Feminist SF Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Pornography

2010-02-28T17:03:24Z

89.107.104.120: /* relations of production */

order of discussion: Industry does not equal genre, but it does equal "medium"; literature is a medium/industry, and video/film is a medium/industry. It makes no sense to talk about video/film at the top; then talk about feminism; then talk about literature. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 11:54, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

:Industry is *work*. Work takes place across different media. The order is clear to me. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 11:56, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

You added the "lit" piece at the end of the video section, so I'm guessing you intended that section to be about porn as an industry; however, it is actually quite obviously just a commentary about the porn magazine / film industry in the contemporary west. That's not even a holistic view of the "industry" which is ''not'' just about actors, ''not'' just about the west, ''not'' just about contemporary industry, and ''not'' just about film/vid but also Internet, sex shows, and so on. I think it would be more manageable to describe this section, honestly, as contemporary video/film industry; described as such, it is not "the industry" but is more clearly parallel to other aspects of the pornography industry over time. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 12:05, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

: Dude, I don't have *time* to make larger edits: your edits keep conflicting with mine. And leave my phrase about relations of production in! --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 12:09, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

:: No, ''your'' edits have been conflicting with ''mine''! Ha. I keep saying I am going to tear myself away and go eat something, let you work, and then come back ... and I am going to do it now. The Internet will still be here when I get back. I hope.--[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 12:23, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

: Look, ideally the Industry section should detail all the areas that pornography specialises in. Then further sections can describe particular aspects of those & their analyses. I'm going to sleep soon, so I don't have the time or the energy to do that right now, especially if I keep conflicting with your edits, so I can only hope you'll that agree this structure makes sense. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 12:17, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

:: No, sorry, I don't agree! But let's keep talking about it - I imagine we can come up with some sensible structure for this article. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 12:21, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

Ewstlx <a href="http://yglwbdcyitnl.com/">yglwbdcyitnl</a>, [url=http://ygrdrftsmnhr.com/]ygrdrftsmnhr[/url], [link=http://zrdmfyywsbdf.com/]zrdmfyywsbdf[/link], http://czrmnngdqiyc.com/

Talk:Will Shetterly

2010-02-28T16:44:41Z

89.107.104.120: GoenPucmOShkdevaZ

VHn5EG <a href="http://mqwzuxhcuwpn.com/">mqwzuxhcuwpn</a>, [url=http://ppcgivcjixzq.com/]ppcgivcjixzq[/url], [link=http://nhtkrfcgakzb.com/]nhtkrfcgakzb[/link], http://vlyxcwswkxxb.com/

Talk:James Tiptree, Jr.

2010-02-28T16:30:58Z

89.107.104.120: /* Your Haploid He]art[icle */

LQMpxy <a href="http://llynjqvzbzns.com/">llynjqvzbzns</a>, [url=http://lwedrbtcfdun.com/]lwedrbtcfdun[/url], [link=http://cyhbrbqkxswe.com/]cyhbrbqkxswe[/link], http://dzvpwofawcah.com/

== LQ's Dead Link Cemetery ==
* [http://www.mtsu.edu/~dlavery/tipbib.htm former fansite]

Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog

2010-02-28T16:27:02Z

89.107.104.120: /* Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all? */

g1m8DC <a href="http://eiccpwfzueav.com/">eiccpwfzueav</a>, [url=http://gmmmjbpmojlf.com/]gmmmjbpmojlf[/url], [link=http://nqjehbdwcqpq.com/]nqjehbdwcqpq[/link], http://guxuymkzdbcd.com/

==Disruptive behaviour==

People asking the same-old same-old questions, disrupting an interesting thread by challenging a basic point of feminism: do we want to point them at the guidelines and tell them "go read" or allow them to disrupt the thread further by responding to their points at length? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: Yes, any of us should be able to point someone to those guidelines (rules, readings, whatever) when inspired to do so. That could be out of a spirit of frustration ("you're wasting my time; go read this"), encouragement ("you've got some good ideas or a good point but you're missing some critical analyses; go read this"), or any other reason or combination of reasons. It's not a "do we want" because we are all individuals, ultimately, and if we're engaging in conversations as individuals, we will have our own levels, thresholds, and reasons for referring people to the guidelines. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:19, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Tone, Format, Structure==

