paraka | Question

Question

So, I've spent most of the day reading up on what people are saying about the OTW are saying. Mostly from non-fandom people, and it's kind of making me want to shoot things, but I was wondering:

What do you think about the OTW? Would you like an archive? A written fannish history? A wiki (OMG, I can't tell you how much I'd like a wiki for fandom, although I can see it being vandalized a lot)? Do you think it's a good idea to have a legal defense fund? If the OTW were ever to go to court, would you support them?

I'm planning on making a post sometime about how I feel about it, but I'm really curious as to what other people on my flist think about it. I think so far only one person on my flist has really written about it, but I spent a couple months away so could have totally missed something.

Also, I am having a bitch of a time working on a mysql database, any one know enough about setting up eFiction to want to help?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Other people though... part of it could be that they'd rather have someone they know and trust run it (enough fan sites out there have started out by good intentioned people who then reach the end of their rope and close it down. I noticed that there's a not on the wiki against that, but still, in general), but it could also be that a wiki is only as good as the people putting effort into it, and they feel that the OTW will have a big enough following to make their wiki better, simply because that's something that they could help with and say they were an active part of OTW.

I've heard that argument before. And...I get it, but not...hm. It's like you mentioning my comment in Scalzi was the first you thought of other fans disagreeing with OTW because the idea just hadn't occurred to you, and a while ago someone putting forward the idea that the group using "bamdom" to mean not "band fandom" but "fandom of a very specific group of bands" were doing so because they hadn't thought of fandoms existing based on bands outside that group, not contributing to a wiki based on who runs it just never occurred to me.

It's a reasonable argument, for sure, just not one I'd ever really thought of, and not one that really resonates with me.

Not contributing because a wiki is only as good as its contributors, however, really doesn't make sense to me. It's the same thing as people who, when I pimp FanworksFinder (http://www.fanworksfinder.com), decide not to use it because their fandom isn't well-represented yet.

"I won't do it because no one else has" just...doesn't sit right with me as a justification.

I also think that the fact that something already exists isn't enough of an excuse to the members of the OTW not to make another one, because there are already things out there for all of the projects they'd like to make.

There are, definitely. I think where I don't like that as a justification for doing another wiki is mainly that with all those other things that already exist, they're planning on doing them differently in some way - there aren't multifandom archives that really do take everything (no porn, no RPF, no slash, no het, no gen, etc.), there aren't social networking sites integrated with archives, etc. The wiki's the one area they appear to be doing the exact same thing as someone else in fandom, and it's the one area I think a collaboration would be most beneficial - I think multiple Wikis will be more fragmentary than helpful.

I do have to wonder though, if the owner of that wiki were to speak to the OTW and offer up her wiki to be the OTW wiki if they wouldn't take her up on it, I don't know, but it does sound like a much easier solution to me.

They've talked about it a bit, I know, but only after OTW announced plans for a wiki. I happen to think - and I'll be careful how I word this, because I've seen her get really criticized for sounding self-centered when she said this - I would've liked to see them contact her. But that has a lot to do with my view of their board+committees as very insular and representing a specific segment of fandom - I think they would've benefitted from talking to archivists and other fannish people of influence from more varied backgrounds earlier.

not contributing to a wiki based on who runs it just never occurred to me.
It's actually a pretty big factor to a lot of people. Fandom after all is one big school ground where the cool kids are still the ones with the influence. I know that when I had recently joined a fandom, I tried to start an archive for it, because the main one was shut down (because the owner decided they had had enough, and they didn't even give the members any warning). I had a few people help me out, and managed to get it up really quickly, but because I wasn't well known, and the people helping me out weren't BNFs, my archive was quickly overshadowed by one that was opened much later by BNFs. Even though I had contacted all of the authors who had posted on the site that was taken down, they all decided that they'd rather wait for a BNF to put up a site than trust someone they didn't know. There were other factors involved too, but that was a really big one.

Not contributing because a wiki is only as good as its contributors, however, really doesn't make sense to me.
It does and it doesn't for me. On the one hand it's a self fulfilling prophecy, but on the other hand, do you really want to put a lot of work into something when you're not sure it'll take off? That no one else in your fandom is going to care? If the owner/members don't care enough to work to get us to contribute, why should I (generalized I here) waste my time trying to do so. Especially when there's another one around the corner that *is* trying to get my attention. That is doing it's best to get a wide variety of members, and is going to be attached to something that by it's nature will be getting a lot of traffic and a wide variety of members.

The wiki's the one area they appear to be doing the exact same thing as someone else in fandom
I still don't think that's a reason for them not to do it. If only because as a bigger more well known group of people, with a wide variety of members, theirs is going to be bigger and offer things to more people than the one that already exists. And while *some* people are willing to take the time to go fill in a wiki, most just want to show up and have information there for them, so that respect the current wiki is failing.
The OTW is also probably going to be taking a slightly different approach to how they build and organize their wiki, so it won't actually be exactly the same.

