Talk:Real Person Fiction

Fubar: Alright, I saw what you said on that page, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about having a grudge against the site. I still post at that site, and am still an active part of it. I don't understand why you think that it needs attention - the fact are stated, all I know and nothing more. I write fanfiction of this genre as well, and I didn't think that I needed to re-state anything written in the fanfiction or slash fiction articles, being as it does link to both. I'd like it if you'd talk to me about exactly what you think needs attention - and ask you to contact other people who write in RPF fandoms. If they talk to me about what's wrong - or maybe, gasp, edit it themselves - that might prove to me there is something wrong. But by your statement that it 'needs someone who knows about the genre' you simply prove that you know nothing about it yourself, therefore, how can you judge that there is something wrong with it? --AmethystAngel 01:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion about, and not terribly much experience with, RPF fandom. That's why I didn't edit the article when I noticed that it needed it. Instead, I listed it for attention so that it would come under the view of others who do have some idea about this fandom. Wikipedia articles always need to be looked at by multiple people who know the subject at hand; that is, after all, what Wikipedia is for. Calling for such review isn't an attack; it doesn't mean the article is wrong -- it means it's a start that needs attending to.

If you don't have a grudge against fanfiction.net, great. Sorry I brought it up. (As far as I know, I've never even used fanfiction.net.) It was particularly the line "When fanfiction.net started cracking down and banning things, one of the first things to go was RPF" in the article that gave me that impression. That's the sort of phrasing a person would usually use to claim that an action was distastefully arbitrary -- Wikipedia articles have to present a neutral point of view that generally excludes that kind of thing.

Overall, my biggest concern here is actually with the legal speculation. I'm no lawyer, but I know enough to say this: if there is a real "legal issue" against RPF (for instance, that people have rights against the use of their likenesses without permission) then it's doubtful that placing "disclaimers" on such fiction would change very much at all. --FOo 04:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. After looking it over again, I agree that the line you mentioned did sound a little nasty - I made an attempt to change it a little and make it sound less like an attack. The legal section I tried to work with as well, but, like you, I have little knowledge about the legality of RPF - I've been involved with it for quite a time, but beyond disclaimers, I never looked into the legal implications of it. I left the pages needing attention bit up, because if others come by who know more about the legality than I, it would be quite useful.

Thank you for pointing out the problems in the article - as the author, I do have a hard time seeing things from any other point of view than my own. --AmethystAngel 18:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)