Subject: FANDOM staff's response
Posted on: 2023-03-08 18:13:20 UTC

Kimberton writes:

Hi Neshomeh, I’d be happy to go over these with you.

  • Paolini’s page was removed because, while his work may inspire fanfic, the article on him was more of an attack page on his work than anything else. It would be fine to have a page state that he inspires fanfic and which of his works were inspiration for articles on your wiki, but an attack page bashing his work is not appropriate and may not be recreated.

  • As long as the Spidey3000 is about a fictional character and not a real person, it is fine to restore the page.

  • Celebrian (badfic) violated several of our Terms of Use and cannot be recreated/restored/remade. The specific issues with Celebrian (badfic) were multiple instances of rape/non-consensual sex, anal penetration and bestiality. This content is not welcome on Fandom.

  • Rose Potter was removed for NSFW content involving an underaged/minor character. The character was listed on the page as being between the ages of 11-16 and the details of this fanfic list “exploring/exploiting teenage sexual activtity”, sexual “under- and over tones” related to underaged/minor characters, relationships between Rose (a minor) and an older man, “highly graphic, gory sex ritual” among underaged/minor characters, etc. We do not tolerate any sexual material about minors/underage characters and this cannot be recreated. The article also included a nude image of the character which was deleted and may not be restored.

  • “Given that our wiki exists primarily for the purpose of documenting creative works by our own community members, I would assume we're still allowed to document the creators of said works (i.e. our own members). They are notable to us.” No, you may not. They may be notable to the wiki community, but they are not notable enough to be documented. Our policy is clear: Please do not create communities or pages (even humorous ones) about living people who aren’t publicly notable, including classmates and teachers, gaming clans, forum communities, YouTube or other social media personalities and more. Even positive articles about people can cause unnecessary drama and may become a tempting target for personal attacks, cyberbullying, unwanted exposure of personal information, and other violations of Fandom, Inc.’s Terms of Use ( Kimberton Kimberton 17:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So, according to that last bit, apparently we're not allowed to have pages about the frelling creators of our own community anymore. FFS. Never mind the actual censorship regarding discussion of sexual topics or having a negative opinion of a public figure, tone-policing be damned. I can't deal with this right now, I have to do my actual job.

Yo, just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any reasonable alternatives to FANDOM? Just, y'know, no reason, just wondering. }= /


Reply Return to messages