I absolutely appreciate that y'all are doing this, especially that you're doing it "in public" to this extent -- working out the answers, and the questions too. It's a process that takes time, entails risk, requires honesty and humility, and is a bit of a first, at least for fandom on this scale.
Hmm... (thinks about it from a Comm Studies perspective). Yup, there may be some Lessons Learned here. Like this:
Should OTW conceptualize and/or present itself as a typical npo or charity? Never mind the 501(c)3 thing; that's an IRS classification of how "charities" do their financial reporting. Rather, how are "charities" seen as carrying out their mission and process?
Hoo boy. Just that word, "charity," makes some folks bridle. Who wants to be served by a charity? A "victim" ... one who needs "experts" to speak for them? Or to them?
Historically, some very authoritarian, imperious and non-participatory practices are built into the non-profit charity concept. Non-profit charities often make headlines only for their abuses of "trust."
How many people have donated to a campaign (like United Way, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Shriners, Habitat for Humanity) that then makes headlines for its misspending, vicious infighting, overriding members, empire-building, leaders living the high life or hobnobbing with the rich and famous? For failing to focus on the mission it raises money for?
*raises hand*
How many have volunteered for a local non-profit (arts, literacy, health, homeless, voter drives, public radio/TV, museum, library, parks & rec, kids clubs, environment) and been disillusioned by the org's lack of effectiveness, or the way it's run by (even for) "insiders"?
*raises hand again* ... 20 hands
NOT saying OTW is doing this!
But please think about the use of those terms: "charity" especially, but also "npo." Too many of them, too often, are divorced from reality. They can be perceived as semi-private clubs led by secretive 'inner circles,' or cults that worship the founder/s, don't welcome outsiders, don't report all their goings-on, hold the public at arm's length, serve multiple goals and hidden agendas. Many have a "do-gooder" attitude toward the group they "serve" -- that is, they have constructed separate identities for themselves (the "experts" or professionals) and their "patients." The helpless victim, animals, etc., become the "object" of their campaign.
And nobody likes being objectified, being treated as a passive object of someone else's decision-making. Like *cough*fandom...
I'm NOT saying OTW is doing this. But uncritically casting OTW as a typical "npo/charity" without thinking about what impression the label conveys, how the public generally perceives those groups -- how *fandom* perceives them -- is to take on much baggage.
Unpacking the baggage of "501(c)3 charity," I see a fandom that is home to many who are genuinely marginalized by the same capitalist, hegemonic, white-elite (and yes, academic or at least conspicuously college-educated) society that constructs labels like 501(c)3 and proceeds to dictate to, or exclude, the voices of the very entities they claim to speak for.
Again, not saying I personally believe OTW has set out to do this. But is it the perception of some? Mmm ... some of the discourse suggests so.
Try this: If OTW were a well-known long-time charity, which one would it be? Which would non-supporters see it as?
I don't think "business as usual", 501(c)3 style, is good enough for fandom. I believe the deeply radical nature of fandom requires that any group "speaking for" fandom be different. (Different from, say, 6A's "advisory board" o_O) Different in structure *and* process. I'm not sure I see this.
.. just thinking out loud here. Hope y'all don't mind this bit of analysis. Is OTW looking for public participation/ public deliberation, or simply an expert group graciously issuing public communication? Those are two different relationships to a public: a collective-communal representative one, and a separated, self-selected one. It's not clear to me which one OTW wants to be. Personally, I find that ambiguity unsettling. Analytically, it's a live case study of P2/public comm in the wired era.
no subject
Hmm... (thinks about it from a Comm Studies perspective). Yup, there may be some Lessons Learned here. Like this:
Should OTW conceptualize and/or present itself as a typical npo or charity? Never mind the 501(c)3 thing; that's an IRS classification of how "charities" do their financial reporting. Rather, how are "charities" seen as carrying out their mission and process?
Hoo boy. Just that word, "charity," makes some folks bridle. Who wants to be served by a charity? A "victim" ... one who needs "experts" to speak for them? Or to them?
Historically, some very authoritarian, imperious and non-participatory practices are built into the non-profit charity concept. Non-profit charities often make headlines only for their abuses of "trust."
How many people have donated to a campaign (like United Way, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Shriners, Habitat for Humanity) that then makes headlines for its misspending, vicious infighting, overriding members, empire-building, leaders living the high life or hobnobbing with the rich and famous? For failing to focus on the mission it raises money for?
*raises hand*
How many have volunteered for a local non-profit (arts, literacy, health, homeless, voter drives, public radio/TV, museum, library, parks & rec, kids clubs, environment) and been disillusioned by the org's lack of effectiveness, or the way it's run by (even for) "insiders"?
*raises hand again* ... 20 hands
NOT saying OTW is doing this!
But please think about the use of those terms: "charity" especially, but also "npo." Too many of them, too often, are divorced from reality. They can be perceived as semi-private clubs led by secretive 'inner circles,' or cults that worship the founder/s, don't welcome outsiders, don't report all their goings-on, hold the public at arm's length, serve multiple goals and hidden agendas. Many have a "do-gooder" attitude toward the group they "serve" -- that is, they have constructed separate identities for themselves (the "experts" or professionals) and their "patients." The helpless victim, animals, etc., become the "object" of their campaign.
And nobody likes being objectified, being treated as a passive object of someone else's decision-making. Like *cough*fandom...
I'm NOT saying OTW is doing this. But uncritically casting OTW as a typical "npo/charity" without thinking about what impression the label conveys, how the public generally perceives those groups -- how *fandom* perceives them -- is to take on much baggage.
Unpacking the baggage of "501(c)3 charity," I see a fandom that is home to many who are genuinely marginalized by the same capitalist, hegemonic, white-elite (and yes, academic or at least conspicuously college-educated) society that constructs labels like 501(c)3 and proceeds to dictate to, or exclude, the voices of the very entities they claim to speak for.
Again, not saying I personally believe OTW has set out to do this. But is it the perception of some? Mmm ... some of the discourse suggests so.
Try this: If OTW were a well-known long-time charity, which one would it be? Which would non-supporters see it as?
I don't think "business as usual", 501(c)3 style, is good enough for fandom. I believe the deeply radical nature of fandom requires that any group "speaking for" fandom be different. (Different from, say, 6A's "advisory board" o_O) Different in structure *and* process. I'm not sure I see this.
.. just thinking out loud here. Hope y'all don't mind this bit of analysis. Is OTW looking for public participation/ public deliberation, or simply an expert group graciously issuing public communication? Those are two different relationships to a public: a collective-communal representative one, and a separated, self-selected one. It's not clear to me which one OTW wants to be. Personally, I find that ambiguity unsettling. Analytically, it's a live case study of P2/public comm in the wired era.