I think if you're going to link to meta on Fanlore, it's really not the same thing as directly linking to the post being quoted on Fanlore, so that might be OK. But the setup last time of someone's post that was over a decade old being written up last year really didn't sit right with me. ITA with all the comments that back in the day, there was absolutely not the same drive to get clicks or eyeballs and people on LJ especially didn't have the expectations of a giant growing audience that you see on Tumblr still.
My own answers are currently along the lines of: community posts are probably fine to link because they were posted widely to begin with; Fanlore pages made through explicit permission of OP is best, but for certain historical meta it's okay to link anyway; linking to Fanlore to provide further context is fine; no way to ask for permission means no link; if the OP has completely disappeared from fandom and/or online, it's fine to link their stuff.
That is pretty much what I think, too, although now I'd like to know more about Fanlore and who's making most of the posts there and what their agenda is, for lack of a better word. People keep comparing it to a fannish encyclopedia, but it seems like there's only a couple of users doing a lot of posts?
no subject
My own answers are currently along the lines of: community posts are probably fine to link because they were posted widely to begin with; Fanlore pages made through explicit permission of OP is best, but for certain historical meta it's okay to link anyway; linking to Fanlore to provide further context is fine; no way to ask for permission means no link; if the OP has completely disappeared from fandom and/or online, it's fine to link their stuff.
That is pretty much what I think, too, although now I'd like to know more about Fanlore and who's making most of the posts there and what their agenda is, for lack of a better word. People keep comparing it to a fannish encyclopedia, but it seems like there's only a couple of users doing a lot of posts?