What is Fan History? • What are Fan History's goals? • What are Fan History's rules? Intern with Fan History!

From Fan History Wiki

I jumped into this a week or so after it began, so it's quite possible that the article is missing key parts. Maybe it should be organized by each specific issue that the fandom has? -Jae

I would mention that the archive is actually being accepted in some fandoms, like CSI where it is seen as a nice alternative to FanFiction.Net and where the illusion of protection has encouraged people to more proactively post their work there. Part of me is overly concerned that the article over represents LiveJournal fandom issues. The archive hasn't made a blip on Quizilla, nor MySpace, nor by FanWorks.Org users. When FanFiction.Net does policy changes, both of those places really complain like everyone else. --Partly_Bouncy 11:09, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

As a side point, as some of those articles talk about legal issues in fandom, and money in fandom, it might be worth going through some pages and discussing how various archives fund themselves and handled legal issues. And not just the Profittering article. Will try to add some of that in a few. --Partly_Bouncy 11:12, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Good points. I was basically relying on what the F_W wank report had to say, since that was where I first heard about it. I'll dig around some more later. Also, could you maybe change the name to FanLib (with a capital L)? Pretty please?  :) -Jae

Gave you sysop status so you can do that yourself as you've been a really reliable editor for a bit. (And unrelated: Yeah! FanHistory.Com got moved to a different server and the site is no longer running super slow.) Didn't know it made F_W. I'm just... concerned about bias in the article. Parts of fandom really loathe it, parts don't care. It is like the FanFiction.Net article in the regard. :/ Better to overload on the timeline, explain policy changes and then do a lot of links for more information and critiques about it. Or put that in a seperate category saying Controvery in fandom. --Partly_Bouncy 11:51, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Wow, thank you very much! Now all I need to do is learn some more wiki codes. I agree that the timeline's the best way to summarize this stuff - I'll stick to that. -Jae

Coding gets easier as you get used to it. :) It gets annoying though when I am on LiveJournal at the same time as I am doing lots of updates because I'll unthinkingly add brackets for words like fandom and then have to take them out. I moved some of the content around because that format might work better. I remember being on Wikipedia and being heavily involved in editing the FanFiction.Net article which had similar controversial issues and the tone was just so anti, anti, anti to the point where it obscured what actually was going on. I was also concerned because parts of fandom have no problem with the site. The CSI fandom is embracing it. The article seemed to present the idea that fandom as a whole rejected it. And yeah, wanted to remove that idea. YourTaxDollarsAtWork is a good messageboard for finding clear examples of support for the place, has some good quotes in support, etc. --Partly_Bouncy 08:12, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Hehe, I've been doing that, too! GOod to know that I'm not the only one! XD Hmm... Maybe the article should be You're absolutely right about the bias - that's completely my fault. All my fandoms revolve around LJ, and LJers have separated into Support of FanLib and Criticism of FanLib? overwhelmingly condemned FanLib. I didn't know that other fandoms had embraced the site. -Jae 6/08/07

Bias happens. (I've been guilty of doing that on occassion. And have been rightfully called on it.) Not a big deal. I think LiveJournal fandom is really complex. I think there are a couple of factions on LiveJournal: 1. Don't care either way, not going to use it, not going to discuss it; 2. Have not heard about it; 3. Using it and hoping it gets better, don't have a problem with the site (though might have problems with the interface) and like the quality of feedback they are getting on their stories there; 4. Not using it but open to using it in the future if things are improved, would be sonsidered neutral and may be talking about it; 5. Support the site because others don't like it but not necessarily posting their and won't speak about it; 6. Opposed to it for various reasons but not talking about it for various reasons because people have articulated their reasons better; and 7. Actively and vocally opposed to it. It is just hard to monitor who is there and why. The CSI fandom, or at least the parts I'm in, are in points 1 to 5. Parts of the Star Trek fandom I see are more in lines with points 5 to 7. Anime seems to be in points 1 to 6. It is just a matter of where you are and what you're seeing. And that's just LiveJournal. If you poke around MySpace and Quizilla, they are likely not to have seen the material period. My impression is, though I could be wrong, that both communities would be more open to the FanLib model than they would be to the proposed archive because the proposed archive sets itself up as being openly antagonistic to the creators. FanLib doesn't seem to operate that way. Very much a contrast in differences and if you define your experience as being an extension of your love of the creation, of the people involved, some people are going to see having a positive relationship with the creators as better. Hence, FanLib the better model. (Or that's my impression from interacting with MySpace, FanDomination.Net and Quizilla users who exist OUTSIDE LiveJournal space.) So yeah. The bias problem mostly an issue of equating vocal parts of LiveJournal as representing fandom. (And this wiki has some bias in that it focuses on fan fiction but doesn't necessarily readily include RPGs like those on GreatestJournal as part of that. But only so much time to add material on a personal level to add material.) --Partly_Bouncy 09:32, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

What just happened with the removal of parts of this article? Bah. Probably another bot. --Partly_Bouncy 15:24, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Contents 1 Overhaul 2 Quote 2.1 Overhaul 2.2 Link inclusion 2.3 CSI comment rolled back

[edit] Overhaul

Can someone overhaul this article? --Laura 20:19, 27 December 2007 (CST)

[edit] Quote

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p09s02-coop.html

"FanLib controversy: Major tension arose online this year between fan fiction writers who share their work online at LiveJournal.com and the owners of FanLib, a company that provides visibility for fiction based on media properties such as characters or narratives from television shows or films. FanLib's attempts to commoditize fan fiction were seen by many as distorting the communal and noncommercial nature of sharing stories. Fans responded by dissecting and criticizing content on the FanLib site and eventually forming their own site dedicated to archiving and protecting fan fiction, called the Organization for Transformative Works. The takeaway? Companies need to understand what motivates audiences before creating business models around them."

Is that worth integrating considering how well read the source is? --Laura 20:19, 27 December 2007 (CST)

[edit] Overhaul

Anyone want to poke around FanLib, update and cite policies and update the page to make it flow a bit better? Interesting to look at FanLib six months later. --Laura 21:00, 2 January 2008 (CST)

[edit] Link inclusion

http://forums.quizilla.com/showthread.php?t=53249 mentions FanLib. Is there some way to work in that reference into the article? --Laura 14:55, 9 January 2008 (CST)

[edit] CSI comment rolled back

I rolled back the comment about the timing of the CSI community because later events didn't seem to have any effect on the CSI community. It was mentioned in the meta community, several BNFs continued to be involved with the site for a bit, etc. Those who stopped using it did it more because they didn't get feedback to make it worth the time than for any ideological differences with the site. --Laura 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)