femmequixotic: (ciderpress/OTW)
femmequixotic ([personal profile] femmequixotic) wrote in [community profile] otw_news2008-01-31 10:06 am

FAQ series: first set

Last week, [livejournal.com profile] 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 [livejournal.com profile] 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 [livejournal.com profile] 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 [livejournal.com profile] 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.






-- [livejournal.com profile] femmequixotic, [livejournal.com profile] bethbethbeth, [livejournal.com profile] ciderpress, [livejournal.com profile] mirabile_dictu, [livejournal.com profile] shrift, [livejournal.com profile] 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.

[identity profile] riverbella.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I think this "bundle" does a good job of stating the goals of OTW in simple and straightforward terms. What I find most appealing about the mission of OTW is the fact that its goals are, in fact, not in the least grandiose. I especially like the answers to #3 and #4. Clean and to the point. Overall, I think the less apologetics the better. Defensiveness does make for a strong position. I make no apology for my involvement in fandom. In fact, I'm proud of it. But neither have I ever thought of it as subversive. I'm not trying to subvert anything. I'm just enjoying being a member of a like-minded community and exercising my creative leanings in a warm and supportive environment. I have no objections at all to having a benevolent, unobtrusive umbrella over my head to give me a little protection from acid rain.

[identity profile] cimness.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 04:51 pm (UTC)(link)
I think you should eliminate the emoticons and multiple punctuation marks from this FAQ (pardon; mistaken keystroke) before posting it elsewhere because they clash with the relatively formal and articulate language of the rest of the post. In my view, they could be read as condescending, especially since the multiple exclamation marks are in a question and thus attributed to the OTW's opponents.
Edited 2008-01-31 17:00 (UTC)

[identity profile] ladybrighid3333.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I think you've done a good job with this FAQ as well, but I agree with [livejournal.com profile] cimness. Even in a layman's-termed FAQ with clear-cut policies it's more professional and appropriate to use single punctuation and no emoticons. Even though the emoticon-thing is a really hard habit for a fandom member to break.
scribblesinink: Still life with cat (writing colour outside lines)

[personal profile] scribblesinink 2008-01-31 07:49 pm (UTC)(link)
First, thank you for these. I have to say I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of work you guys at OTW have done and how far you've come. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the FAQs.

One small comment: I'd like to see answer #3 a bit more expanded upon. I think I read somewhere (probably in one of the Why OTW-posts) an explanation as to how a non-profit org would be the best way to go, and how that required a structure that might seem alien to fandom. Also, I'm thinking of the arguments about the archive's continuance not being dependent upon one (or a few) single people. Both helped me a lot to understand what was going on and why things were being done the way they were.

Then again, both could very well come up later in the FAQs...

Shutting up now. ;)

[identity profile] ciderpress.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 07:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Heh. That is most definitely a question that we plan to deal with in the following FAQ posts. :)

[identity profile] coaldustcanary.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 08:06 pm (UTC)(link)
especially Web 2.0

You might want to clarify this for people, since Web 2.0 is basically shorthand for a lot of things fans "know" and love about the Internets, but I've only really heard that term used in academic and tech circles.

Then again, I might be underestimating fandom...
ext_15284: a wreath of lightning against a dark, stormy sky (Default)

[identity profile] stormwreath.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 08:28 pm (UTC)(link)
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

You've got blondes but no blonds? There's a kerfuffle just waiting to happen...
;-)

[identity profile] rez-lo.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 08:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Re (1): Not sure referring to Web 2.0 is actually that informative here, and in any case it will date the FAQ pretty decisively (if the reference is meant to signify "recently," as I read it). We're already talking about Web 3.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3).

(5) Seems to suggest that the concern about fans with a professional self-interest in OTW (which includes academics but not, so far as I'm aware, students, lawyers -- though perhaps I'm wrong here -- the unemployed, or any of the demographic cohorts mentioned) is silly and misplaced. Again, not sure it's an informative answer to the "appearance of a conflict of interest" concern that's been raised, if poorly articulated, by some folks.

Also re (5); the demographic catalogue of representation omits mention of fans of color, for one thing. If it's not meant to address substantively any question about representation, maybe rethink including it?

(reposted to fix code)
Edited 2008-01-31 20:47 (UTC)
franzeska: (Default)

[personal profile] franzeska 2008-01-31 09:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I've seen plenty of comments of both the "stop talking down to us!" and the "stop using such big words!" varieties, so no doubt you're both over- and underestimating fandom. :-)

[identity profile] harriet-spy.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 09:33 pm (UTC)(link)
#5, while funny, is unnecessarily dismissive if it is meant to actually respond to and reassure people who have the concern it parodies.

[identity profile] bethbethbeth.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 10:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Are you saying our response is dismissive? Or do you mean the criticism itself is dismissive? Because the criticism (admittedly written as a bit of a parody, although by somebody who isn't affiliated with OTW) is an echo of a set of criticisms we've seen in a number of corners of fandom, and so the responses we offered were honest ones, not meant to be read as dismissive at all.

[identity profile] bethbethbeth.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 10:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Heh. Thanks. I'll pass this note on to everybody so we can edit accordingly. :)
bell: rory gilmore running in the snow in a fancy dress (Default)

[personal profile] bell 2008-01-31 10:43 pm (UTC)(link)
I've been wanting to ask this for a while, and I guess here and now is as good a time as any?

