Organization for Transformative Wank

Meta
Title:	Organization for Transformative Wank
Creator:	hector_rashbaum
Date(s):	Sep. 29th, 2007
Medium:	online
Fandom:	multifandom
Topic:
External Links:	Organization for Transformative Wank ; archive page 1; archive page 2
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Organization for Transformative Wank September 2007 is a discussion by hector_rashbaum.

There is an offshoot by hector_rashburm at Fanthropology called Thoughts on OTW (Formerly Fanarchive/Archive of Our Own).

The opening comment:

I was hesitant about the Archive of Our Own stuff from the beginning. Aside from the fact that I really don't see a need for another archive for myself to use - I have RockFic, and hectorfic, and those are plenty good enough for me - it seemed right from the get-go like a bloated, overambitious, doomed-to-fail vanity project.

Some Topics Discussed

• "The name [Organization for Transformative Works] didn't sit right with me, but I wasn't sure why - it seemed pompous and overblown."
• a disingenuous statement: "To be honest, up until now I haven't followed OTW all that closely. They're on my friends list, on the "Daily Read" filter, but generally I'd read the update and ten or so "yay so cool!" comments and forget about it."
• compares the cluelessness of Fanlib to the LiveJournal congregation of fans that are planning the Organization of Transformative Works
• hurt feelings about not feeling included
• comments about how the planners of the OTW seem to have too narrow of interests, and won't represent everyone
• it's not a good idea to have one big archive, fans are better off staying in their own specialized lanes, includes a plug for FanworksFinder
• it'll be too hard to make everyone happy in a big archive
• not liking how the title was chosen
• the title as a way to proclaim legitimacy in the academic, mainstream, and journalist worlds
• a long, exuberant geek-out on Emma Lazarus' Statue of Liberty poem as a metaphor
• issues with the OTW's "female centric" focus, inclusivity
• Fan History Wiki's gaps, "it does show biases. It's a good resource, but it's substantially incomplete."
• comments on the threat that the planned wiki, Fanlore, would be competition for Laura Hale's controversial and unpopular Fan History Wiki

Fan Comments

sidewinder:

See, I would basically summarize my main issues in all of this as:

1. Failure of outreach beyond lj fandom in the early planning stages/committee appointments.

People complained about the fanlib board being made up of people none of whom seemed to come from fandom; here, we have an archive (or now apparently more than that?) wanting to claim to serve all areas for fandom but with a board that only represents a fraction of it. A step up the ladder, perhaps, but still with issues.

2. What is either lack of knowledge of large-scale, non-lj based fannish activities and locations that could have provided useful input, or outright dismissing their abilities/offers of help.

It's hard to know which is the case--were the references to (as only an example I'm familiar with) RockFic and FWF, and screwthedaisies outreach simply overlooked, or were they even ever considered at all? As I said in one of the otw_news threads, there seems to be a lot of planning that involves duplicating work already done, at least to some extent (creating a new fan history wiki; researching legal issues of RPF; etc.) Shouldn't the response to that be "hey, that's great if you've got some of this done already; let's get you in touch with the right people to see how we can help each other" instead of giving the impression of "we're going to just do things our way no matter what you've done already."

Oh, and one further small point I forgot to include.

Failure of outreach beyond lj fandom

I also wonder just how all-encompassing the "lj fandom" part of it is, too. Most of the names I recognize on the board (or looked up profiles of if I didn't) seem to largely be part of what I consider "traditional media fandom"--tv/movies/book based, having grown out of the convention/fanzine fannish traditions, etc. Like I said, I don't know all of them--and with some only giving real names and not fannish ones, it's hard to know better--but is there anyone there who is from, say, the lj-based band fandoms? lj-based anime? Non-actor-based RPF? While there is surely overlap in these fandoms with traditional media fen to an extent, in my experience there are lots of folks in these communities who have nothing to do with, nor interest in, traditional media fandoms, so their fannish perspectives can be a lot different.

