct

This talk page is currently protected from editing as it is archived. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an Archive of the October 2008 discussion regarding the use of Laura Hale's pseudonymns in the Fanlore Wiki. I have a reasonable guess what just happened, but would it be a good idea for a mod/gardener/boss to put into Talk a short description of "Biographied Person intervened and asked for X Y Z to be removed, which is why information you saw 10 minutes ago can no longer be found even in past revisions"? Just, because it's a little confusing to look at Recent Changes, know I just created this page, and now see that I didn't. (Due to the aforementioned removal, to which I don't actually object in the slightest). A note for transparency's sake would be helpful. --Vee 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. The fan in question has requested that certain sensitive information not be associated on fanlore, and we (well, I) deleted it from the history of this entry. --rache 03:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now can I ask what you're doing with the turning of her "official website" link into a number 1 in brackets (that still appears to be a working link, or anyway mouseover shows the URL)? Botched deletion, or strange new form of footnote? I didn't want to correct that without knowing what it wants to be. --Vee 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was just missing a rename in the square brackets. Should be fixed now. --rache 03:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we have some kind of general info on what exactly she doesn't want to see included here (whithout giving too much away) so that others don't edit it back in? Something like she doesn't want her pseud that she used in fandom X during the time from Y to Z associated with the name on this page; or she doesn't want to have certain activities listed, etc. Right now I'm confused why the focus in the arcticle is on the for profit thing and the outing thing isn't even mentioned, and I can't say whether this is because she intervened or because the person writing the article took a different approach. (And what do we do with links to articles where she uses other pseuds and the name listed here in a "Pseud X (Laura Hale)" fashion?)--Doro 09:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the only thing edited out appears to be the alternate names (where it says "disappeared by fan request" or similar. The slant of the essay is just what links I had to hand when I started writing it, and lazy lack of searching for more, and I don't have any expectation that other material (lke the outing thing) would be disallowed. Linking to "in her own words" under another name is a good question, though; when she used her LJ username, she didn't keep it a secret that she was Laura Hale, and every link to an LJ discussion (including the two I provided) will mention at least one disallowed username/pseud. To a certain extent, I tend to think the policy's implementation in this case isn't even closing the barn door after the horse has gone, but a punitive obfuscation. Which is about what one would expect, from Laura Hale.--Vee 11:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, her own page on her wiki lists all her pseuds, so it's not like she's now trying to hide them. She just doesn't want them published here (for reasons that I guess make sense to her) because she doesn't like Fanlore. --Kyuuketsukirui 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused about this policy altogether. So if someone flat out says "I go by X, Y, and Z" all over the place, in other words not only making no effort to hide their various identities, but actively linking them in public, that's not considered public information? --Kyuuketsukirui 10:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I will bring this up with the wiki committee, and hopefully we will have something on this later today. Our policy Fanlore:Identity Protection does allow for linking to documents where a person states that they have multiple fannish identities, on the assumption that if they themselves link the pseuds, that it is acceptable information for display on fanlore, but we have also been requested not to connect these identities directly on the wiki. So it's a puzzle, but at the moment, barring other info, I'd say linking to things that are already out in the world or on the wayback machine is fine, but please don't add alternate names directly to this entry. --rache 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick status -- we haven't forgotten this and we'll have an answer as soon as we can. -Melina 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Committee Decision/Revision

So, here's the thing -- our policy with respect to protecting RL identities is to edit to protect first and research second. Our (admittedly easy) research here has shown that despite the fan's claim to us that she doesn't want her RL and fannish identities connected, she has done so on her own web site, a publicly accessible space she controls.[1] Therefore, the Wiki Committee has rejected any claim that the identity protection policy applies in this case, and have added the pseuds back to the page. You're free to link and add more information, within Fanlore policy. Sorry for the delay -- we're still new at this and working out the kinks. -Melina 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to double-check, but does this mean I'm okay to re-connect Laura Hale and her other pseudonym in the Bandom Terminology_Debate page? Someone requested earlier that we not connect her two identities in the Bandom Terminology_Debate discussion page. --wistfuljane 03:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. --Betty 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --wistfuljane 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)