I've got a quick question, only marginally related to the post:
In the Clarification and Answers (http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news/10668.html#cutid1) post from last month, you stated you'd been paying attention to the discussions about the perceived exclusions in your terminology, and were considering revisions to the mission statement (although, the mission statement wasn't the only place problematic language was used, but *stops self from digressing*).
Since then we haven't heard anything about the issue, and the language those of us who spoke up considered problematic is still being used. So I'm just curious as to the status of the issue - is it being discussed, is the discussion over and you just haven't updated us, was there never much discussion in the first place, etc.
In that Clarification post, you did defend your use of "transformative works" and "media fandom" - however I'm unclear as to whether that was meant as a "we're not changing this at all because..." or "this is where we're coming from". And if the former is the case, then my question really is, what revisions were you considering at all, since those were the terms that were causing problems?
If you are still discussion the terminology issue, I find the use of the phrases we argued against troubling, as it opens the door for someone to say "well, you raise good points, but we've already been using them so much it'd be silly to change."
Heh, I went a little tl;dr. So, in short: Are you still "considering revisions" as you stated in the Clarification post? If so, why the continued usage of the problematic terminology, and if not, why?
no subject
In the Clarification and Answers (http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news/10668.html#cutid1) post from last month, you stated you'd been paying attention to the discussions about the perceived exclusions in your terminology, and were considering revisions to the mission statement (although, the mission statement wasn't the only place problematic language was used, but *stops self from digressing*).
Since then we haven't heard anything about the issue, and the language those of us who spoke up considered problematic is still being used. So I'm just curious as to the status of the issue - is it being discussed, is the discussion over and you just haven't updated us, was there never much discussion in the first place, etc.
In that Clarification post, you did defend your use of "transformative works" and "media fandom" - however I'm unclear as to whether that was meant as a "we're not changing this at all because..." or "this is where we're coming from". And if the former is the case, then my question really is, what revisions were you considering at all, since those were the terms that were causing problems?
If you are still discussion the terminology issue, I find the use of the phrases we argued against troubling, as it opens the door for someone to say "well, you raise good points, but we've already been using them so much it'd be silly to change."
Heh, I went a little tl;dr. So, in short: Are you still "considering revisions" as you stated in the Clarification post? If so, why the continued usage of the problematic terminology, and if not, why?