sidewinder: This is why organizing anything large scale in fandom is like attempting to herd cats. Quite honestly I think we're all better off sticking--to an extent at least--in our territories than trying to come up with some solution or "neutral ground" that can try to serve everyone. Already some issues have come up that I don't see how there is any way to please everyone: "I won't post to an archive that would include RPF/chan/incest/etc."; "I won't post to an archive that wouldn't include RPF/chan/incest/etc." This is why I think FanworksFinder is such a brilliant tool in comparison--everyone hosts what they want where they want, just provide a network and method for other fans to actually find it. And even there, there's going to be abuse to an extent of people "burying" links to content they dislike without even reading it, but dealing with those issues seems a lot simpler than trying to come up with a brand new archive to somehow try to make everyone happy.

[kayjayuu]: A new non-profit probably has very little financing, and anything out of pocket may have been paid by board members or benefactors or pooling money. Rename token, website space, legal docs for the nonprofit, consulting a lawyer... that's probably about it. What's the specific concern?

I have no opinion on OTW one way or another, although I'm interested to see how it pans out and have volunteered whatever I think I can do if it begins to work down the road. The Fan Wiki thing did bother me a LOT, since I'm LJ/AIM-friends with partly_bouncy.

It's not an easy road they've chosen, and to actually have full committees this early on is really a big step. Whether they 'work well with others' remains to be seen

hector rashbaum, original poster]: For me, it isn't so much about the money - I don't particularly care what they do with money until people start donating, and even then since I doubt I'll ever be totally on board with this and donate, it'd be in a more "this is another reason I'm not behind this project" sense - than me finding it worrying that the second request for the information was met with "Let me ask the committee...okay the committee says you'll know eventually."

Which, yes, did actually answer the "Will finances be made public?" question, and the initial "Who paid?" question was also answered - I think it's more something to keep an eye on, that the people whose job it is to answer questions aren't given enough information to answer them, and the people with the information don't appear to be following the conversations.

And to be fair, I don't think questions about finances were expected at this point in the game - a better example would be that my question about the name change remains unanswered. It was an announcement that came out of the blue, and thinking about it this morning I realized they went ahead with a domain name that never appeared on the domain name poll (some were close, and the community was told the ultimate domain name would come from the top ten suggestions as discussed with a lawyer by astolat) without any explanation, simply "this is it".

They had to have expected at least some questions about the name change - while mine was one that may not have been anticipated, particularly if no one on the board thought of the RPF issue - in which case they should have prepared their question-answerers for those questions.

At the moment? It isn't really a big issue. But when they get more and more volunteers, and more underway with the project, if it still looks like the committees don't talk about their decisions with each other it might turn into a big thing.

It's not an easy road they've chosen, and to actually have full committees this early on is really a big step. Whether they 'work well with others' remains to be seen.

It is, definitely. And my only concern with that is they formed the complete leadership before they started looking off LJ for interest/volunteers. That was, apparently, an oversight, and has been apologized for, but I'm not sure a project that aims to represent everyone makes a very good start by ignoring everyone else's playgrounds.

Most of these, really, are "wait and see" issues - I know it's too early to tell if their communication glitches will get better, or if the lack of outreach will be sorted out and it'll be smooth multi-playground sailing from here on out.

But the biggest trap this project could fall into is, with the vast majority of supporters taking every new announcement with little more than a "yay! awesome! go you!", missing something that, if noticed at the beginning, would've been easy to fix, but only gets noticed when it's too big a problem to manage.

elfwreck: I have mixed thoughts about the name. It sounds too stuffy, too formal. OTOH, it mentions "transformative" instead of "fanfiction"--nicely cutting right to the point of why we think fanfic is not copyright infringement. I'm not sure any fan archive has made direct statements that "we believe fanfiction is transformative, not derivative, and therefore covered by fair use." (Not sure this one would, either... but having the OTW name establishes the idea without having to say so directly.)

