000. welcome & faq

[tozka]

This Week in Meta is a pan-fandom meta newsletter. It collects links from: Dreamwidth, LiveJournal, Tumblr, Twitter, Youtube, blogs, and anywhere else people may be writing and talking about meta. Newsletter guidelines, linking rules and etiquette, as well as posting policies and moderator accounts can be found here.

Anyone can join and anyone can comment, but only editors can post.

FAQ

What is meta?
"In fandom, meta is used to describe a discussion of fanworks of all kinds, fan work in relation to the source text, fanfiction characters and their motivation and psychology, fan behavior, and fandom itself.

Meta or a meta essay can also be a fan-authored piece of non-fiction writing that discusses any of the above topics."
-- via Fanlore

What is linked here?
Meta about: fandom as a whole/concept, fandom history, fannish activities/experiences, fandom statistics/polls, acafan writings, fandom-wide news and resources.

We will (probably) not link to: memes, headcanons about specific characters or fandoms, episode reviews, book reviews, movie reviews, homework help, troll comments/deliberate wank.

Why don't you link to meta about specific fandoms?
Sometimes we do, if it's the kind of meta that could apply to multiple fandom genres, character types, tropes, etc. Also most fandoms have a newsletter or noticeboard of their own, so if you're looking for meta about one specific show, you can usually find it easily enough.

Who runs this thing?
Right now it's tozka, who started it after realizing that all the old meta fandom newsletters had died several years back.

I want to add my link!
Leave a comment on the newest newsletter post, or email the editor.

I don't want my link here!
Leave a comment on the newsletter post your link appears in, or email the editor.

I have other questions or comments!
Leave a comment on the newest newsletter post, or email the editor.

Promo Banners

Please feel free to use these banners to promote the newsletter!






-- Last updated January 24, 2019.

Comments

[kore]

A lot of people on Tumblr who wrote personal posts but had unlocked blogs (because you couldn't lock them) would tag them "please don't reblog." Guess what, people reblogged them to add a sympathetic note anyway.

I already have a note about 'please don't repost huge chunks of my blog without asking' and don't really want to add another one about 'please don't link to a newsletter without asking' because then it seems next week I'm going to have to add 'please don't X without asking'....I know DW has privacy controls but it seems like some people are more used to the Tumblr binary on/off -- if it's public, it's REALLY public, so to speak.

[recessional]

That's why I'm talking about this specific account saying specifically that they won't aggregate if there's a note right on the post. Presumably the people operating the account would then follow their own specific policy. (And if not this is a whole different convo.)

I'm not actually stating "I think we should norm things so that everything's fair game" bc I'm not actually in control of the norms and have elsewhere already made pretty clear that I think asking before linking in this kind of newsletter is a better way to go? So.

I just think there's benefit in stating "by the way we will definitely abide by any notes on your post saying 'don't link this in newsletters'", because then people can work on the assumption that you're that level of thoughtful/respectful of the poster's wishes, unless you do something specific to make that a lie. I think noting that explicitly - for this newsletter, specifically - has a potential benefit in terms of signalling attention to those concerns.

Like: there's no way to keep malicious or thoughtless Persons In General from linking or copying or otherwise using anything public, so if one is assuming bad faith/indifference then locking is your only way. So I'm not really bothering to think about those cases. Much like that kind of person isn't going to be stopped by my having a related works policy, they're also gonna link anything that isn't locked? So.

[kore]

That wasn't my point. My point was that I don't want to have to come up with new disclaimers about stuff I'm only hearing about by chance every single time, because I think some people may be working with slightly different definitions of what's public/private. I don't want to see people on DW just lock posting period -- that would make the site more like Tumblr not less. My problem like other peoples' was with the original "We don't ask permission to link to publicly available posts, but we will give you a head's up that it's going into an issue." If a weekly newsletter goes ahead and says "Permission to link?" that's really different. And people in general ask first, even if it's a friend asking to quote in their own DW, or maybe post it in a "greatest quotes" community.

[recessional]

....okay?

I'm not sure why you're bringing this to me as I've already stated I think that asking etc is the best idea and what I'd prefer?