I've been wondering-- and hoping!-- if OTW is going to allow a rec-list feature ala del.icio.us. While I love del.icio.us, it has certain limitations, and one of my hopes for OTW is that I could have an easier time compiling rec lists of all the fandom things I love. :)
bell: rory gilmore running in the snow in a fancy dress (Default)

[personal profile] bell 2008-01-31 10:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I also thought that the tone was dismissive-- not the answer in and of itself, but the fact that the OTW chose to use that particular question. If those things have been asked before and in different ways, they could have used questions that had a less flippant phrasing.

I wasn't offended, since I'm all \0/ over OTW, but I imagine that people who were concerned about those issues might feel mocked.

[identity profile] bethbethbeth.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 10:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Re Web 2.0: you're probably right, but since this Q&A was only ever meant to be part of a very transient set of posts (on journaling sites and via email and twitter), by the time Web 3.0 supplants 2.0, this will all be little more than a memory (i.e., the website's FAQ will have less potentially dated language).

As for 5, hmm...we'll have to discuss that. The actual acafen criticisms haven't, to the best of my knowledge, been raised as a concern about conflict of interest, but rather as a suggestion that the members of OTW who are academics are therefore not "real" fans, not real members of fandom. Our point, of course, was meant to say that, yes, there are academics involved in the org, just like there are non-academics.

The FoC issue, though: what might you suggest to make that sound more inclusive? Just to note, we didn't mention gender or sexual orientation or race, but, hmm, does the mention of hair colors read as "whites only" to you? Because if that's how it's reading, we'll definitely have to make a change.

[identity profile] bethbethbeth.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
*cries*

"...yellow haired people..."
jadelennox: Senora Sabasa Garcia, by Goya (Default)

[personal profile] jadelennox 2008-01-31 11:17 pm (UTC)(link)
to be honest, when I read the haircolor thing, I also noticed race as an issue. I knew it wasn't meant that way, but I noticed it.

[identity profile] bethbethbeth.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)
*nods*

Okay, thanks.

[identity profile] harriet-spy.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 11:27 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm saying that the way you have phrased the "question" here is dismissive of the concerns it raises. I don't think people who have these concerns will feel at all reassured or answered when they see them parodied in the guise of being addressed--and I say this as someone who doesn't even find those concerns compelling.

[identity profile] bethbethbeth.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 11:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, that's interesting! I think...let me check on that, but I think there may very well be some way to bookmark favorites - maybe structured like a recs list - once the archive's up and running.

(You do mean the archive, right? Because OTW is the general umbrella organization, but it's not the same thing as the archive or the academic journal or the wiki)

[identity profile] ciderpress.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)
To be honest, I thought about it hard and then I let it go because, as Beth says, we were specifically not talking about race or sexuality or gender when we answered this particular criticism. Economic status (wrt to education and age) has been one particular point that people have brought up repeatedly and we were addressing that particular point. It wasn't a statement to address that OTW believes in inclusion for all. Which we do.

And, on a personal note, as a raven-haired beauty myself, I can't ever think of a coined term for black hair that doesn't have negative connotations unless it's... raven-haired beauty. *g* I am always eager to learn.

Your comment is most definitely noted, though. Thanks.

[identity profile] aka-arduinna.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)
FWIW, those hair colors do come across to me as referring to whites pretty much exclusively, if only because when describing a PoC, unfortunately the first descriptor tends to be skin tone or ethnicity (and hair color is only mentioned at all if it's something other than dark brown/black), whereas when describing someone white, the first descriptor is often hair color (because paler skin and European descent is assumed unless otherwise noted). I just don't hear PoCs described as "brunet/te" very often.

[identity profile] rez-lo.livejournal.com 2008-01-31 11:41 pm (UTC)(link)
does the mention of hair colors read as "whites only" to you?

Yeah, it made me wince, anyway. Especially since, overall, the question of representation on a lot of levels seems... really unresolved? Not even very well articulated from or about any constituency?

I guess overall, based on these first five entries, I worry that some of the extreme language of the foregoing debate is getting picked up and re-amplified here (taking over fandom, not a real fan), when some/much of what's being expressed is in fact a set of concerns that isn't actually silly at all. They may be eminently answerable worries, but they're not unreasonable on their face.

I think the link to ithiliana's entry does the FAQ a disservice in perpetuating the divisiveness it wants to answer. I love her rant, but it doesn't address any of the (imo) substantive issues that might lie at the heart of people's fears. The fact that a lot of us are not as practiced at effective problemitization or argumentation as, well, lawyers or academics probably needs to be taken into account. (Here's (http://ithiliana.livejournal.com/821368.html?thread=4348024#t4348024) my teal deer try at coherence.)

Let me add my thanks for the staggering work y'all are doing out of love. It's amazing.
Edited 2008-01-31 23:42 (UTC)

[identity profile] transcendancing.livejournal.com 2008-02-01 12:03 am (UTC)(link)
I think that you may find that this bit:

yes, there are academics involved in the org, just like there are non-academics.

could supplant the need for the range at all, and would omit any possibility of forgetting one, implying discrimination etc.

Page 1 of 5