OTW is a name that can be thrown around in academia. A name that people can put on their resumes... "I was on the editing committee of the Organization for Transformative Works" or even "My writings are archived at the Organization for Transformative Works."

It's a slick bit of mainstream marketing. It says very clearly, "this is not a shameful back-room hobby."

I have mixed opinions about that, too. I'd be more worried if I didn't know what femmequixotic and bethbethbeth liked in their fanfic--it sounds like a name to exclude the extreme, weird or kinky stuff. I know it won't be, but there may not be a way to make that apparent to others.

[...]

I respect fanfic; I respect fandom & fans. However, my respect earns no points with the mainstream... I'm a weird freaky person to them. A pervert, to some of them. I pass for normal... but I can't make Squidge.org sound like a place where "respectable members of the community" want to spend their spare time.

re: Fanlib--well, of course. That's kinda the idea. And if that's what's out there pushing itself into media awareness as "Where the stories continue" and claims it "delivers People Powered Entertainment™" (Yes, TM. I could not make this stuff up.), then any site planning on being in the public eye has to address that image. Has to decide if it's portraying fanfic as "a pack of teenage fantasies" or "the hobby of groupies trying to get close to the talent" or "a writers' training ground" or "a creative enterprise in its own right."

I think, from the people involved, that this is intending to be willing to take a legal stand on fanfic--is willing to stand against claims of copyright infringement or age restrictions, is willing to say, "this is not obscene" to a lawyer's face. And to do that, they'll need all the respectability points they can scrounge up; having a name that sounds like an academic enterprise instead of an exotic hobby helps.

FWIW, I don't like it either; it sounds stuffy. But I expect it'll grow on me, especially as people come up with alternate meanings for "OTW."

[slashpine]: Agreed. They're focused on the issues originally raised: how can fanfic stop being put in the little "dumb" box FanLib puts it in? Getting pot-shots taken at us by every idiot reporter who doesn't want to - or know how to - actually find out what fandom is? And get dissed and devalorized by every bigoted group around, like WfI, or the simply ignorant with their knee-jerk reactions (*cough* employers, academia, you name it...)

Answer: build our own boldly mainstream-sounding acronym. With, as you point out, the "spin" built in: big words, big ideas. All you with little minds, run along now!

I like it. Not just for all those good, practical reasons, and the legal one, but a more theoretical one, too: emphasizing the transformative aspects of fanworks, including the transformative empowerment of fans; psychological transformation from writing, say, recovery-fic; transforming people's benighted thinking about human sexuality; transforming thinking about online communities and communication!

[...]

The phrase is a mouthful, but it's a good one, flavorful and worth chewing on.

"transformative works" doesn't have to mean "works that transform canon into something else," but "works that transform the reader/viewer."

There are also "works that transform the medium" -- fandom, the use of the internet, online environments... and society.

Yay this OTW phrase. It has legs, and carries a big freakin' Statue of Liberty torch to enlighten some mundanes.

And remember, that's *Lady* Liberty, famous in a woman's poem. In fact, one could make a case for Emma Lazarus' poetry being transformative to her life, and her most famous poem a transformative work itself. Her poem transformed the meaning of the Statue itself.

Lazarus began her career imitating the flowery prose of classical poetry (OMG clone-fic!). Her poem was not published for years, but was instead hidden away in a book (as private as if it were f-locked, or in an archive with the links gone). After her death, the poem's rediscovery and wide publication transformed her into someone known in every schoolroom.

The famous meaning of the Statue as welcoming the world's unwanted and persecuted peoples comes from the poem, not the Statue. The poem transformed the Statue's purpose. The intended meaning of its famous creator, the French sculptor Bartholdi, was political propaganda for France.

The Statue of Liberty was meant to symbolize the enlightenment of democracy shared by the U.S. and France, and to show this to the countries of Europe that still were monarchies. "Lazarus' words, however, turned that idea on its head: the Statue of Liberty would forever on be considered a beacon of welcome for immigrants leaving their mother countries."

