thisweekmeta mod (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
thisweekmod) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
thisweekmeta2019-01-26 09:09 pm
thisweekmod) wrote in thisweekmeta2019-01-26 09:09 pm
Entry tags:
Special Edition: TWM Content Poll
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! ♥
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! ♥
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.
no subject
I mean, technically ANYTHING can be a controversial issue, if you're hateful enough. I think that was what gave some people so much trouble on Tumblr?