Special Edition: TWM Content Poll

[thisweekmod]

Hello all! After the most recent kerfuffle, I thought I would take this opportunity to ask what folks felt would be the best practices for the newsletter regarding certain sites and types of links.

I have made a Content Poll-- it's not long, and if you don't like any of the options you can totally post a comment here instead. It asks about etiquette regarding Dreamwidth/LiveJournal communities, Fanlore pages, Fanlore-found links, and what to do when an Original Poster is not available for contact.

All these questions assume the post being linked is not locked or private, and that the entity doing the linking is a newsletter.

Edit: Some further context for why linking and linking permissions is so hotly debated in fandom (Fanlore).

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.

But I want to know what you think! :)

The comments here are open, and I encourage you all to discuss your thoughts with me and with each other. We've had some really good discussions in the last few days, and I'm interested in seeing what you all think about these specific linking situations.

If you can think of anything else that might be missing from either the poll or the editorial guidelines, please let me know.

Thank you! ♥

Comments

[senmut]

I don't meta very often at all, but... I have a blanket permission on my AO3. Considering putting that over here on DW too. Still not sure what the kerfluffle is, if the subject was public access? But that's me and thinking knowledge is supposed to roam free if the sharer didn't limit it to begin with.

[amaresu]

Didn't realize how much I enjoy a button to push to say "I agree with this comment!" until i cane back to DW and there wasn't one.

[muccamukk]

I like the idea of linking to fanlore like you linked here where it's a whole debate with lots of people back and forthing. Linking to fanlore write up of one meta seems more or less the same as just linking to the meta. Since anyone could have added it to fanlore, anyway. So I guess ask the person if they're still in fandom, and I'd think it'd be okay to link if not.

As I said last post, I really like the older posts for context, but I can really see not wanting an off the cuff rant linked around for five hundred people to look at ten years down the road. I said lots of shit ten years ago that I don't want to be my fandom legacy.

[copracat]

I have a inherently contradictory opinion. I think anything public on the internet is linkable. I think anyone linking posts should consider the community the post was made in, the norms of that community. Partly because it's good community behaviour and partly for the linker to save themselves grief. In the end you decide how much and what kind of grief you want. If you take the view that if it's public it can be linked then communities who don't agree will likely be angry. If you explicitly ask every single poster, then you've taken on a lot of work and as you've said, there are posts where the OP is not contactable.

I reckon be consistent, be clear, have opt outs for people if you chose proactive linking, make the guidelines easy to find, make sure the mods are easy to contact, be able to react quickly. You seem to have a lot of that covered already/you look very willing to cover it.

I know my community (media fandom) so I have an explicit okay to link to public posts in my DW bio. I know a lot of fans who meta do, so it's worth knowing that if you didn't already. I think some have it in their sticky post.

The fanlore issue is interesting, and I don't have an answer for you. The point of fanlore is that it's a communally created fandom resource. It's surely lost half its value if you can't point people to it. People not wanting to be linked or quoted on there is an issue for fanlore to address, not people pointing to fanlore.

fanlore issue

[cimorene]

I would have assumed that people linking to fanlore pages is something people who create them expect, but if someone has recently posted something that was linked without their knowledge from fanlore, they could wind up with unwanted traffic in the event of a controversy.

I'm not sure how likely that is to happen, though. I, too, would be inclined to leave the burden of permission on Fanlore there, but perhaps if writing a post that I anticipated being... hot? controversial? popular? or just... arousing... disagreement or something?... then I might exercise restraint and not quote directly from the parts of the Fanlore article that point directly to recent, specific posts?

[deadfinch]

Trying to make public discussion entirely opt-in sounds too difficult (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? I.e., can we link freely to someone's meta that has more links inside of it, or do we have to check that all the people further down the rabbit hole also gave permission?). I can also understand the source of some people's discomfort, though, so I'm not 100% sure how I feel. My default assumption is that things publicly posted within fandom are okay to circulate within fandom, unless the author explicitly requests otherwise, so that informs my reaction.