"Just as Lazarus' poem gave new meaning to the statue, the statue emitted a new ideal for the United States. Liberty did not only mean freedom from the aristocracy of Britain that led the American colonists to the Revolutionary War. Liberty also meant freedom to come to the United States and create a new life without religious and ethnic persecution. Through Larazus' poem, the Statue of Liberty gained a new name: She would now become the "Mother of Exiles," torch in hand to lead her new children to American success and happiness."

Hey - that's women-led transformation through, and of, otherwise intended works! Liberty through transgression FTW.

[hector rashbaum, original poster]: I'm not trying for "bitch bitch bitch" but "x worries me and maybe we should think about y and why is no one talking about z?"

I want to make one comment re fandomhistory, the information provided there is often incomplete and inaccurate. The history is also owned by only one person, and credibility wise, with only one owner I don't trust the information as much.

That's a personal preference thing, really - I get where you're coming from, I've just never had that issue re: trust so it's hard for me to specifically address it. I do get your concern, though.

The other purpose of the archive is a way to legitimise what we do, take control of our beautiful fannish history before that control is taken away by someone else. It is ours and we should be proud of it.

And if that's what it becomes? Awesome. I'd really love to see that happen - I'm just raising some concerns I have about the way they're getting there. And it's so early that it's hard to judge big problems - which makes now a good time for discussions like this: cast a critical eye on the speed bumps before they're brick walls, y'know?

[lofelokest]: This is a very interesting post and has given me food for thought. The beautiful thing about the planned archive is that it isn't owned by one person, it is owned by all of us, which is so frigging cool! I want to make one comment re fandomhistory, the information provided there is often incomplete and inaccurate. For example, in the due South section, there is no mention of the due Slash archive or the due South fiction archive--the two largest archives in the fandom. Also, the story count does not accurately reflect how many stories there actually are in the fandom; on DSA, there are 4,599 listed, the total story count listed at fanhistory is 434. The history is also owned by only one person, and credibility wise, with only one owner I don't trust the information as much.

The other purpose of the archive is a way to legitimise what we do, take control of our beautiful fannish history before that control is taken away by someone else. It is ours and we should be proud of it.

The awesome thing about wikis is that you can edit them if you discover incomplete or inaccurate information. If the Due South section is out of date, you can fix it. Just click one of the "edit" links.

[sidewinder]: Yep, a wiki only works well if people who know something that's missing or wrong steps in and adds to it. A single person (or even a small group of folks) aren't going to know everything about every fandom's history. I've contributed to the ones I know well from my experience.

[spare change]:

I haven't been commenting on the OTW archive because I don't really feel that it has much to do with me and I don't ever intend to use it. It is run by a fairly insular group of people who have a very specific idea of what fandom is, what its history contains, and what fandom's face to the public should be.

And that's fine. I just think the danger is when they assume they are speaking for "all of fandom." So when you say ... The other purpose of the archive is a way to legitimise what we do, take control of our beautiful fannish history before that control is taken away by someone else. It is ours and we should be proud of it. ... I get a little nervous, because there are a lot of different histories of fan involvement, and a lot of different ways of narrating them, and not everyone is going to be in agreement. In fact, I'd argue that the way these mediafans define their own fannish identities has very little to do with mine. So when it comes to history -- it's not "ours" because they're isn't a "we." There really isn't. There are a lot of different people with different histories, different investments, and different ways of conceptualizing their fannish involvement.

And when it comes to "legitimising" what we do ... well, wow. I'm not even going to go into that, except that their stated values and how they want to represent fandom as to the public has pretty much nothing to do with what I believe in. I want to stay under the radar. I don't want legal battles (and I've been around long enough to remember that many Potter fandom archives, for example, were able to deal with C&D requests without needing to get lawyers involved). And I don't want my corner of porny Potter fandom (just as an example) to be dragged any further into the public eye simply because other people think that would be good for fandom.