Good writing should engage the reader. Ideally, I would think that the "guidelines" would be friendly, humorous, & brief, with links to more pages that include examples, etc. In practice, it might work this way: A conversation on a blog posting is progressing at a fairly high level of analysis with a lot of interesting feminist disagreement. A newbie comes along, and, in a non-hostile but clueless fashion, asks some fairly silly question. One of the bloggers who has been participating in the discussion shakes her head, rolls her eyes, and posts a response that says, "The current discussion is way beyond the issue you raise here. You should start by reading the Guidelines; see particularly #5, and the links that explain in detail." The guidelines are a fairly short rules-of-the-road kind of document that list w/ brief description common problems to avoid, common fallacies, basic behavioral & communication guidelines; whatever. Each includes links to a page with a lot more information. These pages can even have their own discussion threads which could remain open. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:37, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Fuck it, I guess I'm not going to get *any* work done today. What about a structure like:

# Critical thinking / reading / Communications 101
# Feminism 101
# Check Your Privilege
# Common Issues in Feminist SF Criticism: Educate yourself
# No hate speech (this can be outright negative language)

* Most of these can be styled with positive language, not negative language, although I think that the "no hate speech" is fine to do in outright negative language; it *is* a prohibition, a rule.
* Each of these could be a short blurb or paragraph, with sublists of issues where appropriate, and links, always, to pages that have more detailed, discursive guidelines and discussions (if appropriate).

-- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:00, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

How about a section called "We've heard that one before." This is where we could list things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist," and "Sexism hurts men, too," with a discussion of what is wrong (or point-missing) about these statements.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

I have added a set of general "communications 101" guidelines (not specifically feminist) [[http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines#Alternate_.5Bshorter.2C_more_general.5D_Draft|here]]. For easy readability, I think it's important that we keep these short and general.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==Additional resources==

* Guidelines for Participation (FSF Blog) draft - http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=19
* Call for Participants (FSF Blog) http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=18
* Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=33
* Communication Guidelines (FSF wiki) http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines
* Ginmar on invalidating women by telling them they're too angry, too crazy http://ginmar.livejournal.com/873536.html?nc=6
* Unfogged : for men on how to talk about/to feminists http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* How to Repress Discussions of Racism http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html
* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

Talk:RaceFail 09

2010-02-28T16:17:19Z

89.107.104.120: lUroknzOZqRA

gVWqZI <a href="http://bxquhxpetxoh.com/">bxquhxpetxoh</a>, [url=http://fjhxsdhhljen.com/]fjhxsdhhljen[/url], [link=http://rgwykicdppai.com/]rgwykicdppai[/link], http://afgpvnccvlmc.com/

Talk:RaceFail 09

2010-02-28T16:03:35Z

89.107.104.120: /* Biased */

gNQAhA <a href="http://iyfhvwtgchrt.com/">iyfhvwtgchrt</a>, [url=http://eyqbutrbuzyn.com/]eyqbutrbuzyn[/url], [link=http://jjlpggvtvcpb.com/]jjlpggvtvcpb[/link], http://kupfljpzzbdf.com/

n5Zavd <a href="http://zxcwjcepnbcz.com/">zxcwjcepnbcz</a>, [url=http://kdfeqautldju.com/]kdfeqautldju[/url], [link=http://yywfmblyjonp.com/]yywfmblyjonp[/link], http://tuixzkctrows.com/

1BVfE4 <a href="http://gxqalwjjjfrn.com/">gxqalwjjjfrn</a>, [url=http://gtidqohqonfo.com/]gtidqohqonfo[/url], [link=http://oxvrzipcccnf.com/]oxvrzipcccnf[/link], http://xabfmyciojik.com/

Talk:Encyclopedia of female characters

2010-02-28T16:03:04Z

89.107.104.120: cWgUhezx

tuZJSa <a href="http://onzjwdxtadem.com/">onzjwdxtadem</a>, [url=http://hycykgpxpzwu.com/]hycykgpxpzwu[/url], [link=http://hswaroxxsqca.com/]hswaroxxsqca[/link], http://wdvjaspiianq.com/

