FAQ series: first set

[femmequixotic]

Last week, ciderpress wrote:

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.

Comments

Either writing my way off your flist, or into an article :-)

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

OTW and I are not using the term "inclusive" in the same way.

... welcoming anyone who wishes to participate, whether by reading at the archive or contributing to the wiki …

That's very passive and channeled participation. (& the wiki invite I've heard elsewhere :-) It's like a student who's welcome to read the textbook and come to class, but certainly not to help write the syllabus. It will surely be a wonderful offering *to* people, but that’s a far cry from full inclusion in the process.

Now I'm nervous saying these things, b/c (1) I have no beef with anyone in OTW; (2) I'm not running any competing org; (3) I would like to stay on the flist of those I do know in OTW. So I worry about being lumped with people who do have personal/ professional animosities in play. I don't want to be mocked, scolded, or simply shut out from any future participation as retaliation.

I’m simply looking at this from my training and experience. Critical thinking and my nerdy love of radical discourse stop me today from simply squeeing OTW's cool plans and hard work (which I've done!)

OTW seems to be trying to contradict "form=function." The form of comm dictates and shapes the kind of comm that occurs. Fandom, for example, thrives on dialogue, whereas sources like Anne Rice prefer monologue: I write, you buy, shut up.

OTW intends to communicate to two publics: non-fandom and fandom. It also states a goal of being "inclusive." Therefore, it can be described using known models of public participation. These apply to business, govt, risk comm, environmental and community decision-making, and more. What OTW is developing with PR and 'ComRel' follows, respectively, the "One-Way Jeffersonian" and "Two-Way Jeffersonian" models of public participation.*

Jeffersonian aims at democracy, but envisions it as the one-way transfer of expert knowledge to a non-expert public (eg, OTW --> mass media/ non-fans) "to enlighten them ... by education."

The Two-way or Interactive Jeffersonian is modified to let the public communicate its "values, beliefs, and emotions" to the experts. However, while the experts adjust to "public sentiment" (eg, promise to "refine" the FAQ so it "feels" better), they still make all decisions.

This latter model is what I'm seeing in OTW posts. I see top-down communication and selectivity in responses, as with the prescreened questions for online 'chats', or removing parts of posts after negative reactions. That's contrary to principles of egalitarian, dialogic public discourse. OTW sets the agenda, the time, the topic, the technology, the channel. The "public" of fandom merely gets to color within the lines, frown, or say nothing.

(Or take the academic option: analyze it *eg* )

To be sure, this is way better than the "Technocratic Model," like LJ uses, with its "command-and-control" attitude: fans can either suck it up or leave.

What I see OTW using is also known as "decide-announce-defend." It's better but is still weak "participation," and far more inclusive models exist. (Eg, dialogic or mutually constructed decisions.)

Thus, I can't agree to apply the word "inclusive" to the hierarchical, owner-controlled communicative practice I see. OTW's internal discussions may be inclusive; but only of “members”, not the public.

OTW’s form of org is what our capitalist global society endorses, with leaders who set the goals, the framework and even the terms (ComRel*koff*) under which others will participate. Just like any org or corporation -- but not like fandom. In form it is alien to fandom's anarchic/ grassroots/ socialist spirit.

Can OTW separate the one from the other? Can it run itself as a hierarchical monolithic org, and yet still serve fandom's function of egalitarian, hive-mind, collaborative co-creation?

I'm not sure. This root contradiction may be resolved, but I think it will take dialogic comm to do it, and the data don't show that happening.

(BTW, I know you have cred as a fan with “long history in fandom" but that’s not the issue here, as you’re not talking to me fan2fan, but as OTW "ComRel")

*Cf. Craig Waddell in Coppola and Karis, eds., Technical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental Discourse, 2000. ISBN 156-750-4809

Re: Either writing my way off your flist, or into an article :-)

[elf]

(3) I would like to stay on the flist of those I do know in OTW.

FWIW...
I don't mind if people on my flist hate OTW. (Not that I am, at this pint, "in" OTW.) I believe in what they're trying to do--but I know that some of that belief is that I trust the personal judgment of those involved.

I expect OTW to generate a tremendous amount of wank, and a substantial amount of serious questions and doubts as well. I expect the only real answer to these questions is "check again in a year, and see how the archive is going." Which isn't a useful answer, and the OTW will need to be on their toes, giving people a reason to keep watching for that year.

And I'm with you on the names. ComRel? Sounds like it should have a "TM" logo after it, and a stylized icon that would be greatly suited to cat macros. OTW? Gaah, sounds like some kind of academic literary club whose goals won't even fit in everyday English.

Still... I want the archive they want to build. I want a fansite that is actively aware of copyright & obscenity laws, and what precedents exist in those. If incorporating as nonprofit keeps it from being ad-based--great. If it produces an academic journal--so what? More text=better. Fen who don't like acajournals can skip it.

And the d-a-d model isn't the best for overall participation, I agree. But... any fan org that says "we're open to EVERYONE, all the time, and EVERYONE gets an equal voice in deciding what we're going to do!"-- is doomed.

I don't know if their current method is best (especially having the commentary all on LJ, a site that has exactly the random-banning problems OTW wants to avoid), but it's a lot better than "let's have polls at fandom_wank to decide our next move."

Polls, with cat-macros!

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

Oh god no, polls are so not on. At FW - ROFLMAO. I'm trying to picture it. *dies*

There are people who do really good 'public participation' all over the world. I am a baby in technical expertise and facilitation training. I've done a bit. It always amazes me how well good dialogue really works. It's just like "community" should be: because that's what it almost has to be, to work. Like fandom, when it isn't wanking :-)

Polls are not dialogue, just drive-by voting. Which tends toward winner-takes-all. *hates*

I like everything OTW lists in its goals or I wouldn't bother commenting. I wish it every success, truly. I'm just speaking my mind, FWIW. :-)

As to the "we" stuff, the image of being "inclusive", I don't know that we need to be OBHWF. Does OTW really need to feel like every fan feels "included"? Pish. Never gonna happen. Using "we" words just sets up a different image problem. Whatever. I'm sure they'll work it out.

::laughs, points to "they"::

Re: Either writing my way off your flist, or into an article :-)

[cofax7]

Damn, I'm just following slashpine around and saying YES today.

Can it run itself as a hierarchical monolithic org, and yet still serve fandom's function of egalitarian, hive-mind, collaborative co-creation?

I would hope for a goals-driven process, which is something developed as slashpine says in the environmental community, where you get all the players in room, with all those competing agendas, and sit there for three days with lots of white butcher paper and hammer out a set of really basic goals everyone can agree on. And then you brainstorm how to achieve those goals, again developing consensus along the way.

That's the most vital element, I think: you get the community you're serving to determine the goals and agree on them, first. If you want the community to support it, anyway. This "we shall go away and come up with what we see as the goals and present them to you" process is top-down decision-making. It's the kind of decision-making the military & the government engages in, and they get astonished and blindsided when people on the ground, the grass-roots folks, come to the meeting and make speeches in opposition to it. (Which is what I see happening just about every time there's a substantive post on this community.)

Fandom may be a meritocracy, and the OTW board and staff have earned a lot of respect by their past participation in fandom. But a meritocracy isn't an oligarchy, and if the organization is truly determined to serve fandom, all fandom, then the process itself of identifying the OTW's goals and projects has to be conducted in such a way as to reflect fannish practices and interests. And absolutely has to be as transparent as possible, especially in this environment.

... and that's a bit teal deer, I suppose, but I wanted to throw my support behind slashpine; dialogue is absolutely necessary here.