Last thing: The beautiful thing about the planned archive is that it isn't owned by one person, it is owned by all of us, which is so frigging cool!

I'm really confused by this, because obviously it is going to be on someone's server and there is going to be a ToS and there are going to be certain people in charge of it. Like any other archive. And there isn't really any way for everyone to feel equal "ownership" of it, given that what different people want and don't want from the archive is at odds: i.e., chan or no chan, etc.

What I'm saying is, your enthusiasm is great. I just don't want the OTW supporters to claim to be to representing all of "fandom" as if they are speaking for anyone but themselves.

[hector rashbaum, original poster]:

there are a lot of different histories of fan involvement, and a lot of different ways of narrating them, and not everyone is going to be in agreement.

I think this is at the core of my issue with lack of outreach. These early stages of building policies and core leadership and such are going to have such a huge impact on everything down the line - trying to do this for an organization that wants to be the face of ALL of fandom, while only including a small PART of fandom, is going to end up with a model that beautifully represents the goals and history of that small part of fandom - but presenting it as a representation of all.

Feedback and contribution needs to be coming in from all corners at the very beginning to get even as close to a panfandom representative as possible.

And, like you, I'm not sure it IS entirely possible - you can't represent the RPFers and the hardcore-anti-RPF at the same time, or the lovers of hardcore Potter smut and the revilers of Potter smut. I'd argue you CAN represent both the "I'm very happy far away from the spotlight" faction and the "fandom deserves attention! legitimacy!" faction at the same time, with proper consideration - restricted sections of the archive, only taking on those legal battles the author wants - but I'm not sure how much of that I'm seeing (yes, it's early. But these are core concepts that need early consideration).

I'm really confused by this, because obviously it is going to be on someone's server and there is going to be a ToS and there are going to be certain people in charge of it. Like any other archive.

I've generally ignored the single vs group ownership comments, because this is how I feel about it - someone's still in charge, her. But I get the argument - it's harder for a member of a group to vanish, if everything's spread out equally it's highly unlikely EVERYONE'll vanish, but I don't think at the end of the day it makes a huge difference.

miriam heddy: I've been reading this whole thing, and I actually know the OTW board members and other volunteers better than I do partly_bouncy, but...

I do want to step in here and respond to your comment about pissing in OTW's Cheerios. I worry (greatly) whenever the process of asking questions is conflated with Cheerio-pissing. Cheerio-pissing is something we may attack if it's a response to a "squee" post. But when people are responding to something like OTW's announcement, I think that the term "Cheerio-pissing" doesn't even make sense. If OTW can't survive a little squee-harshing divergence from the "Yeah! You guys are so cool!" type-response, I do think OTW will fail to do more than become a vanity project for the small, fairly insular segment of fandom already involved and on the masthead.

As for your comment that, "they JUST GOT STARTED," I'll just point again to Hector's timeline and the long silence that preceded the Sept 28th announcement. In the Sept 28 post, OTW appears highly organized, so much so that the next few emails have been calls for volunteers that look a lot like corporate job applications, including one that describes the position as "closely supervised by the Chair."

Given that the two job posts that've come through today seem to require a resume of sorts and a commitment to several hours a week of work, I can only guess that TPTB at OTW (the board, et al) have already put in hours and hours during those "silent" months during which they organized--and it appears that most of this time has been spent speaking amongst themselves.

If OTW is going to be a strong, vibrant organization and not another small corner of fandom celebrating itself and legitimizing (only) itself, it's going to be because of people who aren't already buddies with the insiders who aren't afraid to ask questions.

[slashpine]; I'm troubled by the "predominantly female culture" phrase as well, because it's undefined. Is "turning the tables" what fen mainly do? I.e., valorize women in exactly the same terms, for the same traits as men? Blegh. Not in any feminism I like.

