Talk:The Open-Source Boob Project

Shouldn't this be a fanwork?

Shouldn't this be a fanwork, "Open Source Boob Project" by theferret? --rache 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think of this as a fanwork -- it's an idea, not a thing, so more of a meme gone horribly wrong. And now that I've said that, huh, maybe we need something for (the really big/widespread) memes... --Arduinna 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But didn't he make a post about it and say something to a bunch of people, an originating fanwork? With a bunch of stuff following on from that. In fact, looking at it at a high level, the same process happened with the five things stories, with Bas posting her story and then a bunch of people taking the structure from there, with the point of origin being mislaid for awhile. If there is an originating post of some sort, I would like to keep the discussion structured around it, the way we do with other fan sources. (Because in essence, we are developing mini-fandoms around an essay, rather than a TV show.) --rache 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but I worry about adding non-fannish meta to fanworks. That would potentially make fanworks a massive category. I thought of this as more of an event that happened *to* fans, rather than a meta *about*, if that makes sense. --Seperis 22:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a category, "meme." With a template, including originator, timespan, and range of distribution? (Or something like that.) --Elfwreck 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, huh, that's really interesting. My definition is different from yours, I think; to me, fanworks are specific *things*, not just ideas. Bas's original five-things story is a fanwork, because it's a specific thing that she produced, and every other five things story produced since then has been a fanwork. But the *concept* of a five things story isn't a fanwork to me, any more than the concept of the Harlequin challenges or Big Bang challenges; they're all things that inspire fanworks in one way or another. (I admit, I could just be having a mental block here, because I don't want to think that either "walking up to a stranger and fondling her breast" or a post describing that is a fanwork of any sort. OTOH, I don't think of the backlash as a fanwork, either, not even the physical buttons and whatnot that were created. Feminist, yes, specifically fannish, no.) ... I am also probably seriously overthinking all of this, and in the end what really matters is that the page get written up. *g* Regardless, I do agree that the originating post should be linked to, definitely. --Arduinna 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still mulling over the point about the size of this, and something that happens *to* fans as opposed to coming from within, but setting that aside, I really see no difference between what we do when we use our own non-fiction or fanonical universes as our source material, and what we do when we appropriate another canonical source. For me, we start treading into the 'shared universe' issue, and how do we document that on the fictional side of the house, while dealing with all the meta related to, say, your hummus essay on the other. For me, it seems easiest to group it all under the originating story or essay, as if that were an originating book or tv show, and treat the fan material the same as pro material for documentation purposes--except it would be categorized as a fanwork. But the structure in all instances is the same, from a format and concept perspective. But like you said, I don't want to lose material while we discuss meta; it's better to capture the stuff and file it later. --rache 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fanworks: copyrightable presentations of some sort; work in a fixed form. Meme: activity shared by repetition, not necessarily having a fixed form. (Although quizzes & their results are fixed, the "sharing" part is not.) IMHO, YMMV.--Elfwreck 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't conceptualize the boob project as a fanwork; it just isn't clicking for me. The term "fanwork" to me has two necessary components: 1) a product is created, inspired by 2) some fannish source material. So unless we're counting boobs as fannish source material (cue giggle fit), I don't think we can put this in the same category as stories or art or vids or even meta. I think we need a category for memes, or perhaps "boneheaded posts flambe'". --Merry 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm thinking about is the Wiscon thing as well in this category. I'm ambivalent about filing something like those alongside say, the Hummus Essay, or the Five Things fiction structure, or the drabble, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be called an event, but I do think that there's definitely a big difference between Wiscon, OSBP, Livejouranal rep voting, C&Ds, and other things of that type that aren't fannish source so much as occurrences to fans. --Seperis

I'm arguing several things at this point, so let me break them out. 1) Yes, I see what Seperis is saying when she is asking for a category or format for things that originate outside of our community that end up involving our community (for some value of community) in a big way. 2) There are memes like the 5 things 'meme' that actually originate as a single post (in this case a story) by a person in our community, and that structure is then appropriated by others (as you do.) I want to make sure that person gets credit for stating this big thing, whether that's in a positive or negative way. 3) Essays are just as valid a jumping off point for fannish involvement as fiction is, and to me, fact or fiction doesn't matter: a fanwork is a fanwork, whether it's a story an archive a mailing list or an essay, and the point of origin should get credit, again for positive or negative effect. 4) Shared universe such as pegasus-B in SGA or ATF in MAG7 both started with an story and then other authors joined in. Again, those authors need the credit as the point of origin, and it was a fanwork that started it all. Therefore, in my view, items 2, 3, and 4 all start with the fanwork and then the follow-on from that would be under that original work; whether we are talking fiction or non-fiction, it acts the same way. Item 1 is different, I see that point, as the point of origin is outside the community and so maybe we need a different way to classify that.--rache 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Random passerby: basically seconding seperis -- my gut reaction to this is that even though I agree that on a meta level, the structure of occurrences (and spread) might be similar, I'd argue most fan's perception of both is very different (whyever: the internal/external origin might play a big part), and you'd pretty much expect random fan X (uhm, like me?) to think through these meta concepts to understand why OSBP would be placed as a fanwork alongside say, "Women's Work". I'd find that highly disorienting in a wiki. So, I'd vote for a new category, whatever it would end up being called -- memes, concepts, events, etc.--Lian 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)