First off, I am totally aware that whoever runs a server (like WikiFur) dictates the terms and rules and guidelines and I'm OK with that. But that doesn't keep me from questioning some of them. I am not talking about some hard and clear rules like age limits or so, I'm more talking about some rules that got taken from WikiPedia... and I think without concern or thought.
The term wiki came to stand for a type of web content management (or rather lack of management) system that allows users to easily create pages without HTML knowledge and links to non-existing pages "to be filled in later". Nothing more. There is nothing in the definition of "a wiki" about how that content is supposed to look like.
The original - wikipedia.org - has put some rules into place in order to gain and maintain a professional encyclopedic look and feel. One of the major points is that it may not contain "original material" - i.e. it has to reference sources at all times.
Wiki vs. Pedia
The original content (aka "citation needed") rule for an encyclopedia is a good thing. For other wikis? Not so much... especially if they contain a large number of pages about persons and/or fictional characters like the WikiFur one. More often than never there just simply is no other source and it also still isn't original research because the fact was put there by the person in question who should be the top authority to begin with.
Why do I care?
The wikification of the 'net is why. Everybody and their grandparents seem to think that just because it is labelled "wiki" it has to adhere to "wikipedia ruleset". Another weird and pretty much useless rule they introduced is to "only link the first occurance of a word in an article"... I am almost willing to bet that came from a requirement that their system couldn't handle the huge number of links. Personally (as a reader!) I prefer keywords to be linked every time - since I hardly ever read the entire article and then I have to look for that stupid "first reference" to click on it.