Talk:Organization for Transformative Works
From Fan History Wiki
If some one could edit this to make it a little more fair, I'd be much obliged. I suspect it has bias but I can't quite figure out how to make it less obvious. Added to that, it lacks some information regarding what went on in the period between June 23 and September 21's announcement regarding the name change. --Laura 15:28, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
- Probably one way it could be edited were if someone wanted to put in a section of arguments for OTW, as contrast to the criticisms against. It's something I could work on a bit when and as I find more public links to try to provide more citations across the discussion. Others of course welcome & encouraged to contribute as well.--Sidewinder 07:54, 19 December 2007 (CST)
- Maybe changed "Criticisms of" to "Reactions to"? Then positive responses could be added, too. - Jae 12:54, 19 December 2007 (CST)
- I'd like to suggest three categories of edit to make the article less biased. First, the history section is the truly problematic one, because it needs to be a plain recitation of key events. Revise to remove comments like "the archive is yet to be open", and stick with past events. Second, add an earlier section describing the organization's goals and philosophy-- give a more straightforward journalistic description of what the organization is. Third, balance the criticisms section with positive reactions, or take Jae's suggestion to cover more general reactions. I would need to do some research before I felt capable of making edits like that myself, but this is what occurs to me when I read it with an editorial hat on. --Antennapedia 19:21, 19 December 2007 (CST)
I changed the language in the "Introduction" and "Archivist" sections to reflect a more neutral point of view and directly quote from OTW's mission statement. I took out "As of" language in the list of events; if there is not a firm date, then it is acceptable (in NPOV writing) to assume that the information stated is current. There are citations on each of the statements if someone wants the date the information was put out to the public. --Lady Macbeth 18:50, 6 January 2008 (CST)
- I finished cleaning up the text for NPOV and cleaned up the citations. I didn't touch the pros/cons list because it's being actively worked on. Added a link to a news article in the Christian Science Monitor to the "Sources" section. Any lingering NPOV issues that were around should be taken care of now. --Lady Macbeth 19:58, 6 January 2008 (CST)
We could use people adding items and cites to the supportive statements section. I haven't done more than skim some of the many "Why I Joined OTW" posts on LJ and other sites; it's all I can do to keep up (somewhat...kind of...) with the critical discussions. --ScrewTheDaisies 14:40, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Contents |
[edit] Vid legal protections
Does anyone know of any official sources that support that position as being their policy? --Laura 14:23, 7 November 2007 (CST)
[edit] FanWorksFinder
One of their reps said they would get into contact with Heather from RockFic regarding FanWorksFinder. Is there an official explanation somewhere regarding this? Did they ever do that?
[edit] FanLib and lobbying
What is the deal with Fanarchive and FanLib? Fanarchive've said they are doing to lobbying in fandom. Are they planning on lobbying FanLib? Any official sources or unofficial sources from the organization regarding that? --Laura 14:23, 7 November 2007 (CST)
[edit] Launch date
I read one link that said the official launch date is six months off. Any confirm on that? Can some one edit the article to make it more clear in that regards? --Laura 14:23, 7 November 2007 (CST)
Looking at the one e-mail, has the site started beta testing the archive? From what they said, they should be. While I haven't looked much, nothing on their LiveJournal community about this. --Laura 11:59, 11 December 2007 (CST)
[edit] $10
The claim regarding the $10 was from here which says "Can I become a member of the OTW?
Absolutely! We welcome anyone who wants to support the organization. The minimum annual donation for membership is $10. We hope to open the doors for membership early in 2008, so stay tuned." --Laura 23:29, 17 December 2007 (CST)
- If that's where the claim came from, that should be what's cited in the wiki entry, no?
- For the sake of further clarification, the FLocked filtered post in question which discussed how the cost was prohibitive defined fandom as LiveJournal and Quizilla users. --Laura 23:45, 17 December 2007 (CST)
- OK, but a filtered post isn't a useful source, unless the only people you expect to read the wiki are a subset of your LJ friends.
- Still a criticism of the site. If it would appease the unsigned commenter, I can attribute it directly to me. I would also be willing to remove it if the Organization for Transformative Works could make an affirmative argument that fandom, as defined by Fan History as "A collective term used to describe all fans and their activities." using the definition found atstorynook, can afford to pay the $10 to join the organization which represents them.
- There are a number of factors that Fan History realizes make certain events not reliably citable. They include various fannish political situations that make speaking out difficult with out causing undue harm to a person's own standing in the fannish community. (This is why Fan History encourages all parties to edit, to provide multiple perspectives, sometimes first had, of events until they reach a state of cohesion where all parties are unhappy and happy at the same time.) Sources also frequently disappear as people delete blog entries, web pages disappear, domains expire, etc. Sometimes, research for history occurs using e-mail, instant messenger, phone conversations where the people involved ask not to be cited. These issues in telling fandom history are lessons that I'm sure the organization will learn when they start the process of telling fannish history themselves. --Laura 14:32, 18 December 2007 (CST)
[edit] "Outside of Fandom"
I think that Teresa Nielsen Hayden would be very surprised indeed to learn that she is "outside of fandom", as she has been involved with fandom for longer than a lot of current fans have been alive. I'm pretty sure Scalzi considers himself a fan as well, and probably also Doctorow. Not sure about the others, except that it's a label Goldberg almost certainly wouldn't accept. --lydiabell on LJ, who was also the unsigned commenter above; I don't have an account here
- I'm working on putting together a list that balances the criticisms with discussions in favor of OTW, and it might just be the best thing to split the "outside of fandom" list between the "criticisms of" and "in support of" lists. It will probably be the (long) weekend before I have that up, though. --ScrewTheDaisies 19:51, 27 December 2007 (CST)
- I've moved the links that were in the "outside of fandom" section into the "Discussions" section and set up a section for statements that are in support of OTW. There are definitely more cites to add to that section, and at least a few more bullet items, but it's on its way at least. --ScrewTheDaisies 13:47, 29 December 2007 (CST)
- That looks great. I just ran across a post that I thought would be good for a "Supportive Statements"-type section, so it was nice to come over here and see that it was ready. --Lydia
[edit] Length?
The "this article is getting too long for some browsers to handle editing it" warning came up when I made my last edit. Could we remove the board of director bios (providing instead just a link to the OTW website that has the bios)? And then for the sake of recording history, maybe we'd just include a list of the original members of the board here? Thoughts? --ScrewTheDaisies 14:49, 12 January 2008 (CST)
[edit] Changing some of the language?
I think some of the sub-header (and other) language on this page needs to be changed, because it make it sound too much like OTW is an archive with other projects, instead of an organization with an archive as part of the project.--Oicwud 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Possible solution: Blank most of the article. Remove chunks to stub pages about each of the projects involved: Journal, wiki, archive, lobbying group, fanzine library. Would be a good opportunity to remove bits that could be seen as biased. --Betsyb 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