Granted, I do see fandoms that write female characters who are "tough yet tender, martial arts master, gorgeous, brilliant, and oh yeh top chef." It's not just the nauseating MarySue of this, it's the fact of women (mainly) writing women who succeed by being like men. White, elite Euro-American capitalist men, to be precise. And het (at least when it comes to the main FC hooking up). That's sure not feminism.

Neither is the stuff by fen writing or vidding the "perfect prom," b/c that's the ultimate dream at their age. Others seem to think that obsessive interest in promiscuity, porn, profanity and picking fights constitute *liberation* (all traditional traits of male self-gratification). I think their sub-adultness is its own strongest critique. And there are "predominantly female" older fen who are "womanist," not feminist, in their assumption that (a) all women are pretty much the same, (b) all of them want the same things, like kids, nice house, clothes and cars, good job, great vacations, and plenty of money, in no particular order - but neither in any way different to classic global consume-and-exploit society.

So thanks, because you give me a strong idea of where I'd like to volunteer, when & if I get around to it. OTW's definition of "predominantly female culture" may not be the material-girl, fight!grrl, or complacent soccer-mom ones I've noted, but the fact that it's not very clear IS its own problem.

Men, trans, etc., need to be welcomed, not just included (as some clearly, already, are). Without that being spelled out, they, and the thinking fan, the sensitive one, or the once-bit twice-shy one, may well hold back.

Race and nationality are issues I agree fandom is a bit too blind to as yet, although I know there's been good discussion; awareness exists of the basic issue, if not of how to address it. Part of that problem, IMO, comes a priori with an English dominant internet; it's not fandom but the entire online environment that has this problem. Interesting if a large group of online users who diverge in at least one significant way (gender) from the classic young white male het 'geek' norm use this difference to open the door to more of that IDIC? (Which was not so diverse really, but I loved seeing that! ST:TOS FTW :-)

Another source of non-diversity that is external to fandom and thus OTW, is that most canons - media, band, etc., w/ only anime as the big exception - reflect exactly these same non-heterogenous cultural norms. Slashing and otherwise challenging those narrow "Hollywood" representations of reality is of course one of fandoms major contributions to culture. So OTW can do that, and more.

As to "middle-class" ...hmm. In industrial countries, particularly the U.S., that signifier is coming increasingly unstuck from any relevant referent. With fen from preteen to retirement age, incomes anywhere from student/poverty to triple digit, living anywhere from very rural to huge cities, education up to post-PhD, the term "middle-class" not only fails to say much, it diverts attention from far more significant differences like these.

When a 50-yr-old gay college professor in the rural conservative U.S. discusses MfU with a 18-yr-old Russian-born, het student in Paris, the fact that they're both white, female, and "middle-class" doesn't begin to bring out their many significant differences, but it does falsely imply they're the same.

So, in their very first 'professional' statement they've re-enforced a troubling bias in fandom that creates a climate which discourages men from participating. I know it's a small point for many people, as most fans are women, but it's a big point for me.

It troubles me too. I'm not sure anymore what exact bias is shown, since who knows what "female culture" they're talking about.

So: POINT. Which I'll ask if I can work with s/o to fix, as opposed to just crabbing here :D If I do, can I talk to you about it?

tiferet: Actually, I happen to think there is a very great need for an unbiased fannish history wiki that doesn't ban people Michela and Fandom Wank don't like and doesn't exist primarily to immortalise grudges -- she posted on one of the very first SPN comms asking for our wank, not our history, to put in that wiki.

elfwreck: Fanhistory's list of archives doesn't include Squidge.org and has only a single Lord of the Rings archive, dated 1999, without even a URL. (It seems to prefer not to post the URLs to the actual archive sites, which seems odd for a wiki.)

