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

[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.

Sorry about the messy organization...fandom and visibility posts

[morgandawn]

This is something I wrote in 2014
Why The “Is This Meant To Be Private?” Question May Be The Wrong Question
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1335600.html

This is me in 2015 (writing about the context of Tumblr in 2013)
2013 Posts About Tumblr As A Peformance Space

"Why or why are we always trying to use coded and obscure methods that have little chance of penetrating a wider audience to communicate issues that are clearly so important to us?. on LJ many of us finally started adding notes on our profile page or sticky posts because even though we thought everyone!!!! should understand what was so clearly obvious!!! and basic human respect and courtesy!!!!...surprisingly, not everyone did grok what we were wanting.

Security through obscurity is futile. Communication through osmosis equally so."
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1394075.html

In 2007 I was reminding myself that the only way to reduce visibility was to friendslock
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/393769.html

From 2015: Temba, His Arms Wide
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1393336.html
A while back I did a series of posts about how technology has shaped – and continues to shape – our fandom culture: here, here and here. The short version: We do not use technology, technology uses us. And I am not alone in blogging about this.
http://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1377960.html (2014)
http://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1380349.html (2014)

and a fan in 1997 talks about the worry about fandom use of the Internets
https://meeedeee.tumblr.com/post/111533702336/on-fandom-migration-to-new-platforms

Now we jump back to 2015
Fandom As A Contact Zone
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1393744.html

Re: Sorry about the messy organization...fandom and visibility posts

[morgandawn]

2007 in response to Strikethrough
Deep Thoughts On Blogging (2nd Edition) - This Is Not My Beautiful House
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/759977.html

BTW, this is a perfect example of the time I quoted and linked to a public post of another fan in my own journal and the person took exception to it.

And here is the Meta Vidding newsletter I volunteered on
https://veni-vidi-vids.livejournal.com/21874.html
https://veni-vidi-vids.livejournal.com/tag/meta

In 2013 I took a deep dive into the ways pre-Internet fans made themselves visible online in so many ways
The Brick In The Wall Theory
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1244241.html

Re: Sorry about the messy organization...fandom and visibility posts

[morgandawn]

From 2015
"I've been recently revisiting the concept of the Fourth Wall in light of ongoing fandom debates (Goodreads; Fall Out Boy to name just a few).

It occurred to me that fandom, like many other communities, has undergone a radical shift in response to new technologies (see this and this, both posts by me).

But first let me start with this concept: there is nothing individual fans can do about the Fall of the Fourth Wall. In fact, there is nothing that fandom can do to stop the deterioration of the Fourth Wall.

So why even post?"
https://morgandawn.dreamwidth.org/1382800.html

Re: Sorry about the messy organization...fandom and visibility posts

[thisweekmod]

Thanks so much for the wonderful links and sharing of knowledge! ♥ I'm saving these.

Re: Sorry about the messy organization...fandom and visibility posts

[morgandawn]

for these older posts I think offering context will be key. I re-read them with the most recent linking debate in mind and found they were often tied to a similar but different event ...and the facts of that changed how they came across. fascinating real life example for me how framing is needed.