Talk:Police procedural

2010-02-28T15:22:10Z

89.107.104.120: vcKxVymlBjpRso

RrBBNd <a href="http://rfraydgloebc.com/">rfraydgloebc</a>, [url=http://cjcnwgqfdkhi.com/]cjcnwgqfdkhi[/url], [link=http://feoceeaawlfg.com/]feoceeaawlfg[/link], http://lvlaanyedtul.com/

Talk:Women eligible for 2008 SF Awards

2010-02-28T15:11:54Z

89.107.104.120: /* Best Graphic Story */

aklgEq <a href="http://lwjbvweqyrjf.com/">lwjbvweqyrjf</a>, [url=http://gkumoddnwwjr.com/]gkumoddnwwjr[/url], [link=http://znyrgwbakrjx.com/]znyrgwbakrjx[/link], http://hlmnzvmnmeny.com/

==praise==
Oh, wow!! Fabulous work, y'all!--[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 19:28, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

==Gotlieb==
While looking up publication dates, I just found Phyllis Gotleib's ''Birthstones'' (with an afterword by Nalo Hopkinson), and it sounds really promising!

"Space Opera has the reputation - not entirely undeserved - as being the power fantasies of maladjusted teenage boys. But, for over fifty years, Toronto author Phyllis Gotlieb has proven that this subgenre can be complex, intelligent and even feminist. Her new novel, "Birthstones", is no exception. ... It is this deftness, as well as Gotlieb's sensitivity to character, that earned her a Governor General's Award Nomination."
-- Sunday Book Review

"A visionary novel in the tradition of Ursula K. LeGuin and James Tiptree, Jr., by a leading feminist author."

{{unsigned|Madeline F|2007-04-18 23:21:11}}

Gotlieb is one of the most under-rated SF authors around, IMHO. [[User:Cheryl|Cheryl]] 18:20, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

Gotlieb rocks. A lot of her work is out of print but still easy to get. Wish someone would reprint it. What we need are critical editions.--[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:37, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

==Questions==
* Should things be broken down by SF and fantasy since there are genre-specific awards? Maybe it's easier just to note which they are? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:13, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

* Also on the LibraryThing discussion groups avaland listed some titles ([http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?newpost=1&topic=11003#lastmsg fsf]) but I'm confused by the organization and don't want to misplace something. Margo Lanagan's "Red Spikes", a collection, is something I'd like to list; it was published in Australia in 2006 but will be published in US in October 2007, so eligible for Hugos, and ...? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:27, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

* Should we list works where female authors have co-written with men? I'm also wondering if it's a good idea to link author pseudonyms to the real name. --[[User:Morineko|Nicole]] 22:29, 28 April 2007 (PDT)

*: My first instinct is yes, let's list cowritten works; we're trying to increase recognition for women authors, period. If (!) there is bias (unintentional or otherwise) then it may be less of a problem for works cowritten by men or otherwise, but it may not. With doubt, let's go for inclusion. That's my instinct -- other ideas? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 10:28, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

*: linking author pseudonyms - I think it's a good idea to do it to facilitate finding information. Are you making a suggestion to do that, or raising a concern about authors who are closeted with their pseudonyms? If the latter, then I think we should try to be respectful of closeted identities and not include that information. However, many (most?) pseudonyms are public information and not really an attempt to hide or create privacy. Other thoughts? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 10:28, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

