if we're unsure about linking to Fanlore articles because the referenced posts are old and were possibly linked to without permission, to what degree do we investigate link permission on other posts
Indeed. If I write a rant in which I hyperlink to four other people who haven't given their permission to be linked, and then I gleefully give the community permission to link to me, exactly what is the responsibility of the community, there?
I am torn between my librarian/archivist instinct (it's on the public web, so every legal, journalistic, and ethical guidelines says it's legitimate to discuss, point to, and preserve), and the reality of the modern web, which is full of power imbalances and also trolls. For example, when Buzzfeed links to a tweet from a rando with 14 followers, that person will absolutely get a viral pile-on, which, whether positive or negative, has massive ethical considerations.
Which is why I think it should be the link compiler's judgment call and it can't come down to simple rules. For the most part, it's on the open web, so go ahead and link. But is it a controversial issue? Is it likely to drive trolls or hate the OPs way? Is it a very old post which might no longer be relevant? Is it a very old post which might be on a site no longer under the OP's control?
But, come on, Fanlore is an online encyclopedia. If trolls start attacking it by filling it with spam or abuse, and the Fanlore editing volunteers don't fight that well, it can be rethought. But it's just like linking to Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles link to plenty of source content -- often source content the OP has actively removed that the WP editors link from wayback -- and we still link to WP.
no subject
Indeed. If I write a rant in which I hyperlink to four other people who haven't given their permission to be linked, and then I gleefully give the community permission to link to me, exactly what is the responsibility of the community, there?
I am torn between my librarian/archivist instinct (it's on the public web, so every legal, journalistic, and ethical guidelines says it's legitimate to discuss, point to, and preserve), and the reality of the modern web, which is full of power imbalances and also trolls. For example, when Buzzfeed links to a tweet from a rando with 14 followers, that person will absolutely get a viral pile-on, which, whether positive or negative, has massive ethical considerations.
Which is why I think it should be the link compiler's judgment call and it can't come down to simple rules. For the most part, it's on the open web, so go ahead and link. But is it a controversial issue? Is it likely to drive trolls or hate the OPs way? Is it a very old post which might no longer be relevant? Is it a very old post which might be on a site no longer under the OP's control?
But, come on, Fanlore is an online encyclopedia. If trolls start attacking it by filling it with spam or abuse, and the Fanlore editing volunteers don't fight that well, it can be rethought. But it's just like linking to Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles link to plenty of source content -- often source content the OP has actively removed that the WP editors link from wayback -- and we still link to WP.