User talk:Draco 2k

Welcome!

Hello, Draco 2k, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GreenReaper (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Furry" Definition

In all honesty, I don't have a source for that definition other than my own personal observations of how the term has been used over the years. There are people who insist that it belongs only to fan-created materials for fans, but I can't cite any specific references without a lot of research. It would be nice to be able to include it in the article, but all I can give you is OR. —Dajagr (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've heard the terms used this way myself before, I was just wondering if it has any grounding in reality and not just my sweeping suspicions about it's origins. --Draco 2k (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surveys

Hi! I would recommend sticking to Gerbasi over the other surveys you've been using: the Gerbasi survey is the only one that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In which case I'd go with "76% of furries do not own a full fursuit", or stick with the "about 80%" and either way use Gerbasi as the only source. - Bilby (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. When citing exact numbers (which is preferred, anyway), we should also cite the exact source, and I haven't seen the latter, personally. Is there an on-line copy of it anywhere? What is the name of the paper? What format?

On second thought, it would seem counter-intuitive to discard two more reliable sources, especially given they provide nearly exact same results. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you're mistaken about the other two: I'd regard the Furry Poll as suspect, and the University of California survey comes from a good source, but without peer review can only be seen as less reliable. They can still be used, but a published paper is better than either. That aside, it's all referenced (Gerbasi2007), however you can get a version with (presumably) incorrect page numbers from http://www2.asanet.org/sectionanimals/articles/GerbasilFurries.pdf - I haven't linked to it, as I'm unsure of its status compared to the published versions, but they're in the academic databases and can't be reached without proper access. - Bilby (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add - I can send you a published version if you need one. But the above pdf if identical in content, but the layout differs. - Bilby (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link!

It is indeed a good source. Except for... I think we really need to cite it's context more directly. This survey was conducted using non-standard control group testing, and only among convention attendees (barring control group), in person. This works for definition of "furry" as a con-goer, but not the one given in the article. The Davis survey was conducted over several conventions, gatherings, in private sessions, partially on-line (if I recall correctly), and Furry Survey was conducted exclusively on-line, and is also the largest one to date. I'm surprised their data matches at all.

...Why the hell would you ask about wearing glasses and beards, anyway. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and, interestingly, the authors) agree that the sample was limited to con goers, (which is bad), although they contrasted it with the Davis survey, which was good to see. However, the strength comes from the publication: the more I read of the Furry Survey, the less comfortable I become with the findings, as online surveys are automatically suspect unless they have a very sound methodology. But being published makes it the most reliable of the three from an academic sense, although I might give Davis more weight from a non-academic perspective. That aside, the beards and glasses was fun, and relates to one of the purposes of the survey - to respond to the stereotypes from the infamous Vanity Fair piece. - Bilby (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed more reliable in it's publishing, which is really a rarity for this article. The problems start with it's other aspects, like the aforementioned control group, overall group size and composition, relevance to the article definition, and questionary - which would also strip some credibility away from it. I think we could use an expert's opinion on this one - I'm sure Wiki has a template for summoning them, just like we do for GA reviewers.

Heh, yes, stereotypes. Wonder if they ever conducted a same survey for geeks or something. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I am an expert. :) But I have no problem with other opinions, and would happily defer to them. The problem is that you have two versions of reliability - reliability in terms of findings, and reliability in terms of the source itself. A peer-reviewed published paper is reliable in terms of the source, but the smallish sample size, being limited to con-goers and the small control groups are iffy. However, that needs to be contrasted with papers that are not reliable in terms of sources, and may or may not be more reliable in terms of the findings. The Furry Survey is questionable in both methodology and publication, but has a decent sample size. The Rust survey has no control group (nor does Furry Survey, of course), a smaller sample than Furry Survey but from a wider selection than Gerbasi, has a better methodology, but is unpublished. The University of California survey has no control, is unpublished, has a (slightly) bigger sample size than Rust and Gerbasi, and doesn't provide the methodology, but presumably comes from a good source. In the end I'd rate Gerbasi as the most reliable given the limitations, Furry Survey second for anything non-controversial, Rust next (as a methodology was published) and U.Cal last. For other opinions you could bring it up at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which can be helpful. - Bilby (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks again. This still seems to make for a tough choice between all three in most occasions though... Of course, we should always prefer properly-published sources over questionable ones, but, so far, they go hand in hand on most issues. Which is somewhat surprising. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbasi also found it interesting how close they were to the U.Cal findings. :) I suspect it means that their survey instrument was ok, but I can't take it as proof that it was - they also identified the need for follow-up surveys. I hate trying to pick between sources too, even though I have to do it all the time. The problem here is that Gerbasi has the only academicaly published survey, which means that it is very difficult to really evealuate the work. - Bilby (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, when in doubt, we can just quote both sides. Or, in this case, all three sides.

Server bless the Wiki. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furries and Carnivores/Predators

In a recent edit to the Furry Fandom article, you said that the statement about furries identifying themselves with carnivores was not present in the article. However, in the seventh paragraph of the article, it says, "Viele Furries können sich zum Beispiel mit Raubtieren identifizieren," which translates roughly as, "Many furries can, for example, identify themselves with predators." This seems to be pretty close to the text that's in in the Furry Fandom article; is there something here I'm missing? --Dajagr (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess could marked my concern better. Which is, articles in the media do not constitute good sources on statistics.

Actually, I have a research paper (on-line) on distribution of fursonas in furry fandom, if you're interested. I'm not sure it belong in the article, or if we can even cite it, though.--Draco 2k (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not unless it makes it into some sort of journal, sadly. —Dajagr (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Know What?

FYIAD 86.43.178.17 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]