yet another post on OTW
Jan. 4th, 2008 08:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
boogieshoesthere's been a lot of discussion and wank and whathaveyou on OTW, lately, and my own feelings on the subject matter are a mix of interest, passion, and a weird feeling of abandoment before they even begin. in a way, i very much want OTW to succeed, and yet, given my issues with them, i almost hope they die a-borning. when it comes down to it, i think that i'd like them to spend some serious time resolving some basic issues that i see in thier current set-up before they go further. is it a pain? yeah, it is, but better now than later. let me see if i can develop issues and preferred solutions clearly:
********
*******
*****
ithiliana's lj (she has that entry under general f-lock, so i can't link to it):
the part of the OP i was responding to was a squee about OTW deciding to put a fanhistory wiki project together. my first reply was thus:
i have to admit i'm not so hot on the idea of a wiki entry, period. i'd rather have a archive of history and commentary, backed up with referring documents, and snapshots/ scans of originals. reason being that, afaik, wiki is *too* mutable. it absolutely sucks as a source of historical documents *currently* precisely because anyone can come along and change it. and that's 'anyone, whether or not they have a clue'. this makes it somewhat worse than your average high school history text, imo.
i do love anecdotal history - but i also want history back up with hard data supporting it.
to which ithiliana understandably asked what i meant by hard data, which i defined thusly:
when i say 'hard data', i mean *documentable evidence*. factual statements that can be backed up with something you can put your hands on. the example i would choose would be something like 'The battle at Gettysburg happened on XXX date (which we know because x, y, and z wrote letters home that have been authenticated mentioning this)'. or 'X kind of bullet was used on the battlefield of Gettysburg (which we know because we dug it up in accordance with standard archeological practices, and dated it to that time).'
i'd like to see a factual list of dates and events as part of the historical site OTW wants to put together. i'd like to see these dates and events backed up by something solid, other than recollections - humans, as have been proved time and again in court - make *lousy* eyewitnesses. i want to see this list presented with no commentary. (ie, 1) On such and such day, so and so wrote story x. 2) on z date, y person went to g event....)
i went to say that i understand history is not just dry, hard facts, but the interpretation of them. and therefore, also:
i don't have any problem with the social studies type sciences, including history, being written, and over-written, and re-written as new evidence, theories and ways of thinking come to light. i *do* have a problem with losing past work just because the new work is deemed somehow 'better'. i'm not saying 'don't build it' - i'm saying i'd rather see immutable pages of our interpretations and memories and etc instead. if a new person comes along and says 'well, according to this new theory of social interaction, what really happened is *this*' - then there should be space to archive that interpretation, too. side by side with the old interprations, and side by side with the dry list of facts in evidence.
obviously, this is a personal preference, and i suspect i'm somewhat lonely in my preferences. and just as obviously, i can't stop anyone from starting a Wiki entry - nor would i want to. and i know i could be wrong about Wiki's archiving capabilities. it's just that it seems to be of dubious usefulness in the long run, whether one is talking about being sure of names and dates, or getting a good variety of interpretive viewpoints.
so to sum up: i want to see the underlying hard data documented and sourced as much as possible for posterity, and that's my primary concern when it comes to the history aspect of fandom. i realize this is more of a preference than a problem, per se, but i still think it's important.
one of the last things i'd like to tackle is something i've been becoming more and more aware of, and that is website accessibility issues for the handicapped. this isn't a 'problem' yet, because the only websites up are pretty much place-holder pages for a whole long list of things that are 'to be constructed'. but i've asked (tentatively, i'll admit) about their plans for making sure that all members of their audience can access and enjoy their website and archives, but seen no response as of yet. now, i'm well aware site development takes time, and some of the content they're talking about offering are fairly complex issues to code. so i'm aware they just may not have had the time or expertise to address it just yet. or maybe i'm asking too early in the site design phase.
BUT:
i'd still like to be re-assured that they're going to at least attempt to make sure their site is accessible to handicapped fans, and are looking for either betas to test their features, and/or web-standards to incorporate into their site design. it's a thing i'd like to be included.