I consider these substantial gaps. (It's also missing several Harry Potter archives, but any list that wasn't eighteen pages long would be missing several Harry Potter archives.) It lists three Star Trek fic sites, two of which are Voyager-specific. Considering the importance of Trek fic in the history of fanfic, I consider this more than a substantial gap. Missing a number of other/smaller fandoms--Highlander, Supernatural (which may be too new to have archives), DC comics, Pirates of the Caribbean.

It doesn't seem to think that LiveJournal communities count as fic archives. (I can understand not wanting to list every fic comm on LJ... but there's no reason they aren't just as much archives as any other place where you sign up to post fic.)

None of this is awful, but it does show biases. It's a good resource, but it's substantially incomplete, in ways that make it look more like "one person/small group of friends' link collection" than a systematic attempt to include some sites while excluding others. (For example, only listing still-active archives, or archives over a certain number of stories, or archives with open membership.)

[slashpine]: Re: Fanhistory's list of archives: Squidge.org - YES! I went over there when Hector first posted on this (actually, on fanthropology) and looked to see if it had gotten better than I recalled. The X-Files entry seems very piecey and the omission of Squidge -- while a lot of far more trivial dates are included -- really struck me, too! DITB is a rather essential gateway to internet X-Philia. One significant crossover writer was also missing, who led a number of X-files fans to HP: Josan (josanpq).

Man from Uncle has only an intro; and there is tons available, thanks to st_crispins (an aca fan! Oh WOEZ. Who happens to have been a leading fan and fan fic writer for decades, so stuff that in the pipe of jealousy :-)

Other classic spy-slash is absent.

Georgette Heyer hasn't even a stub.

So yeah, just a cursory look suggests you're right, it's a "one person/small group of friends' link collection" at least at this point. Don't know where FH wants to go.

Hey, maybe they should be doing some outreach! I've certainly never seen anything about them in most of my fandoms; just here and on fanthropology, and some of partly_bouncy's (the owner??) metafandom-linked posts.

[hector rashbaum, original poster]: Re: Fanhistory's list of archives: So yeah, just a cursory look suggests you're right, it's a "one person/small group of friends' link collection" at least at this point. Don't know where FH wants to go.

Because it was started by one person - the whole concept of a wiki is the idea that the knowledge of many > the knowledge of a few, because of course one person is going to have biases/limits/etc.

What I've found interesting in this discussion (and I'm trying to say this without sounding accusatory, because I have a feeling I'd be reacting the same way, so if it doesn't come across as intended I apologize) is the amount of people who simply say "this is wrong", "this is missing", "this is incomplete" and leave it at that.

It's a wiki; anyone can edit it. If you know something's wrong/missing/incomplete, you can fix it!

And I think that's something OTW should be noticing, to keep in mind when they actually start work on their wiki - they're going to need to get a lot of stuff going up front, because so far it looks like there are a fair number of people (and like I said, I get it - I haven't added anything I know to the Bon Jovi article, and that's definitely incomplete, but I think the difference is I don't expect anyone else to do it if I don't) appear to look at the existing one as a static resource, rather than something fluid and changeable.

[slashpine] Re: Fanhistory's list of archives: Yeah. See, that's one reason I like OTW, because they're starting off as a collaboration rather than one person's passion. No matter how driving that single person's passion is, and accompanied by knowledge, it can falter when it reaches the structural level that needs a whole group's energy and numbers and knowledge.

I personally kinda cringe when I get appointed to a committee or invited to a big work-group-thing, because blegh group dynamics can be so counterproductive. (Of course, I meet amazing cool people and new friends there too. And the biggest ones serve excellent food.) But still and all - I've learned that big projects need big groups, and if started without one, can have trouble making the leap up.

What I didn't see on FH the first time I checked it out, which was the absolute instant I saw it mentioned (data hound me), was a sense of group mission; I did see evidence of one person or a small group's *passion* - no doubt of that! But what will draw me to invest the kind of time editing and entry-writing takes is visible demonstration that Fanhistory is open to all, will not be removed or edited arbitrarily by that unknown owner, and has a plan for expansion and improvement.