I happen to think - and I'll be careful how I word this, because I've seen her get really criticized for sounding self-centered when she said this - I would've liked to see them contact her.
If the owners reason for not contacting the OTW is because she feels that they should have contacted her, then it's no wonder that people feel she's being self-centered. That's not really an excuse at all.
When it comes down to it, she's not a threat to the OTW; there are a hell of a lot more people devoted to ff.net than there are to the wiki.
Cont...

do you really want to put a lot of work into something when you're not sure it'll take off?

For some reason it makes more sense to me worded like that, lol. I always think of it as "I'm not doing any work until I see other people doing it", which just seems like a silly argument to me. "I don't want to waste my time until I'm sure this'll go somewhere" still isn't something that resonates with me, but I get it more.

The thing about any site is, there is going to be a wide variety of people using it. And they all come in with different expectations.

You, for example, seem to have no trouble working for what you want. There are however a ton of lurkers, who no matter how much they want something, won't put the time into getting it (sometimes out of laziness, sometimes out of something else, I know I had some really deep set fears of coming out of lurkerdom when I first joined fandom). And then there are people like me, who love fandom, but always tries to take on more than I have time for, so I don't want to spend what little fandom time I have working on something that either I'm never going to use again after my fervor for it dies down, or, especially, that not very many people are going to use after I work on it (I have too many labours of love going on to spend time on one that isn't going to be used).

The OTW probably feels that they can do their thing, and let her do hers. Most of fandom has never heard of her wiki, so they're not feeling any bad feelings. She's the one that's feeling threatened (and to be honest, the site has been open since 2005, and there's less than 8000 articles, I don't think the OTW is going to have any problems reaching that number in far less time), so as mean as it sounds, she needs the OTW more than they need her. If she feels her site is threatened by what the OTW is doing, she has two options, do what she thinks is best for fandom (whether it means joining or staying where she is); do whatever she thinks will put her hard work, and the work of other who have contributed to it’s best use. Or she can sit on the fence and talk about how they’re not treating her properly, not giving her efforts the respect the deserve.

But like I said, setting up the basics for a wiki is easy, the code is open source after all, the real effort is getting information put into the wiki, and the OTW already has enough support all over to make that part easy too. The don’t really need to the existing wiki to move forward, and I really can’t see them extending that courtesy to the wiki owner when they haven’t done so to any of the other groups that they are making an alternative for just because in this case, there’s only one other main alternative (there are a ton of fandom specific wiki’s out there already).

I think they would've benefitted from talking to archivists and other fannish people of influence from more varied backgrounds earlier.
Umm, Naomi is an archivist. She's the one who created the Automated Archive software that a lot of archives are based off of, and has been running archive for almost 14 years. Didn't I also hear that the creator of Skyhawke is volunteering with them? And reading the bios of the board, one of them also runs a huge Buffy archive. They seem to have a lot of experience to me....

I think where I have trouble talking about the Wiki issue is I'm friends with the FanHistory owner, so I have trouble removing my bias.

I don't, and won't claim to, know what her reasons were for wishing they'd contacted her.

From where I'm sitting it contributes to that idea of "we're gonna come in and do all these things right since obviously no one else can"...and to some extent time will tell on that.

I have a hard time seeing how a fandom wiki could be fundamentally different than another fandom wiki, but if OTW's IS noticeably different, that'll probably appease me.

If they just do the same thing over again? Good reason or not, I personally have an issue with them coming in and duplicating something I know a lot of time and effort has gone into without so much as a nod at the original. Which, I suppose, is all down to personal issues. That bothers me, there are lots of people who aren't bothered by it.

Umm, Naomi is an archivist. She's the one who created the Automated Archive software that a lot of archives are based off of, and has been running archive for almost 14 years. Didn't I also hear that the creator of Skyhawke is volunteering with them? And reading the bios of the board, one of them also runs a huge Buffy archive. They seem to have a lot of experience to me....

Oh! I didn't mean to imply there's no experience there - "more varied backgrounds" is the important part of that sentence. Their experience is almost exclusively media-based, LJ-centered and female. Not that there's anything wrong with any of those, but their collective knowledge is all gleaned from similar experiences, and I think they'd only benefit from reaching out to different corners of fandom.

If they just do the same thing over again? Good reason or not, I personally have an issue with them coming in and duplicating something I know a lot of time and effort has gone into without so much as a nod at the original.

Er, yeah, pretty much where I stand as well, as someone who's put a lot of time and work into the FanHistory wiki at this point and not inclined to repeat those efforts just for the sake of repeating myself elsewhere.

Er, yeah, pretty much where I stand as well, as someone who's put a lot of time and work into the FanHistory wiki at this point and not inclined to repeat those efforts just for the sake of repeating myself elsewhere.
I tend to look at the fan wiki as I would a newpaper (or new program, or a history book). It's all well and good to have a really great source available to you, but it's equally important to have more than one source. Because no matter how much people try, and no matter how many people work on that source, there's still going to be biases, and certain aspects are going to be misrepresented. I personally wouldn't want people to go in and copy what they've done elsewhere, I'd rather have a new source, that offers yet another opinion, so that when I go out to research something, I have more than one option, and can, instead of copying what someone else has said, take what others have said and form my own opinions.