OTW:
like any good essay, and because this is being read by my non-fanfic friends who have no clue of fan-life (and might care less, but if so, bail now - long post, heh), let me first define the 'problem'. OTW is here:
http://transformativeworks.org/
and there's an associate lj community here:
http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news/
for those of you who want to familiarize yourselves with the sites, go ahead and do some perusal. go on, go on, i'll wait.....
*****like any good essay, and because this is being read by my non-fanfic friends who have no clue of fan-life (and might care less, but if so, bail now - long post, heh), let me first define the 'problem'. OTW is here:
http://transformativeworks.org/
and there's an associate lj community here:
http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news/
for those of you who want to familiarize yourselves with the sites, go ahead and do some perusal. go on, go on, i'll wait.....
now, let me tell you what i think OTW is doing *right*:
1) setting up an archive in a protected space
2) chat sessions for people to get real-time answers to questions fairly easily
3) being responsive to comments on their lj (in that they try to answer every initial reply in a thread, comment where they can make clarifications, and work to be civil)
4) keeping an eye out on other fora for mentions of their name, so they can correct misperceptions where possible (and they're being consistently civil in their corrections)
5) planning an ACLU-like legal house, on the theory of planning for the worst and hoping for the best, *and* employing real legal beagles in that house
6) actually trying to be organized about this all, since one of fandom's major failings is disorganization. face it, fandom is like herding cats, but if you want your product or service to stick around and become a staple, you need to be organized about it
7) working primarily towards being another source *for the community*, run by people *from the community*
8) working on production of an academic journal, with peer-reviewed articles
9) putting together a history of fandom
but - and there had to be a 'but', right? - i see some pretty serious problems with the way OTW is setting up, and i see some things that are going to *become* problems down the line if they aren't addressed soon.
1) setting up an archive in a protected space
2) chat sessions for people to get real-time answers to questions fairly easily
3) being responsive to comments on their lj (in that they try to answer every initial reply in a thread, comment where they can make clarifications, and work to be civil)
4) keeping an eye out on other fora for mentions of their name, so they can correct misperceptions where possible (and they're being consistently civil in their corrections)
5) planning an ACLU-like legal house, on the theory of planning for the worst and hoping for the best, *and* employing real legal beagles in that house
6) actually trying to be organized about this all, since one of fandom's major failings is disorganization. face it, fandom is like herding cats, but if you want your product or service to stick around and become a staple, you need to be organized about it
7) working primarily towards being another source *for the community*, run by people *from the community*
8) working on production of an academic journal, with peer-reviewed articles
9) putting together a history of fandom
but - and there had to be a 'but', right? - i see some pretty serious problems with the way OTW is setting up, and i see some things that are going to *become* problems down the line if they aren't addressed soon.
********
let's tackle number 5) first, because what i have to say about it fairly short. honestly, i think it's a good thing to have a legal defense fund and a cadre of lawyers in place on a 'just in case' basis. these guys know darn well that a) given the attention fandom has been given by mainstream media lately and b) the attention *their own actions* are going to draw, a lawsuit over copyright violation is pretty much going to be in the cards. the main problem i have with this?
they have one person their defense team who was a major defender of a noted *fandom* plagiarist, who, if i read correctly, used her legal credits to give weight to her arguments in various threads.
now, usually, someone being a friend of a friend wouldn't bother me. but the thing is, if they're going to argue that fanfic is a legal and ethical hobby to engage in (which i believe myself), then having this person on the official boards is a patented BAD IDEA (tm). especially the *legal* boards. it sends an inconsistent message, in my point of view, that by accepting this person in this capacity, OTW will condone, officially or unofficially, plagiarism of source material or other fanfic stories. is this *true*? no, of course not. but it still gives that impression, and in a courtroom, where the lawyers will dig up and throw in front of the judge every single spec of dirt they can, you had better believe this impression matters. and it will not be a good mark on the OTW name.
my solution for this is simple: i really think they need to either remove this person from the boards entirely, or at least move her to a board that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal defense fund. does i really think this person is, herself, a plagiarist? not really. do i think it sucks to be her right now and have her credibility questioned by everyone on the internet? yeah, i do. it sucks big-time. but i also think it will suck much, much worse when it becomes an issue in court, for everyone involved. is it fair? hell, no! but no one ever said life was fair.