* Where should we coordinate our actions? We need someplace to say "Oh, I've read this, it's awesome" "I'm going to hunt down [blah person with a big blog] at [blah convention] and give them a copy..." I was making a stab that direction with the Gottleib thing, but I'm not sure this page is the best place for burbling spin etc. Is there an appropriate forum somewhere we can add a section to? --[[User:Madeline F|Madeline F]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
*: Angry Black Woman is starting a FemSFBookSwap on [http://librarything.com/ LibraryThing], and we're thinking about doing a blog or a FSFwiki forum or something for it, too. ... Actually we have a [http://forums.feministsf.net/ FSF forum], already (at http://forums.feministsf.net/ ), which we set up but haven't done a lot with. It would be easy to set up a thread for book swap & spin & recommendations. ... I agree that the wiki software isn't really conducive to this, because there's no threading, etc. It would be nice to have it tightly interwoven, but maybe we can figure out a way to make it easy to link to the FSFwiki. ... LibraryThing is a commercial project but it's awesome and *very* SF friendly. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 23:23, 10 May 2007 (PDT)
*:: I think LibraryThing would be good for helping to track and pass books, but a more typical forum would be better for advocating books, mainly due to more familiarity in the general public with the workings of typical forums, and due to the ability to link to individual posts. Each book discussed can have its own thread, which will be persistent (unlike a blog where things scroll off and get lost, and new comments aren't obvious), with links back and forth to the book page on the wiki, and the LibraryThing page. I think the FSF forum would be ideal for this... I'd probably set it up as "Published 2007" (or "Advocacy 2007"?) then "Books" "Shorter written works" and "Other"... But that's just a first thought. Should this maybe be a discussion on the FSF blog? --[[User:Madeline F|Madeline F]] 16:37, 11 May 2007 (PDT)

What about the Nebula awards? I'm a bit confused why we don't list them and I might just go ahead and add them to this page.
- LH

==redirect==
* hey i redirected [[2007 nominate women writers|the first page]] to this one and will fix links. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 13:43, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

== campbell new writer? ==

surely there are many more writers eligible for the campbell best new writer award? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:07, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

There are - see the list on Writertopia that I linked to. But I'm not sure whether that has been updated for 2008 eligibility yet, so before adding any of them I'd need to go through and see if they are first year or second year. - [[User:Cheryl|Cheryl]] 18:20, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

== Sound Mind ==

I have removed Tricia Sullivan's ''Sound Mind'' from the list as it has a December 2006 cover date and is therefore ineligible. A shame, because it is a really wonderful book. [[User:Cheryl|Cheryl]] 18:24, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

==page split?==
I can see that as this page moves on maybe we should split to three pages:
: a) list of women & works
: b) award activism
: c) 2008 awards eligibility criteria
--[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 10:31, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

I like it as one big page. In fact rather than split I think we need to move the eligibility rules to be right above each individual list or category. I keep paging up and down again to see the lists next to the rules to figure out what goes on the list! As one big list it could be very handy to print out.
--[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:39, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

: Hmm, the print-out thing is a really good point. ... I'm just thinking, it's only April, and if this list is say 3x bigger in works and also bigger when all the awards get added is it going to be too big? whatever "too big" means -- i guess, hard to edit, hard to read. ... i also *loved* the awards activism section that someone wrote an want to link directly to that from other places. ... if for whatever reason we do eventually decide splitting is a good idea (i'm not advocating, just musing), one option we have is "transclusion" -- we could make a for-print version that transcludes all the pieces together. i think. we could sandbox something and just transclude all the pieces. just put the page name (with the page names in curly brackets) on the page ... for instance at [[User:Lquilter/sandbox2]] i transcluded a template, the [[Barbara Hambly]] page, and a FSFwiki:something page. Just been figuring *that* out and I think it will come in really handy at some point. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

I tend to agree that the page needs to be split up. The stuff about individual awards really belongs on the pages for those awards. And I'd be very happy to see the awards activism section get more visibility. Glad you liked it. :-) [[User:Cheryl|Cheryl]] 20:10, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

: I agree that the page should be split. It's my understanding that the point of a wiki is to network a bunch of stuff? I would like to keep a page of just eligibility stuff, so there's a one-stop place to consider who and when to bring things to award-givers's attention, but the eligibility stuff should also be copied to the individual award page.

