MiDFur names Steve Gallacci and Sofawolf Press as Furry Hall of Fame 2012 honorees
Posted by Fred Patten on Wed 5 Dec 2012 - 06:17 — Edited by GreenReaper as of 14:10
The MiDFur 2012 convention, currently going on in Melbourne, Australia, has just inducted Steve Gallacci, one of the founders of Furry fandom, and Sofawolf Press into its Furry Hall of Fame. Steve and Sofawolf co-founder Tim Susman and associate Mark Brown are present at MiDFur to accept.
Prior Furry Hall of Fame inductees (who select new members annually) are 2 the Ranting Gryphon, BigBlueFox, Dr. Samuel C. Conway, CynWolfe, Bernard Doove, Jenner, Paul Kidd, Fred Patten, and Stan Sakai.
About the author
Fred Patten — read stories — contact (login required)a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics
Comments
You sometimes write the strangest stories. At times you will go on for ages in articles I'd consider of, at best, marginal relevance but now you take this, very relevant, and just give it a few lines. Where's the history of the people? I'd have liked it in context because while I know of Sofawolf the other name is unfamiliar to me.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
The name of Steve Gallacci is unfamiliar to you!? He founded Furry fandom in 1980! Or Furry fandom was founded around him. There have been countless mentions of him in articles throughout Furry fandom going back twenty years.
My "An Illustrated Chronology of Furry Fandom, 1966-1996", here on Flayrah which you commented on (although you did say that it was not an easy read), contains several mentions of Gallacci.
There should be (and probably will be someday) a Furry Hall of Fame webpage that will include short biographies of all of its honorees.
Fred Patten
-Shrugs- I wouldn't say it was founded as such but anyway. He may have been important but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone knows him. I've read through your history and such but then it's just random names, I have no connection to the person so unless they show up often I'm going to forget. I, and a large number of other furs, joined long after the fandom had begun so we have no idea who the early furs were. I've had no contact with any of his works and, judging by the Wikifur article, he isn't on SoFurry, FurAffinity or Inkbunny so I never would've had an opportunity to see them. Don't forget there's no history test to join the fandom, nor do people often care. People join because they like anthropomorphic characters, that doesn't mean they know who started it all.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Generally I give detailed information about things and people who are not well written-up on Furry fandom, but not on those who "everyone" in Furry fandom should know about, or be able to easily find out about by Googling on, like Steve Gallacci. I do agree that his WikiFur article should be expanded upon, but in my opinion so should most WikiFur articles which are extremely sketchy.
Fred Patten
Your contributions would be welcome! We are not generally as restrictive as Wikipedia about requiring published references, as long as the information is not in dispute, but the information we have about fans without a significant Internet presence can be limited.
This may not be rolled out everywhere, but when I search for Steve on Google, I get a list of furry fandom luminaries under "people also search for", with Wikipedia extracts. One reason to keep them up to date too!
Ideally, WikiFur should assign or come to an agreement with someone to contact the fans who have WikiFur articles about them that are overly sketchy, and interview them for more details, including "who they are" outside of Furry fandom.
Fred Patten
This would be a good idea for people of high interest. It doesn't really fit into WikiFur's model, which is essentially designed to avoid doing what you suggested - in fact, I used "not having to interview everyone" as an example of why a wiki would be a practical way to create a broad furry encyclopedia.
Probably the "best" way to do it would be for Flayrah contributors to interview subjects of interest, then distill and reference the published interviews on WikiFur (and Wikipedia, if possible).
The main problem with letting Furry fans write their own WikiFur profiles is that they don't realize how much background information on them that the public may want to know. Birth dates, for one thing. What they do for a living outside Furry fandom, or if they make enough from Furry fandom, say on art commissions, that they do not need a mundane job.
Fred Patten
Funnily enough, date of birth and real-life job details are two facts often removed from WikiFur by subjects (or deliberately not added) - though they both come after real names. The situation has improved a little over time, but it is still the case that some want a hard division between the fandom and their real lives.
If you don't know, go visit WikiFur. This is why we link to the relevant articles.
If any particular reason was given for their naming, we could have given that; but it would be a waste of time to copy their entire list of activities, which might be improved over time anyway.