they have one person their defense team who was a major defender of a noted *fandom* plagiarist, who, if i read correctly, used her legal credits to give weight to her arguments in various threads.
now, usually, someone being a friend of a friend wouldn't bother me. but the thing is, if they're going to argue that fanfic is a legal and ethical hobby to engage in (which i believe myself), then having this person on the official boards is a patented BAD IDEA (tm). especially the *legal* boards. it sends an inconsistent message, in my point of view, that by accepting this person in this capacity, OTW will condone, officially or unofficially, plagiarism of source material or other fanfic stories. is this *true*? no, of course not. but it still gives that impression, and in a courtroom, where the lawyers will dig up and throw in front of the judge every single spec of dirt they can, you had better believe this impression matters. and it will not be a good mark on the OTW name.
my solution for this is simple: i really think they need to either remove this person from the boards entirely, or at least move her to a board that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal defense fund. does i really think this person is, herself, a plagiarist? not really. do i think it sucks to be her right now and have her credibility questioned by everyone on the internet? yeah, i do. it sucks big-time. but i also think it will suck much, much worse when it becomes an issue in court, for everyone involved. is it fair? hell, no! but no one ever said life was fair.
*******
somewhat related to the above, i have a mild problem with the usage of 'transformative' in the whole thing. from their vision statement:
We envision a future in which all fannish works are recognized as [...] transformative
ok, i don't actually believe this is true. i don't think all fannish works *are* transformative in nature. i do think some fanworks are *derivative* in nature - such as case stories, character studies, mood pieces. but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be any less protected or any less legitimate, provided no money is being made. do i think OTW intends to exclude from their protective umbrella works that aren't 'sufficiently' transformative to meet their definition? no, i don't. but the thing with vision statements is, you become what you purport to be. if you envision all fandom activities as transformative rather than derivitive, then that will drive your subsequent organizational design principles, if you will. legal arguments, archive requirements, aca-fan journal focus - all those will be informed by the inclusion of the primary 'transformative nature of fanwork' principle and their scopes defined by the organizational definition of 'transformative work'.
like so many things, this isn't a mistake in intent, but it's going to have very real consequences. my solution - yeah, i want them to change their name, or at least modify their vision statement. not an english major, here, but i keep thinking there has to be a better way of phrasing this.
We envision a future in which all fannish works are recognized as [...] transformative
ok, i don't actually believe this is true. i don't think all fannish works *are* transformative in nature. i do think some fanworks are *derivative* in nature - such as case stories, character studies, mood pieces. but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be any less protected or any less legitimate, provided no money is being made. do i think OTW intends to exclude from their protective umbrella works that aren't 'sufficiently' transformative to meet their definition? no, i don't. but the thing with vision statements is, you become what you purport to be. if you envision all fandom activities as transformative rather than derivitive, then that will drive your subsequent organizational design principles, if you will. legal arguments, archive requirements, aca-fan journal focus - all those will be informed by the inclusion of the primary 'transformative nature of fanwork' principle and their scopes defined by the organizational definition of 'transformative work'.
like so many things, this isn't a mistake in intent, but it's going to have very real consequences. my solution - yeah, i want them to change their name, or at least modify their vision statement. not an english major, here, but i keep thinking there has to be a better way of phrasing this.
*****
next, we come to OTW's values statement. you guessed it, i'm going to put up my own wank here on the following:
morgan32 's lj on this:
We value our identity as a predominantly female community with a rich history of creativity and commentary.
this is a really bad statement for a Values-statement. it implies that the community is valued for being predominantly female, *not* for existence of the community itself, *or* for it's output. and i don't really think OTW means that.
let me link to a discussion in
morgan32 's lj on this:
http://morgan32.livejournal.com/243412.html?thread=967892#t967892
ok, well, that's actually just my comment, and the fact that evidently, it won the internets. :-D i'm replying there to morgan32 herself.
here's my theory: OTW really does want to include all races, genders, cultures that come to media fandom, who do things 'our' way, under their umbrella. really, it says so in the 5th value statement on their Vision&Goals page, which reads as a sort of fannish non-discrimmination clause. and i *absolutely* believe that.