: Sorry I have no idea how to sign this. Wiki syntax is completely baffling and makes me want to cry and I'm too daunted to hunt down more wiki syntax info on wikipedia this evening. --Madeline F

: It is a complete mystery to me as well, but occasionally you can find things out. The way to get a signature is to put four of these little wiggly things ~ in a row. So I guess in the wiki universe it takes four sperms to make a person. [[User:Cheryl|Cheryl]] 19:09, 3 May 2007 (PDT)

:: Thanks so much to you and LQ who sent a private message! And for the sperm thing, oy, now that syntax is indelibly stuck in my head. ;) --[[User:Madeline F|Madeline F]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

I have copied two of the sections to their own pages: [[Eligibility and voting by award]] and [[Award activism]]. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 00:23, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

: most but not all (liz?) are on board with splitting; ide cyan copied the content so i'm going to delete from the original page lest we start getting two different versions. if consensus moves the other way we can remerge. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 04:15, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

Talk:The Second Coming (TV)

2010-02-28T15:10:15Z

89.107.104.120: ihNmyecDrIoINzDQgl

W08ceT <a href="http://dzhlggtopezo.com/">dzhlggtopezo</a>, [url=http://akhchgeeoxke.com/]akhchgeeoxke[/url], [link=http://xmwuqejhypyn.com/]xmwuqejhypyn[/link], http://usqlxoyxfkte.com/

Talk:Fan fiction

2010-02-28T15:06:23Z

89.107.104.120: /* "legitimate" and copyright */

...and by using the "stub" template, I '''DON'T''' MEAN that you should DENATURE MY ANALYSIS. Just that a lot more information about fanfiction can be added to this entry.
--[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 01:05, 10 December 2006 (PST)
: Just clarifying: Since you posted it here, you don't get to control it any more, denatured or not. If you want it to remain "your" analysis, you should post it as an essay on the blog. (Also -- if this is going to be categorized "materialist analysis then it should probably be retitled, "Materialist analysis of fan fiction"; other approaches to fan fiction might reasonably find a home here, too.) --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 18:29, 18 February 2007 (PST)

::I don't own the page, but I wrote that initial article, and while I posted it here '''knowing''' it'll be edited, I have a right to be pissed off if someone fucks it up. See the [[Mary Sue]] entry where someone changed the meaning of a sentence to its opposite without having a clue what he was doing. *g* --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 13:05, 19 February 2007 (PST)

TeYhH0 <a href="http://gbxvxrzzjwdu.com/">gbxvxrzzjwdu</a>, [url=http://okjzbmuzxujc.com/]okjzbmuzxujc[/url], [link=http://smivdtrrzrrk.com/]smivdtrrzrrk[/link], http://fjmzfgzndmcu.com/

Talk:Twin Peaks

2010-02-28T15:01:20Z

89.107.104.120: BNIbeskB

ajgMiN <a href="http://daexzpzwgsol.com/">daexzpzwgsol</a>, [url=http://shbzgaalwukj.com/]shbzgaalwukj[/url], [link=http://kqlonaaihfcv.com/]kqlonaaihfcv[/link], http://babbpfpskxab.com/

Talk:What Are We Fighting For?

2010-02-28T14:55:35Z

89.107.104.120: /* collection */

Wikipedia has a style convention of using the shortest unique form of a title (dropping subtitles). Makes it easier to link internally, and also shorter URLs. Is there any reason we shouldn't adopt that here @ fsfwiki? and if not then i think WAWFF is probably unique enough without the subtitle, no? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 04:43, 20 February 2007 (PST)

There's a redirect page, but you're talking about inversing the current redirect and the longer-titled page? To make it obvious that there need not be the longer title in internal links? --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 09:56, 20 February 2007 (PST)

: Yes, to make it obvious, but also so that the most direct link (the one that goes directly to the work & therefore involves less processing power) is also the shortest title. And so URLs from outside the wiki are easier. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 10:19, 20 February 2007 (PST)

I tried to move it, but it's not letting me. I hope I didn't make it harder by first trying to remove the redirect's page content. Try it yourself -- perhaps you could, with admin privileges. Otherwise we'll just have to transfer all content. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 10:29, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Come to think of it, if you delete the redirect page, then you could move this one where it used to be. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 10:30, 20 February 2007 (PST)

: When I tried to move it, I got an intermediate warning page that said, "there's already a page here; do you want to delete it and move?" and with relevant options. Weird you didn't get that choice. Maybe it is an admin thing. I should create a non-admin dummy account to test. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 11:10, 20 February 2007 (PST)
EJOyIx <a href="http://lqlwxoudkvqq.com/">lqlwxoudkvqq</a>, [url=http://rjdyictjavun.com/]rjdyictjavun[/url], [link=http://ykwlugcfzhhp.com/]ykwlugcfzhhp[/link], http://niygmzltibeo.com/