I've helped start and run wikis. I know what they take, and I love what they can be. I also have years of editing and tech writing. I prefer to put my time in on websites that have a clear mission I'm on board with, some sense of certainty about my contributions being purposeful, and contributing to a long-term public good. Fanhistory may just not have that info posted yet or readily accessible. The hypothetical OTW Wiki cannot be evaluated as it does not currently exist.

Speaking of outreach, though... Logic would suggest that if we demand outreach from OTW, we do the same for Fanhistory, if FH is similarly for everybody. Or the opposite: if the burden is on individuals to find Fanhistory and independently contribute to it, OTW should not be asked to do any more.

(I don't think it's this B/W, all or nothing, group do it all for the fans, vs. fans should do it on their own. But I do think equal expectations are only fair.)

[...] Ah. I see. It appears that in other fannish circles, none has been seen. Which would entitle those fen to say FH is doing a pot :: kettle thing, as I see someone does below in so many words.

To wind this up (for me; I thank you for hosting the discussion, which has been very informative): It looks to me as though FH is the wrong yardstick to measure OTW against. There are so many differences between the two -- the way they're set up, their goals, mission, FAQ, organizational structure, etc., it seems reasonable to expect they would be very different in outreach too. They're simply not comparable.

sidewinder: Re: Fanhistory's list of archives: It's been said before in this whole discussion, it'll be said again--it's a wiki. Help add to it where it's missing information.

You don't know how much time may have been spent to collect the information that's there already. I've put a lot of time so far into the sections *I* know, but I can't know every area of fannish activity.

And yeah, there are biases based on the people who have contributed so far and what they know and what they don't know. Don't tell me that a wiki started by another group - say OTW - isn't going to start out with its OWN biases - likely toward the "female media fandom" fans that they know profess is who they are really targeting in their efforts. Everyone has their biases. The only counter to that is to contribute and edit entries that need more information.

elfwreck: My time online is limited. My interest in editing wikis is limited -- I'm not willing to put a lot of work into something, just to have it all erased by a troll or someone with an agenda. I've made tiny edits on Wikipedia, but they're generally "link to author's website" or "name of one more book in this genre" edits.

The grammar at Fanhistory.com is so odd in places that I wonder if the main author isn't a native speaker of English. "The site eventual switched to advertisements to pay for itself" was written either by someone not fully fluent in English, or someone being incredibly careless with typos, or someone copying-and-pasting sentence fragments from something else (including potentially documents they've written themselves) and not bothering to read before posting.

Why should I bother to edit?

--I don't know the people involved in it, so it's not "help my friends with their hobby;

--There's no credit for participating in a wiki,

--I can't "fix" the errors on the site (I don't have time for more than a few, and that feels rather pointless),

--I can't get rid of the bias (OTW has a section called "criticisms;" why don't the other fan archive sites? Certainly there's plenty of criticism of [[[ff.net]]. And dozens of recent discussions about fanlib.)

I wouldn't want a wiki to turn into a pissing contest about "why this site/fandom/author sucks." However, since I don't know how vehemently the biases would be defended (would removal of links to locked LJ posts be put back?), there's no incentive to make the site less biased.

Overall, the site doesn't look particularly friendly to some of the fandoms I like. Which is fine; it doesn't have to be. But without knowing if that's a case of "owner doesn't have time/interest to deal with this" or "owner would prefer not to have this topic overshadowing/contradicting her favorites," it's not worth putting any real energy into.

I trust my friends. I trust friends of friends. Sometimes I trust friends of friends of friends.

Total strangers with obvious biases, claiming to manage projects "for the good of the community?" Got lots of experience with those. If their biases don't match mine, they generally don't appreciate my contributions.

[spare change]: Re: Fanhistory's list of archives

Total strangers with obvious biases, claiming to manage projects "for the good of the community?"

That's exactly why a lot of people don't support OTW.