Now that I disagree with. A reporter should find an a topic of interest and then tell people what happened and why it's important. It shouldn't be to find a topic of interest, post one or two lines and then tell people if they want to know what it's all about they should Google it.
For example I Googled "Oscars" and then chose the first link that popped up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/9724045/Ai-Weiwei-is-on-Oscars-sh...
Does it say "Ai Weiwei's film has been nominated for Best Documentary, if you want to know more Google him"? No. It gives a paragraph explaining who he is and why he's important.
The current format of this article is exclusionary. It presumes knowledge of obscure historical events that are not common knowledge and doesn't seek to inform readers. The strangest part is that you and him should be aware of this already because, although I said Fred had a certain measure of fame in the fandom, Phil Geusz, in his [adjective][species] post replied, "You’re correct in that he does have a measure of fame. However, I bet his name would elicit a blank stare from 9.5 out of 10 furs in the general fandom, and half or more of all furs specifically interested in writing and furry literature."
You even pointed out one of the problems with assuming the sort of knowledge this article assumes, "Still, about half of furry fandom has been in the fandom for less than five years – and many simply don’t read the kind of stuff that Fred does. Most don’t participate in the Ursas, either."
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
But we don't tell people to Google these names. We link to WikiFur's articles, from which readers can learn why these people might be members of the Furry Hall of Fame. In fact, we gave more than necessary; each member is listed on WikiFur's Furry Hall of Fame article, as is the fact that they would have chosen the current inductees.
If this had been an audio/visual presentation, especially one intended for television or radio, it might have been appropriate to go into more detail. If FurCast chooses to read this article out this weekend, they may do so. But on the web, it is customary to provide original information - in this case, who has been inducted - and then link to more comprehensive material elsewhere. That is why I spent several minutes linking up all the names in this piece; and, for that matter, several more contacting Jeff Eddy to ensure that we didn't have an article for Mark Brown under another name.
Extensive on-page background, such as that provided in your recent article about the Dorsai, is only useful if it is not available at the linked location, or if the reader might be misled by the lack of a crucial fact, or if it's being used as part of an argument. Otherwise, it's duplication, wasting the submitter's time, my time, and the time of every reader who already knows who we're talking about.
The Telegraph is a newspaper, with emphasis on "paper". We are not. We cover what we do best, and link to the rest.
The article needs to cater the average reader. As you've pointed out yourself that's probably no more than a five year history of the fandom, never mind things that happened before I was even born or concern 20-year-old physical comics. At the end of reading the article the person should know the who, what, when and why. The links should be there to show sources and provide a starting point for those who want to read further. If it is necessary to use the links to understand the story or why it is relevant then the article has failed.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Now, that's just silly. Green linked you to the reason why :P
Fred will just do what Fred does... enjoy him, no need to criticize at greater length than his whole piece :)
Thanks, Fred!
Just to clarify, it was Tim Susman and Mark Brown who were there to accept the award. Myself and Dale Trexel (and the mascots Wizard and Gypsy) were holding down the fort at Sofawolf HQ, as much as we would have loved to have been there for the honor. (Our staff page: https://www.sofawolf.com/meet-the-team)
It is hard to believe over 10 years have passed since we started this operation, and even harder to believe we are all still having fun doing it. The whole company would like to thank the talent and the fans for giving us a reason to do what we do. I'd personally like to thank the rest of the team for making it even possible.
-Jeff Eddy
The page you linked to, in the "Team Huskies" section, says Rio lived from 1986 to 2010, which would make her 23 or 24 years old when she died. Is that really true? (Very few dogs live past 17, although the world record is about 30 years.)
That would be 1996, not 1986... Good eye. :) We'll correct that.
She was 13 when she left us. It is not uncommon, however, for huskies to live to 15-16. They are a particularly hardy and long-lived breed.
Sofawolf have posted at length about the induction, including a photo of this year's induction award.
This 2012 award trophy is totally different from the 2008 trophy shown in the WikiFur entry (http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/File:FurryHallofFame-Anthrocon2008.jpg), or the 2011 trophy that I received. I guess that the Furry Hall of Fame trophy is different each year.
Fred Patten
Post new comment