the problem is that the 'value' i italicized above would seem to *directly counter* that. more than that, it implies that if fandom one day became 50-50 male-female, or worse, 51-49 male-female, *it would no longer have value*. that's what 'we value X identity' *means* - that if the identity is no longer 'X', it's no longer of value. and honestly, how many of us really believe that?
take a look at your flist, and imagine every single fandom-associated name on there (that you knew for sure belonged to a female) woke up one day and decided that no, the next big thing *really* was those keds shoes with the blinking lights. and they never spoke about fanfic, media, or anything like that anymore, but were all about the shoes now. would you really join them? if not, then you don't value the fact that your friends in fandom are *female*, you value that they enjoy engaging with the source text and you in the same manner you enjoy engaging with it. sure, it's great that your fandom friends are all women, and can commiserate with you over aunt flow, understand that yeah, a woman will asses this situation differently than a guy - but it's secondary to the fact that they engage in the source text the same way you do. if they didn't, you wouldn't be their friends - or at least, you wouldn't be their *fandom* friends, but you'd still be in fandom itself.
my solution? i really want them to take out this statement all together from their vision statements. it's detrimental, it's exclusive, and it doesn't communicate what i think OTW wants to say. should we admire the drive of the women involved in fandom? hell, yes! but they should be highlighted in our histories, journal articles, and wikis, and it shouldn't be part of the defining mission of the organization as a whole.
****************
ok, next problem, which has to do with fan history. not the building of a wiki so much as that i don't really trust a wiki page to either hold up under much scrutiny, *or* be able to do the things i think aca-fen now and in the future will want to do. let me re-post some of my comments in a link to a conversation in
ithiliana's lj (she has that entry under general f-lock, so i can't link to it):the part of the OP i was responding to was a squee about OTW deciding to put a fanhistory wiki project together. my first reply was thus:
i have to admit i'm not so hot on the idea of a wiki entry, period. i'd rather have a archive of history and commentary, backed up with referring documents, and snapshots/ scans of originals. reason being that, afaik, wiki is *too* mutable. it absolutely sucks as a source of historical documents *currently* precisely because anyone can come along and change it. and that's 'anyone, whether or not they have a clue'. this makes it somewhat worse than your average high school history text, imo.
i do love anecdotal history - but i also want history back up with hard data supporting it.
to which ithiliana understandably asked what i meant by hard data, which i defined thusly:
when i say 'hard data', i mean *documentable evidence*. factual statements that can be backed up with something you can put your hands on. the example i would choose would be something like 'The battle at Gettysburg happened on XXX date (which we know because x, y, and z wrote letters home that have been authenticated mentioning this)'. or 'X kind of bullet was used on the battlefield of Gettysburg (which we know because we dug it up in accordance with standard archeological practices, and dated it to that time).'
i'd like to see a factual list of dates and events as part of the historical site OTW wants to put together. i'd like to see these dates and events backed up by something solid, other than recollections - humans, as have been proved time and again in court - make *lousy* eyewitnesses. i want to see this list presented with no commentary. (ie, 1) On such and such day, so and so wrote story x. 2) on z date, y person went to g event....)
i went to say that i understand history is not just dry, hard facts, but the interpretation of them. and therefore, also:
i don't have any problem with the social studies type sciences, including history, being written, and over-written, and re-written as new evidence, theories and ways of thinking come to light. i *do* have a problem with losing past work just because the new work is deemed somehow 'better'. i'm not saying 'don't build it' - i'm saying i'd rather see immutable pages of our interpretations and memories and etc instead. if a new person comes along and says 'well, according to this new theory of social interaction, what really happened is *this*' - then there should be space to archive that interpretation, too. side by side with the old interprations, and side by side with the dry list of facts in evidence.
obviously, this is a personal preference, and i suspect i'm somewhat lonely in my preferences. and just as obviously, i can't stop anyone from starting a Wiki entry - nor would i want to. and i know i could be wrong about Wiki's archiving capabilities. it's just that it seems to be of dubious usefulness in the long run, whether one is talking about being sure of names and dates, or getting a good variety of interpretive viewpoints.
so to sum up: i want to see the underlying hard data documented and sourced as much as possible for posterity, and that's my primary concern when it comes to the history aspect of fandom. i realize this is more of a preference than a problem, per se, but i still think it's important.