I fall on the side of "linking to a Fanlore article is okay," at least.

[jadelennox]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Rather than asking whether it is acceptable to link, might it be worth raising the issue of consent?

When the creative commons licenses first launched, a lot of bloggers (quite self-importantly in hindsight) put up their commercial re-use policies. Might it be worth trying to normalise people expressing their consent with regards to linking?

I mean... The issue isn't so much linking per se but rather what happens when people continue to get linked and scrutinised when they don't actually want to be subject to that level of scrutiny. That is the fail-state we're worried about right?

[cimorene]

Yes, this is a good point. In fact, there has been an effort already in media fandom to normalize standard consent in profiles - IIRC raised by podfic craze some years ago - and many people included link, quote, remix, etc permissions in that consent.

My view is that anyone with blanket permission to link in their profile probably intended to give permission for newsletter links as well, but I suppose you could still stumble onto an exception somewhere.

[graveexcitement]

I haven't read a whole lot of the relevant discussions, but it seems to me that a lot of the differing opinions appear to be based on people's different ideas of what social media should be like? As in... well, if I post something publicly (on Twitter, Tumblr, DW, Mastodon, etc.), I do so knowing that potentially anyone could wind up reading it (though realistically only a few people actually will.) But I guess some people post things expecting that only their followers/subscribers will look at it and talk about it, and they feel their privacy has been invaded if a whole lot of people from outside their circle start looking at it and commenting on it?

So in general I think that if someone has posted meta on a site that has good privacy controls, like Dreamwidth or Mastodon, and they've posted it *publicly*, I think that means it's fine to link without asking. Because those two sites have great privacy controls for if you only want your access list/followers to be able to see a certain post. So if you're posting it public, that means you should be okay with it being publicly discussed; if you're not okay with that, maybe make it access-locked instead?

I'm less certain about Tumblr and Twitter, because you can't privacy lock a given post, you can only privacy lock your entire tumblr/twitter. And also for Tumblr, the commenting tools are horrible -- replies get lost easily, but reblogs necessarily also spread the original post. At least on Twitter you can reply to a post and your reply won't be as easily lost, & there's threaded reply chains. But Twitter also has one of Tumblr's problems of making it very easy to dogpile on people for the crime of having Bad(TM) Opinions.

So I guess I am more uncertain about Tumblr/Twitter because of the bad privacy options on those sites. So maybe asking permission first for those would make sense? But my underlying ethos is still "if you're posting something online, *publicly,* you should Be Aware it is in fact *public* and may become the subject of public discussion." (Side note: This is part of why I like DW and Mastodon a lot! Better privacy controls! Yay!)

(Also, like... it's not like the point of this comm is to link to *Bad* (TM) stuff, or to link to stuff just to ridicule it? Because those were/are some of the more flagrant issues on Twitter/Tumblr/etc -- retweeting/reblogging ignorant people, Terrible Takes, and so forth, so that people can dunk on them and whatnot. Those were situations where lack of privacy controls led to a post being spread like wildfire with the OP having no way out except to delete their blog. That shit sucked, but... we're not doing that? So I don't see as much of an issue with linking without permission.)

[cimorene]

Also, like... it's not like the point of this comm is to link to *Bad* (TM) stuff, or to link to stuff just to ridicule it?

This is a worthwhile point even though historically meta debates have led to controversies without anyone having posted something just to mock it - all that's required is reading someone's meta post via the newsletter and making your own post disagreeing and linking back which then appears in the next newsletter issue.

But this meta-debate scenario is not really the same thing as the kind of dogpiling scenarios engendered by Fandom Wank or - what was that ancient Mary Sue mocking community on LJ?, and doesn't provide the same sort of inherent motive to attack, I would think.

(In the metafandom troubles, wasn't the issue more people who were annoyed by influx of disagreeing comments even if those comments were made with basic attempts at civility? And I mean, I can sympathize with that, to a degree.)

