otw_news | FAQ series: first set

Last week,

There has been a great deal of discussion during and after our "Why OTW?" week, not only about OTW, but also about what it is to identify as a fan, what fandom means to different people and how individual fans and groups shape their own fannish experiences.

It's evident from what we've read that there have been some misconceptions about what our org is and what we hope to do. We apologise if we have been unclear about some of the concepts and policies, and we hope you will understand that we are still in the process of setting up policies and honing language. We don't have all the final, polished answers yet and we need time, hard work and your help to do that. In fact, our content policy will be up for discussion and feedback in a fandom-wide setting before we set our policies in stone.

In the hopes of not overwhelming you, we've decided to post the FAQ in bundles of five or six questions and answers, one bundle every other day or so. Ultimately, they'll all be added to the OTW website's FAQ.

What you'll read here in

otw_news is a bit more informal than what will appear on the website; that's because the website is for fans and non-fans alike. But here, in

otw_news, we're fans talking to fans. SRSLY.

Keep a look out for more bundles of FAQs as well as interviews with a few of the OTW's board members in the next few weeks!

1. Fandom got along just fine without OTW for forty years.

This is true and we hope will continue to be true for another 40 and 400 years--fandom will definitely continue to do fine without us and after us and forever and ever amen. But, on the other hand, fandom has not had the internet for 40 years. With the advent of the internet, and especially Web 2.0, fandom's connection with the so-called Real World has increased, and its relationship with copyright holders has increasingly come under focus. OTW is attempting to add a voice to the conversation about copyright, one that is articulate, informed, organized, and on the side of fandom.

2. Why do you care about Fanlib? Fanlib isn't forcing anyone to archive there, just ignore them!

FanLib set a dangerous precedent that fandom is available for the profitable plucking and exploitation by people who are not part of the culture of fandom; OTW does not, never has, and never will, profit from fandom, and objects on principle to FanLib's attempt to do so.

OTW's concern is that for-profit companies like Fanlib might become the public face of fanfiction, especially since fanfiction writers have a history of lying low. With more companies than ever keenly interested in how they can profit from "user-generated content", OTW doesn't want fannish newbies and other interested parties thinking this for-profit ideology represents fandom or for fans to be taken advantage of by such companies.

3. OTW's corporate structure is suspect. Fandom should be subversive.

OTW believes that its mission is best served by an organization that is transparent and accountable.

4. Why does OTW want to make fanworks legitimate? We don't need society's legitimization!

The kind of legitimization the OTW is focused on is that of fans being able to post their stories and art and vids without worrying they will be hit with a lawsuit. That's all. Sadly, we're pretty sure society as a whole will never quite understand the \o/ of something like, say, a really good wingfic. Which is a shame.

5. Edited at 9:59 a.m. 2/1/08 to remove this question. The specific concerns will be addressed in later FAQs. Our sincere apologies for this misstep; no dismissiveness of the concerns raised within it was intended in any form. We very much appreciate the discussion regarding the way it was perceived.

Edited at 9:50 p.m. 2/1/08. When we realized that our flip answer to question 5 was inappropriate for this forum, we deleted it. However, for archival purposes and in the hope of achieving some measure of transparency, here it is again:

5. The OTW is trying to take over all of fandom, and they didn't talk to me first, and they started in LJ, and they're going to cause all of fandom to be destroyed, and the worst of all is that they're a bunch of academics! They're trying to reinvent fandom when we have all the archives we already need thank you very much, and we don't need another one, and they're going to (1) legitimitise or (2) commercialize fandom and ruin it for all by dragging some terribly bad case of fanfiction into court. They use big words, and they're taking too long to set things up and they're not answering emails fast enough. (A tongue-in-cheek crticism from ithiliana's post: http://ithiliana.livejournal.com/804036.html)

Yes, there are some academics involved with the org. There are also some students, some lawyers, some unemployed folks, some young people, some old people, some fannish newbies, some folks who've been in fandom for decades, some blondes, some brunettes, and some redheads. :-)

And we're really not trying to reinvent fandom. We're building a fabulous, scaleable pan-fandom archive chock-full of interesting features which we hope fans will choose to use, but even if you'd rather not use it, you can still take advantage of the archive code and use it to build something else.

Commercializing fandom is exactly what we don't plan to do. We're here to try to prevent that from happening. Folks like FanLib and even copyright holders and user-generated content sites that make money from ad-revenues want to commercialize and monetize fandom, to make money off of the things we produce out of sheer love; we're here to offer an alternative to for-profit fansites, with the intent of preserving and protecting the fannish world we know and love.

--

femmequixotic,

bethbethbeth,

ciderpress,

mirabile_dictu,

shrift,

svmadelyn.
Community Relations Committee

Edited 7:39 p.m. 1/31/08 to remove phrase regarding hair colors per comments below.
Edited at 9:59 a.m. 2/1/08 to remove question 5 per comments below.
Edited at 9:50 p.m. 2/1/08 to re-add question 5, struckthrough, for archival and transparency purposes.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I had some thoughts on point #5 before it was deleted, but since most of them have already been addressed by previous posters and the question is now apparently being reworked, I won't get into those specifically.