*****
one of the last things i'd like to tackle is something i've been becoming more and more aware of, and that is website accessibility issues for the handicapped. this isn't a 'problem' yet, because the only websites up are pretty much place-holder pages for a whole long list of things that are 'to be constructed'. but i've asked (tentatively, i'll admit) about their plans for making sure that all members of their audience can access and enjoy their website and archives, but seen no response as of yet. now, i'm well aware site development takes time, and some of the content they're talking about offering are fairly complex issues to code. so i'm aware they just may not have had the time or expertise to address it just yet. or maybe i'm asking too early in the site design phase.
BUT:
i'd still like to be re-assured that they're going to at least attempt to make sure their site is accessible to handicapped fans, and are looking for either betas to test their features, and/or web-standards to incorporate into their site design. it's a thing i'd like to be included.
*****
finally, i want to discuss one issue that keeps coming up with respect to OTW that is more behavioral, and may have more to do with fan-povs in general that the OTW community relation behaviors themselves.
in morgan32's lj, she mentioned that:
First, and foremost, yes there are problems with the language OTW have chosen for their vision & values and mission statement. But I really, really, believe this is one time fen would do better to look behind the words to the intent, and just trust that these people are what they say they are.
i disagree with this. if there's one time fans need to be nitpicky SOB's, this is it. in fact, there *will never be a better time* to tackle the language problems in the visions and values statements. and really, right now, we as a community can't afford to do anything less. *right now*, we are being held to the *highest* social standards, because we are getting clearer and clearer under the public microscope. OTW, like it or not, is a part of that, and has set itself up as a fandom leader. there's nothing wrong with that, but the more OTW evolves, gains steam, and gets off the ground, the more entrenched any mistakes they make *now* will become. and those mistakes will also be farther-reaching and have more disastrous consequences for them, and for the fandom community as a whole. better, BY FAR, for OTW to slow down, back up, and *make sure they get it right* in the right places. any mistakes made at this stage in the game wil pretty much generate snowball after snowball of problems once you actually 'get established'.
do i *want* OTW to fail? well.... no, not really. but i *do* want them to take a step back, and *think* for a minute - game out all the permutations, ask *why* some people are reacting one way, although all indications after the Fanlib thing were that they'd react another. i *do* think OTW has a 'good heart' and 'good intentions', but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so it's imperative that they *take* the time, *now*, to make sure they're doing and saying exactly what they want to, and not what they *think* they are.
in morgan32's lj, she mentioned that:
First, and foremost, yes there are problems with the language OTW have chosen for their vision & values and mission statement. But I really, really, believe this is one time fen would do better to look behind the words to the intent, and just trust that these people are what they say they are.
i disagree with this. if there's one time fans need to be nitpicky SOB's, this is it. in fact, there *will never be a better time* to tackle the language problems in the visions and values statements. and really, right now, we as a community can't afford to do anything less. *right now*, we are being held to the *highest* social standards, because we are getting clearer and clearer under the public microscope. OTW, like it or not, is a part of that, and has set itself up as a fandom leader. there's nothing wrong with that, but the more OTW evolves, gains steam, and gets off the ground, the more entrenched any mistakes they make *now* will become. and those mistakes will also be farther-reaching and have more disastrous consequences for them, and for the fandom community as a whole. better, BY FAR, for OTW to slow down, back up, and *make sure they get it right* in the right places. any mistakes made at this stage in the game wil pretty much generate snowball after snowball of problems once you actually 'get established'.
do i *want* OTW to fail? well.... no, not really. but i *do* want them to take a step back, and *think* for a minute - game out all the permutations, ask *why* some people are reacting one way, although all indications after the Fanlib thing were that they'd react another. i *do* think OTW has a 'good heart' and 'good intentions', but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so it's imperative that they *take* the time, *now*, to make sure they're doing and saying exactly what they want to, and not what they *think* they are.
and those are my thoughts on the subject.