Talk:Lust in Space

2010-02-28T14:52:28Z

89.107.104.120: nsZOsFZbLMBhpQJJrFj

7Gjmhu <a href="http://nbhemgbqqrui.com/">nbhemgbqqrui</a>, [url=http://itjrvzqefhrd.com/]itjrvzqefhrd[/url], [link=http://czuohzboifyg.com/]czuohzboifyg[/link], http://jyewspzvktsi.com/

Talk:Lust in Space

2010-02-28T14:51:34Z

89.107.104.120: YxPQHxussn

c8RaZc <a href="http://bhwizfewtrtb.com/">bhwizfewtrtb</a>, [url=http://oapmfqjisrgz.com/]oapmfqjisrgz[/url], [link=http://ghxebxwbrpuz.com/]ghxebxwbrpuz[/link], http://ebryuvtuclfb.com/

Talk:RaceFail 09

2010-02-28T14:30:17Z

89.107.104.120: /* Names and pseudonyms */

gNQAhA <a href="http://iyfhvwtgchrt.com/">iyfhvwtgchrt</a>, [url=http://eyqbutrbuzyn.com/]eyqbutrbuzyn[/url], [link=http://jjlpggvtvcpb.com/]jjlpggvtvcpb[/link], http://kupfljpzzbdf.com/

n5Zavd <a href="http://zxcwjcepnbcz.com/">zxcwjcepnbcz</a>, [url=http://kdfeqautldju.com/]kdfeqautldju[/url], [link=http://yywfmblyjonp.com/]yywfmblyjonp[/link], http://tuixzkctrows.com/

=Biased=
This article is rather biased in favor of the race wankers e.g "The comment thread, 78 responses long, was filled with fail. A lot of 101-level thinking. "

Talk:RaceFail 09

2010-02-28T14:21:29Z

89.107.104.120: /* Internal Links for Blog Post Titles */

gNQAhA <a href="http://iyfhvwtgchrt.com/">iyfhvwtgchrt</a>, [url=http://eyqbutrbuzyn.com/]eyqbutrbuzyn[/url], [link=http://jjlpggvtvcpb.com/]jjlpggvtvcpb[/link], http://kupfljpzzbdf.com/

=Names and pseudonyms=

I'm really not digging this distinction between the pseudonyms and the driver's license names. Is this necessary, and if so, why?
- vito excalibur
:Yes. Since it is important to know who is speaking, and for half the participants, we don't. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 17:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

:: This was one the sub-issues raised in the events being documented, and so I personally disagree on the wiki taking a position on it here. --Kate Nepveu

::: There's really no way not to take a position on it: either we separate the names or we don't. -- vito excalibur

:::: I don't see any point in separating people out under different headings. If the person has, themselves, associated their real name with their screen name or pen name, or if it is common public knowledge (as it is for my screen name of badgerbag), list one with the other(s) right next to it and alphabetize under the name you think people are most commonly known by. If there are pages for both identities, link them to each other or make a redirect page. By the way, to make this nifty name/time stamp, click the signature-looking thing in the little toolbar above the edit text input window, and it will magically appear.. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