[batwrangler]

The internet was far more restricted in reach and scope back in the LJ days. It was possible to have unlocked discussions that were functionally private. Major news media weren’t mining social media for click bait. What we chose to leave public then isn’t what many of us are choosing to leave public now. Many of us are torn by the desire to not burn down our past by obliterating our older online presence but without the time or emotional spoons to go back and try to sequester stuff that we would not post in “public” now. Since moving completely to DW, I’ve personally stuck with keeping most of my posts access-list only which makes connecting with new people harder, but I don’t have the personal bandwidth to leave my online home open to all comers.

[copracat]

Tumblr users might be more used to having their posts linked. Isn't is commonly accepted on Tumblr that linking (that is "reblogging") is okay and in fact, the nature of the site? The important thing being clear credit to the OP which is not an issue on a link newsletter? I am not an expert however!

[thisweekmod]

Also, like... it's not like the point of this comm is to link to *Bad* (TM) stuff, or to link to stuff just to ridicule it?

No, it's not, and even if I link to something rant-y, it's only because I think it's interesting and worth sharing. I'm not making a value judgement on anything-- but I can see how people might think otherwise, if they don't know me/don't know the newsletter/aren't sure about what's going on.

[amaresu]

I went to Fanlore to see if I'd been linked on it at all. The results were surprising, especially on the occasions where my fic was used as an example of a topic.

More importantly I'd forgotten I'd written stuff for idol_reflection, ship_manifesto, and crack_van. It was kind of fun to revisit those essays.

More importantly someone had gone through the trouble to archive and save the response I got from Patricia C. Wrede during RaceFail. Something I'm pretty sure I don't have in my email anymore. It's been 9 1/2 years afterall.

This is why I think linking and archiving public posts is important. People should be able to go back and read what came before. We really don't need to reinvent the wheel every 3 years, despite how much fandom enjoys doing that. But it's also important to remember that if something was posted a decade ago you can't respond to it like it was posted last week.

I'm also of the opinion that if I no longer agree with something I said years ago I can lock the post and go on with my life. People change and outside of sites like Tumblr we can control who can see things. But there should definitely be an understanding that you don't go on a historical post and act like an asshat.

[elrhiarhodan]

I put this thought in the poll, but wanted to make it a bit more visible.

Taking the lack of privacy controls as permission to link an older post can be a wrong approach, particularly for LJ/IJ/DW. Journalers may have not locked their posts on the belief that since they have only a limited group of "friends", their words will have a limited audience, and as time passes, that audience would dwindle down to zero. Particularly if the journaler had opted out of being searchable.

It's a version of "security through obscurity".

But if a post on an old, defunct but still accessible account gets linked by a popular blog, that intent - security through obscurity - is voided.

For older content (2 years +), if you can't reach a post owner, no matter how relevant the post, don't link. This goes for commentary in a defunct community, too. Let the dead stay dead if you don't have permission to resurrect.

[kore]

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?

[morgandawn]

On Fanlore, there are always too few editors working on anything which means the selections will always be limited. I cannot tell you how many times a fan has asked: "but why is X not on Fanlore?" The only answer I can offer is: because you have not added it yet, pretty please?

That is also true of meta essays. I know users who are going through the old metafandom newsletters. They are looking for items that are (1) still online and public (the majority are not) and (2) sill relevant. Relevant in either that the conversations were unique and are no longer part of the fandom lexicon or relevant in that they are similar/echoing ongoing discussions (the more things change.....)

Examples of how meta is chosen:
https://fanlore.org/wiki/User_talk:Mrs._Potato_Head/2018_Archive#Meta_pages

Fanlore does not have a notability requirement - mainly because under that requirement (as defined by Wikipedia) very little fandom history or women's contributions qualify as "notable" ( which is weighted towards professional publications,celebrity or corporate).

As to what meta has been recorded so far on Fanlore...if you see a topic or an area that is missing or needs counterbalancing, jump on it.

