User:Al83tito/Essay:A case for fan site inclusion

[NOTE: THIS IS STILL AN EARLY DRAFT]

Basic idea
Per current polices, I am not proposing at this time that we include in the wikipedia article on Grim Fandango any fan sites as external links or references. On the other hand, as time goes on, there is the possibility that in the future some fan sites -especially about creations as remarkable as Grim Fandango- may come to be seen as interesting artifacts of their time, and that those could help shed light into, or illustrate, the cultural significance and impact on the zeitgeist, of Grim Fandango. This is why I would like to share further below the list of fan sites that I have attempted to compile before they might have fallen into oblivion. If others know of other old fan sites, I'd invite them to add them to the list.

Current policies that limit inclusion
As of 2021, The wikipedia policies on external links (External links/Perennial websites) say:


 * Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: (...) 11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Along similar lines, Reliable sources also steers editors away from using fan sites as sources for articles. Also we have a policy about No original research. And in the policies about What Wikipedia is not, it talks about it not being a directory. In addition to the policies, there are also some essays that speak to the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia and that Wikipedia is not a fan website. Others may point to additional policies and practices along these lines.

Instead, the talk page is where ideas and sources (especially ones that may need consensus building first) can be shared and their value deliberated.

Current policies that may allow inclusion

 * The educational value of articles is enhanced with the inclusion of illustrative media, especially images. There is the possibility of broadening the concept of what illustrative materials can be, to include archived old websites that may carry their own unique illustrative value.
 * Some careful narrow usage of primary sources is allowed, and as some sources age, their value may change.
 * For example, a pamphlet of a recent political campaign may seem of little value to Wikipedia today, but a 100 year-old pamphlet becomes of potential greater interest as a source and/or illustration about what the campaign was about.
 * The community could broaden the usage of Template:External media or similar template.

Closing considerations
Often, between something being in vogue, and something becoming of historical interest, it goes through a "valley of death" where it falls out of fashion and is mostly forgotten and unvalued; it is too old to be of interest, and still too new to be thought as historical. This can happen to physical objects, as well as information. Some items may be later on rescued and preserved, while others may be irreversibly lost.

Some may point that these websites are not irreversibly lost because they are already in the Internet Archive. Part of my motivation here is to list them so that editors can know these pages existed, and so they can go look for them in the IA. If we don't list them, it would be much more difficult for someone to know to look for them, and that would be tantamount to them being lost for all practical purposes.

So again, this list is not meant as a resource for use in the article now. But, in anticipation of the possibility of those becoming more interesting as they age, I wanted to shared the resource here for easier access and consideration of future generations of editors. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)