However, a question I have in relation to that discussion arose while reading responses here. I understand that OTW is trying to find a balance in language between that of the aca-fan and the average fan, so that the FAQ can be easily understood and recognized as valid by both fan and non-fan alike. To that extent, is OTW planning to take a direction - as representatives of fandom - that would help to remove dismissive or offensive language from fen vocabulary in general? A term that comes specifically to mind is "feral fandom." I have seen it used in OTW-related discussions before, and it has been met with a mixture of reactions.

I, personally, don't have any more problem with people who label me feral (as I fit the description for "feral fandom") than I do with people who label me a queer, a cunt, a heathen, or any other term which has a certain degree of accuracy while remaining offensive to a broad swath of the population. However, I am not all of fandom - and some of the reactions I've seen suggest that being considered "feral" is just as offensive as the other terms I mentioned to many people. Is this a problem that OTW plans to tackle as they build their FAQ and reach out further into fandom?

We have had some discussion that I (as a member of the Community Relations committee) am aware of about terminology, and my guess is that other committees are also grappling with the issue. As you point it, it's one of sensitivity and accuracy. (I haven't heard the term "feral" discussed, though it may have been by others in the organization.)

So yes, this is a problem the OTW has been considering, and must continue to do so. Thank you for your timely reminder.

I think as long as Kristina Busse, feral fandomtheory's proponent and major supporter, holds such a key role in your organization, your grasping that will never come of anything. You can figure it out all you want and try to rationalize, as an organization, you don't hold those views... but the simple matter of it comes down to the issue of people can pull out Busse's feral fandom theory, highlight her inclusion as a prominent member of your organization, and OTW has a PR nightmare of having a known agent of exclusive definitions of fandom being their person arguing inclusion.

The only way to grapple with that, in a way that will shut up your critics, demonstrate awareness and willingness to address these concerns, and help you long term, is to get rid of Kristina busse and publicly disavow her academic theories as they pertain to the organization and reflect on your organization.

Edited to add Busse disavowing the theory does OTW no good. Busse can say "I regret this theory." OTW still has to deal with MediaMiner.Org, Quizilla, FanFiction.Net, FanDomination.Net, RockFic users who can be told that Busse said they're experiences in fandom don't count unless they've been in fandom for five or more years and can trace their roots to Kirk/Spock. It is an easy spin turn people off to OTW and once they're turned off, that audience will be hard to recapture.

Edited to add more: Busse was also a person who claimed that media fandom and bandom were the same, despite what bandom members said. That can be brought up easily to remind that segment that OTW doesn't care about experiences of people in fandom. It is another tool in the arsenal of things that OTW can continued to be attacked on. As OTW is currently ignoring Bandom, or misrepresenting their fanworks as only being fan fiction (RPF doesn't imply vidding or artwork), it adds another reason to jettison the person who defines OTW as exclusive, not inclusive.

Edited 2008-02-01 19:51 (UTC)

Of course, Busse can't post links to her own posts on these subjects to discuss or refute what you're saying without creating a public link between her real name and her LJ name. Neither can you be asked to provide references for what you're claiming, for the same reason. I would invite anyone reading to bear that in mind.

Frankly, this has the look of an unseemly personal fixation rather than an objective discussion of OTW and its relationship to various groups of fans.

Uhm.

I'm not sure you're grasping the differences between academic theories and discussions (which by their own nature are almost always speculative and investigative) and 'labels' in the more common significance of the term.
An academic theory lives in its context, it's subject to discussion, argued, reproposed, interpreted, analysed by others academics. It's an idea, argued and theorized. It doesn't propose inclusiveness or exclusiveness by existing in the space of (fan/academic) conversation.

One certainly does not 'eliminate' the theory by 'eliminating' the person who argued it. Usually, one proposes their own counter-theory, and a new conversation starts.

One certainly does not 'eliminate' the theory by 'eliminating' the person who argued it. Usually, one proposes their own counter-theory, and a new conversation starts.

I am now envisioning scientific conventions turning into fistfights. Heh.

I bet I could take on everyone who disagrees with my hypothesis...they're all middle-aged guys and I have a black belt!

...or we could just stick with the hypothesis and counter-hypothesis and critique each other's methods.

*snicker*

What's amazing to learn as a grad student/junior academic in humanities conferences is the way in which long-winded questions and answers can actually mask emotions that could and would lead to fistfights in other venues.

I have some duelling letters from two linguists arguing over obscure points of pronunciation in Tolkien's invented languages (should the vowels and or syllables be pronouned following the rules in sources languages such as Finnish or Welsh or should one follow Tolkien's rules because apparently if one goes by the source languages, it's possible to find obscure dirty jokes which one linguist claims that Tolkien would never be so low as to commit).

I use it in courses to talk about academic discourses and styles of argument, but alas, I'm the only one who can see the humor!

Although...a bunch of middle-aged guys tearing their hair off each other on this or that theory would be fun :)

(I LIKE your icon *G*)

FAQ series: first set

Regarding Dismissive/Offensive Use of Language

Re: Regarding Dismissive/Offensive Use of Language

Feral fandom's champion

no subject

Re: Feral fandom's champion

Re: Feral fandom's champion

Re: Feral fandom's champion

Re: Feral fandom's champion