-bs, paying the piper
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
one minor point
Date: 2008-01-07 11:41 pm (UTC)(Quick term definition: aca-fan, as defined by Matt Hills, are those academics who are also fans (and in some cases we were fans before we were academics) who publish academic scholarship in our disciplinary venues, for academic credit (i.e. publish or perish). The primary audience is the academic world, not fandom (though clearly there are overlaps, and fans often read academic publications on fandom).
Fan scholars are fans who have some training in academic methodology (your basic upper-level undergrad courses) who choose to write essays (meta) for fans, about fannish issues.
An academic might write meta (and many I know do), for fans/fandom reading, but it doesn't count as scholarship in terms of our jobs (there are lots of blurred boundaries these days).
*Ahem.* But I just want to say--from my perspective as an aca fan--I would not get involved in the wiki nor would I see wikis in general as anything similar to academic projets (nor would my particpation in a wiki count for scholarship for my department). Academics have a general hard on about and against wikis: that said, many academics are exploring the use of wikis for classes (I want to have my students creating wikis), and an academic might do a wiki as a hobby or public service or educational mode, but if you see the wiki as an acacemic type project, I'm not sure that's accurate, although, of course, this is all my perception and may not be correct at all.
What's going on in a fandom wiki is more akin to oral history or archiving: the community creating or collecting information about itself, a kind of public history project (although from an historian's perspective, any text in any media created by a fan would be considered equivalent to an entry in a fan wiki--i.e. a primary source to be critically read/analyzed). (Gross oversimplification I know, but emphasizing that a fan created and run wiki is not the same as the practice of academic history, and not saying one is better or worse--they are just different practices done by different people for different purposes and audiences.)
Re: one minor point
Date: 2008-01-09 12:53 pm (UTC)regarding terminology, insert discussion on me coming at it from a different enough perspective to access it totally here. i've noted that before, so we know that in our conversations more knowledge disseminatin is better- and i thank you for doing so. ::grins::
anyway, to this point:
from my perspective as an aca fan--I would not get involved in the wiki nor would I see wikis in general as anything similar to academic projets (nor would my particpation in a wiki count for scholarship for my department).
see, i understood that in regards to you, specifically, because of our discussions. and i apologize if i wasn't clear on that point. but i thought the OTW page was less clear on the matter. it may have been the context - the influence of just read posts/ comments - i was reading in, but it looked a lot like they were/ are thinking of the wiki as an *academic* resource.
understandably, that makes me squeak in outraged indignation, heh.
but it's good to know that the organization itself knows that no, it's not useful for that kind of historical resource. and i'd never say 'no, don't have a wiki', or that wikis are completely useless - if they're serving a need in the community, they're obviously use-*ful*.
re-reading your comment, i think perhaps the confusion comes in with 'public history' vs 'academic history project'. it's obvious to me from what you say above that historians and academics probably view the two as separate, albeit related, things. i suspect that as a 'layperson' in this regard, my understanding is more representative of the population as a whole. that is, the history presented to the public *is* (or should be) academically correct as much as possible, in so far as being able to back it up with cross-checking and evidence and etc. i happen to find the dry facts just as interesting as the interpretational story - but i realize i'm almost a complete soloist there, heh.
thing is, the wiki itself doesn't really interest me, in terms of academic resources. which to me means that whether or not they put it up, it's all the same to me. i would *still* like to see a dry-facts-recitation permanent url page somewhere, because i do think that people outside of OTW, unaware of our fandom-internal discussions, are going to get the impression that OTW is thinking of the wiki as a valid source. this is a case of public perception working against OTW. people outside of fandom are going to want some kind of reassurance that OTW isn't all nutjobs, and i predict the very *first* thing they do is pick on the wiki.
and i understand the first impulse is to ask why we should cater to outside interests, but the fact is that since the outside is becoming interested in *us*, we need to be aware of our public presentation to non-fandom people. since OTW has set itself up as the 'fandom flagship', so to speak, they're the ones going to bear the brunt of the scrutiny. not fair, but also not practical to ignore it.
i'm going to make an additional post on the female thing, and i'd like your views on it if you feel comfortable commenting. there's just so much going on with that phraseology that it deserves (yet another, yes, i'm rolling my eyes *too*) discussion on it.
-bs