::::: Yeah, I put that badly. Let me rephrase: I disagree with Kathryn Cramer that the distinction was necessary or useful. And now I see that it's been changed while I was off. -- Kate Nepveu
::::::I think it sort of speaks for itself anyway.--[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Which "we" is this? I don't need to know what name corresponds to a pseudonym in order to address that pseudonym's arguments. One of the central arguments in the debate was whether it was appropriate to use pseudonyms; outing someone who has explicitly chosen to be anonymous is cheap, and assumes a premise that was actually being debated. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Seconded. I'm removing the outings. If you need to know who coffeeandink is, you can look at her *years* of public postings. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of why this is necessary, I ask: Is it widely known, for example, that [[coffeeandink]] used to work at Tor, where she reported to [[pnh]]? (I presume it's not, since she doesn't include that job on her LinkedIn page.) People don't just spring into existence when they make up pseudonyms. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
: Pleasantville, if you think it's so important, why don't you just put that on her wiki page? I don't see why that requires people to be divided into separate categories on this page. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::I did already. --[[User:Pleasantville|Pleasantville]] 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing why it's necessary to know that. coffeeandink's many years of posting about race, cultural appropriation, fandom, writing, internet drama, and massive fail stand firmly behind anything she has said in this particular discussion about Patrick, teresa, or anyone else involved. [[User:Ktempest|Tempest]] 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::: I've just deleted the link to the LinkedIn page in your comment because [[coffeeandink]] does not want her LJ to be Googleable and connected to her full name. I hope we can respect that wish. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: I think that we can put that bit in about employment, which Pleasantville wants to be clear to outline some of the complexities of people's relationships. But I would like us to respect people's choices about pseudonymity as best we can. The need for anonymity is one of the reasons that women's history is hard to document. Let's do the best we can here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I was formulating an argument along these lines in the car on the way home, but you did it better. Thank you. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my full name on my LJ because it's unique and I don't want it Google-able. Please remove the redirect and the page account.

I feel my first name is sufficiently unusual that people who are looking for the connection can draw it on their own.(request from coffeeandink 2009-02-06T17:38:53)

: Uh, yeeeahh. Speaking of which, does this Wiki have an outing policy? (Rather, an anti-outing policy?) Because if it doesn't, I foresee difficulties with outreach to media fannish communities. I did a quick search and didn't find anything.--[[User:Veejane|Veejane]] 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Good idea. We have [[FSFwiki:Privacy]], but perhaps it needs to be more specific. (Philosophically, I don't bother with pushing policy until it's an issue.) Veejane, do you have any examples? Or would you like to edit the [[FSFwiki:Privacy|current privacy policy]]? --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 11:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Neither of those wikilinks goes anywhere. The policy appears to be [[FSFwiki:Privacy_policy|here]] and about a sentence long. (I also think it should be linked from the Getting Started page, since a privacy policy is baseline information for my attitude towards a site.) You've had one outing, above, and I can still find that outing by comparing the history of edits. So although the identifying data have been deleted from the page, they're still there for anyone to find. Basically, the outing is still occurring even now. By contrast, another wiki I've worked on, [http://fanlore.org/wiki/Fanlore:Identity_Protection Fanlore], has a policy that not only requires removal of outing data, but also hides those particular edits from the history, so the data can't be recovered. It might also be worth asking what tools admins have to control malicious outing. Will that fall under a harassment policy? I.... can't find a harassment policy. This all sounds paranoid, I realize. But better to have a policy and not need it than be flailing in the middle of an emergency without one.--[[User:Veejane|Veejane]] 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Veejane, no need to apologize for pushing for things like an outing policy and a harassment policy; they are things the wiki should probably have. I suspect it just hasn't needed them before now. --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is minor, but related to the overall "real name" discussion. Is there a reason why Elizabeth Bear's full name is after her pen name on the page? It's not as if she is known by her full name (she's been going by Elizabeth Bear and eBear since I've known her, lo these 10 years), nor is knowing her full name of use in the conversation. She's not hiding, it's not a "fan name" (not that I think we necessarily need to connect fan names to "real names"), so why is it necessary? --Tempest
: Fair enough, I'ma take it out. Do you think she wouldn't want it up there and it should be a "hide from edit" thing, or just take it out? --[[User:Vito excalibur|Vito excalibur]] 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
: It looks like she's completely comfortable with it -- I Googled the pair of their names and there's an interview with her whose first paragraph gives her real name. [http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/authors/from_shakespeare_to_ragnarok_elizabeth_bear_keeps_busy_91271.asp] On the other hand, I don't know why the legal name is necessary in the Wiki. --[[User:Jonquil|Jonquil]] 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not saying she'd be uncomfortable with it. It's not as if her real name is a secret, anyway. My larger point was: why was it there? Was it just due to the anti-pseudonym thing? This is one of the problems I have with the anti-pseud thing. Sometimes the real/legal name of a person is not necessary to identify them, what they say around the internet and in real life, etc. To use myself as an example, Tempest is no part of my legal name, and yet almost everyone in the SF/F community knows me by that name. Almost everything I write and do is connected to it. Thus, I'm not hiding, I'm just using a name I chose for myself. It's very much the same for people who go by fan names, I think. Even if your name is not Willow Wren, if that's what everyone knows you as, then it might as well be your real name for the purpose of identifying you and the things you have to say. --Tempest

