User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-24894325-20190905234550

I guess Mr. Wylder really cares what a random man on the Internet says about him.

So first off, regarding Tardis:No personal attacks, a personal attack is by definition an attack against a person, not a company. I am entitled to my opinion about Arcbeatle Press even if Mr. Wylder does not like it. (I do not, in fact, see anything especially wrong with this publishing house and never believed or stated that it was doing anything illegal or unethical. But that is besides the point as the cited policy is simply inapplicable. And I sincerely hope that the business of Arcbeatle Press depends more on the quality of their publications than on words of a random guy on the Internet.)

As for personal attacks on Mr. Wylder himself. There have been plenty of statements that are incorrect or incomplete in this thread (I plan to talk about it eventually). But incorrect statements are not personal attacks. I can (and have) discussed what I meant by my statements and stand by them. But even if it turns out that some of them were wrong, the reaction to an incorrect statement is to correct it and persuade everyone that you are right. We do not block people for disagreements. We block people for attacking other people because of disagreements.

Even were I to misinterpret / misquote Mr. Wylder, it would have been no more a personal attack than his constant misspellings of my name. When people make mistakes, it is not a personal attack.

I found the original complaint by Mr. Wylder bizarre and unfounded, which is why I did not respond directly. I did respond to some of his complaints by clarifying my position in prior posts.

I once again repeat that I never asserted that Mr. Wylder or Arcbeatle Press violated any copyright. In fact, I never doubted that he did his best in obtaining the rights. I stated the simple fact that the wiki cannot (nor should be required to, for all the privacy concerns voiced by LilPotato) verify claims made by an individual on their personal website. When Mr. Wylder says that I "implied" something, it means that I did not say this and that this is Mr. Wylder's interpretation of my words, which in many cases demonstrably differs from what I said or meant.

What seemingly incensed Mr. Wylder most is that, for the time being, I consider the three stories posted on his personal blog (and not posted on the website of Arcbeatle Press) fan fiction. The idea that an opinion about stories written by someone could be an attack on that someone really strains credulity. (If you doubt me, I invite you to our Discussions where a couple of threads thoroughly trash stories of the latest TV series.)

But the question of fan fiction is actually relevant to the discussion, so let us talk about it. Clearly, Mr. Wylder and I have different definitions of fan fiction. His desire to force me to accept his definition (and thereby accuse him of wrongdoing) surprises me. He does not believe that one can legally sell fan fiction, which is his right. I believe this is possible, which is my right, hence, I never meant that he was doing anything illegal.

Several users were very authoritative on what fan fiction is and is not, using the words like "In the usage of basically everyone ever" or "In all the meaningful professional and legal senses" to describe their opinion. Unfortunately, the situation is more complex. Firstly, (one of) the dictionary definition(s) of fan fiction is "Fan fiction (noun): stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet"

- Merriam-Webster

Whether any of us likes this definition or not (I do not as it is too wide), the three stories in question satisfy it. Hence, any of us may choose to call them fan fiction according to the dictionary definition (plus, there is always the freedom of speech).

But if, like me, you do not like it, you might want to know what is an accepted view among fans regarding fan fiction. I tried to find it, and it turns out that there is none. Here is a poll where 3,500 fans were asked to explain their views on the subject:. The main findings that are relevant to this debate are that
 * Only 10% stated that fan fiction cannot possibly be endorsed by its original creator.
 * Although admittedly many (41%) think that fan fiction must be free, the slight majority (54%) believe that fan fiction may also be sold.
 * Still many (36%) believe fan fiction cannot be produced for profit, but an even larger majority (57%) think that fan fiction may also be produced for profit.
 * More generally, regarding almost every criterion discussed in the poll, the majority of respondents did not believe this criterion to be decisive in separating fan fiction from everything else.

This wiki does not have a separate definition of fan fiction, and my views (with one exception of the first question in the poll) fall squarely within the majority. I hope this finally puts this complaint to rest.

Finally, I fully support Mr. Wylder's decision to abandon this debate. He seems to have enough supporters to be able to focus on attracting more readers by writing and publishing stories, rather than persuading fans of the type or quality of these stories in a debate. I wish Mr. Wylder all the best in his future creative endeavours.

Apologies to the moderators for a mostly off-topic post. Since fan fiction is not really being discussed anymore (it was simply a reason for the original deletion), I hope we can return to discussing the matter at hand:

Should we validate every story posted on a personal website of a person who claims to have obtained the copyright?