Take a look at the Meta Category on Fanlore and you will see a wide range of topics
https://fanlore.org/wiki/Category:Meta_Essays

and dive deeper into Meta by Platform
https://fanlore.org/wiki/Category:Meta_by_Platform

the biggest category is
Public websites
Then Journals (personal blogging)
Then Print
Then Tumblr

I don't see stand-alone pages for Meta on Twitter, perhaps because of the character limit.

Anyhow I hope this is helpful to our wonderful host thisweekmeta .....lots of history on how meta was selected and how fandom has interacted/continues to interact with the meta selection process.

[amaresu]

I had another thought that really needs to be taken into consideration.

At what point does everything become too much for you to actually compile the links? Where does the newsletter become functionally impossible to do?

You're never going to please everyone. You can spend all this time hashing out rules, but then find that you don't have the time or energy to actually make this place work.

That would be sad.

So, please, take yourself into consideration. The rest of us will deal with what you can do because we've missed these newsletters as much as you did.

[falena]

+1

[thisweekmod]

Thank you. ♥ Right now it's fine, though of course I can't speak for 3-months-from-now me. Asking to link to an OP's meta post doesn't take any more time than finding the thing in the first place; what would be MORE difficult for me, long-term, would be fielding unhappy subscribers, OPs, commenters, etc. every issue because of something simple I could've tweaked.

I am totally willing to say "no" to things that I cannot do either due to time, ethics, or something else-- which may upset some people. But so far (most of) the suggestions have been easy to do and come from a good place, and the ones that suggestions that aren't either of those things are easy enough to ignore.

[lunabee34]

I also have an inherently contradictory opinion. I think anything publicly posted on the internet is fine to link to and doesn't need permission; I would never be upset with someone linking to a public post I made, and I wouldn't bat an eye at an individual or a newsletter who linked to me or to other people's public posts. However, as a mod (and I have modded comms in the past that largely consisted of linking to other people's content), I would 100% ask permission before linking because fandom is my leisure activity, I am invested in keeping it a happy place for me, I value fannish community and relationships, and from a purely self-interested standpoint I do not want to deal with wank and people being upset with me.

[morgandawn]

I'd look to how metafandom newsletters on LJ/DW were run in the past. Some would get permission before linking to a public blog post. others would drop a heads up. And others would not ask, but would remove a link if the post blew up. And a few would just link. keep in mind that many fandom "news" newsletters/roundup had meta links and very few of those newsletters asked permission beforehand or would remove links after the fact.

As for Fanlore linking to old meta posts that were originally linked in previous metafandom newsletters ..the idea of functional privacy is not a new one. So I don't think there was a universal or even widespread expectation of functional privacy in the "good old LJ days". There was a diversity of opinion as to whether anyone could link to someone else's blog -- either from our own personal journals or from a newsletter. I know I had a few meta posts of my own on the very same topic that ended up being linked by several metafandom newsletters (not always a comfortable experience).

So I think your linking guidelines are fine:

"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."

[morgandawn]

I am still digging through my old posts to see if I can find earlier discussions of newsletters and linking. I did volunteer on several fandom newsletters. In none of them, did we ever ask permission to link to a public post. And no one ever asked me to remove a link...I suspect if they had I would have told them to lock their post and would then have left the link up with a note [post now locked].

I know that our vidding newsletter was boosted to the vidding community which still has almost 2000 fans. The metafandom newsletter on LJ (not updated since 2011) still has 2000 followers and of course this does not count the number of people who reposted specific links they read in the newsletters to their own blogs. LJ fandom did have a "head in the sand" mentality as to the wider non-fandom world, but we also knew that friendslock was the only way to prevent our entries from showing up in someone else's blog.

I feel for the younger fans who never had the luxury of the illusion that they were invisible.

[morgandawn]

Blanket permission to link to my old meta posts. Heads up appreciated.

[thisweekmod]

Thank you! I'll make a note. For newer meta posts, would you like me to ask first?