Also, as I said to

hector_rashbaum neither writing down fanish history nor using a wiki format are original ideas. Putting the two together isn't even necissarily an original idea, since there's more than one fannish wiki out there (even if they are fandom specific). Saying that something shouldn't be done, simply because it's been done before isn't really an excuse, if it were, the current fandom wiki wouldn't exist.

I have a hard time seeing how a fandom wiki could be fundamentally different than another fandom wiki, but if OTW's IS noticeably different, that'll probably appease me.
It's going to be different if only because it's likely to be different people working on it. The OTW has come off as very academically oriented, and I think that it's likely going to show in their wiki as everyone puts their thinking caps on. They are also dealing with a whole boat load of fandoms at the moment, and so are more likely to get a wider response from them.

If they just do the same thing over again?
I actually have no problem what so ever of them doing something over again. Think of RL. How horrible would it be if there were only one history text that *everyone* used. Or only one newspaper or news channel to watch. There may be a single one that you choose to watch, but you always have the variety out there, and it keeps facts straight. Because some people will always put their bias into, or slant information a certain way, and without more than one resource for people to fact check against, they can never come to their own conclusions, and the truth just gets hidden. Fandom’s not exactly like that, but still, I think it applies to any history taking. I think it should be *required* that there be more than one source.

I personally have an issue with them coming in and duplicating something I know a lot of time and effort has gone into without so much as a nod at the original.
See, and here, I would say that the other wiki has absolutely *no* claim at *all* on being original. None.
They are not the first wiki out there. They are not the first to write out fan history, or make a resource available to a community to edit/add to that records fan history, and our quirks. I doubt they’re even the first to make a fandom wiki (because I know quite a few fandom specific wiki’s out there that can be quite extensive). They may not even have been the first to put the two together, even if they’re the only real one out there now.
Just because some takes two unoriginal ideas and puts them together (in ways that are suggested by both of the other ideas) does not give them a special standard over any that might fallow. It doesn’t give them special treatment of consideration. I’m sure at one point there was only on archive out there, only one fanzine, only one rec list, but just because there’s one, doesn’t mean there can’t, or worse, *shouldn’t* be another.
Think of how much it would stunt fandom if we were told, each fandom should only have one rec list, or if you want to rec fic, you have to acknowledge that you weren’t the first to do so?
I think of archives too. Within my fandom, SGA there are multiple fandom specific archives competing for attention. Most of them run off of the eFiction archive script. Should only one be allowed? Should all the other sites have to get their own scripts (even though eFiction is free and is available to *anyone*) to be polite, or else acknowledge that another site tried it first? That’s ridiculous.
The only difference here, is that there aren’t that many fandom wiki’s out there. But you know what? That’s probably going to change in a few years anyways. Like I said, I already know of a few other fandom wiki’s out there (even if they are fandom specific), the wiki format is free and easy to use, and a lot of fans out there are willing to put in the time.
Fanfiction.net wasn’t the first multifandom archive out there when it first came into being, it just, for whatever reason, was able to make itself more popular than the others. The same is going to happen I think to fandom wiki’s. It may be your friends that is able to make that jump ahead to being *the* fandom wiki, or it could be the OTWs, or it could be someone else who makes it. Only time will tell, but I don’t think the *second* to make a wiki should have to take any more heat than the third or fourth or five hundredth, just as I don’t think anyone really has a right to be upset when another is made. And I think fandom can only benefit from having more than one option available to them, if only to see how different people cover the same thing to get varying opinions.

I think they'd only benefit from reaching out to different corners of fandom.
Except, they *are* reaching out to different corners of fandom. Sure the main board is composted of a group of friends, but if you’re going to be starting something as big as this, you have to have people helping you whom you can *trust* (I know because I’ve tried to do smaller things with people I don’t know, and they always seem to fall apart because you find you can’t trust certain people to do what needs to be done). Naomi is reaching out to everyone now, and recruiting them to be volunteers. Anyone can be a member, and any member can run for a position on the board. And the board is being set up in such a way that there’s always enough trusted people who know their way to get things done incase someone who can’t pull their weight is elected. It’s just a necessity for the first board to be composed of people that don’t have time to be tested.

Also, I think that the OTW hasn’t really started it’s campaign to bring users over yet, since they haven’t anything to bring them over *to*. They’re probably going to be doing a lot more reaching out once they actually have things up and running, and that’s more when people from all corners get a chance to have an impact. When there’s actually something to impact.

Look at all the outcry there has been so far that certain people aren’t being represented properly, when the OTW hasn’t really put anything out to represent fandom. All they have so far is a rather sparse webpage with a few mission statements, what really matters is how inclusive their products are.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Question

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2

Re: OTW Part 2