When someone hides Micole's identity again, I won't correct it. I won't begin a wiki war, and I respect the right of site owners to do what they please. But just for the record: If the point of this wiki is to share information, don't censor the truth. Revise it when you have more information, delete what no longer seems pertinent, sure, but feminists should especially know that double standards stink. -- Will Shetterly, March 2, 2009
: Hi Will. You sure won't start a wiki war here, because I just banned you. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

* Two points. (1) I am not clear on what the double standard that Will is referencing would be. Having a standard that respects privacy, and weighs the costs and benefits of privacy as well as openness of information, does not seem like a "double standard". If, in this discussion, there is someone else who has expressed a desire to not have their pseudonym tied to their real life identity, then we should consider that request just as we have considered coffeeandink's request. To not do so would indeed be a double standard. (And for the record I disagree that double standards in all cases stink. That argument ''might'' be tenable on a so-called level playing field, were such a thing to exist....)

: (2) The addition and subtraction of "the great silliness" is clearly editorial on someone's part. Either it was referred to as "the great silliness" in some significant way, or it wasn't. If it was, then why shouldn't that language be in? If the concern is that all of these terms are implicitly judgmental then the solution is to include a section laying out the terminology & describing the people / positions behind particular terms. Otherwise a footnote (See, e.g., blah blah link blah blah.) should suffice. As it stands we have an assertion by Will that the phrase "the great silliness" was used; I haven't seen any counter-assertion that it was not used. Can someone please confirm or deny the use of this phrase?

: Cheers, Laura Q. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 23:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

: I've missed a lot of the RaceFail discussion as well, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that "the Great Silliness" is a term used only by Will Shetterly himself. Could someone who has more contextual knowledge weigh in on this? If this term wasn't actually used more widely, I would like to delete it. --[[User:JLeland|Therem]] 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:: I reverted the addition of "the Great Silliness" because it was done in the same batch of edits and by the same person as the attacks on Micole and I saw it as tactic to minimise the subject and therefore a continuance of the attacks.

:: Laura, the supposed "double standard" is deciding whether to link someone's nickname and legal name based on their practice and wishes, rather than naming everyone under the same standard of specious apolitical uniformity (the "level playing field" you mention). See this recent [http://willshetterly.livejournal.com/251935.html?thread=2468127#t2468127 thread] on WS's LiveJournal. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 12:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:: He has a fairly long history in feminist/antiracist fandom which some people may not be aware of: [http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/881075.html Will Shetterly:Do Not Engage] and there is more from [http://deepad.livejournal.com/33512.html deepad] which influenced my snap decision to ban. I think this is the first ban we've had. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 20:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
* I added some additional more specific draft language to [[FSFwiki:Privacy policy]]. I'm not wedded to anything but thought some draft language might be helpful to jumpstart the process. Please have at it. [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the editors have forgotten that wiki's have history logs showing all edits. If you want to remove the google link, you'll probably have to remove it from the history.

=Biased=
This article is rather biased in favor of the race wankers e.g "The comment thread, 78 responses long, was filled with fail. A lot of 101-level thinking. "

Talk:Halfway Human

2010-02-28T13:49:49Z

89.107.104.120: trALlPAyDDB

eWucrd <a href="http://ngzibovrmlrw.com/">ngzibovrmlrw</a>, [url=http://xhhuadoujysb.com/]xhhuadoujysb[/url], [link=http://ccbmwfkvzklk.com/]ccbmwfkvzklk[/link], http://hutpjbjlbyjg.com/

Talk:Halfway Human

2010-02-28T13:48:53Z

89.107.104.120: TDmRsczEfb

5Ri0Ik <a href="http://efdfbdijbzso.com/">efdfbdijbzso</a>, [url=http://eohfsjlsijry.com/]eohfsjlsijry[/url], [link=http://dmdaowhqcpfc.com/]dmdaowhqcpfc[/link], http://nrkxxsccerru.com/