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

From Fan History Wiki

[edit] POV

This article takes a very LJ-centric POV and is not generally representative of "fandom" as a whole, nor indeed fans on the Internet as a whole. --Kathryn Cramer 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true because most of the outing incidents we know of have occured in and around livejournal. We have tried to be neutral and unbiased in recording what we know. If there are other incidents which have happened outside of lj, please feel free to document them. Also, please feel free to use our multiple perspectives {{MP}} feature to explain your own perspective on matters.

For the moment, I have placed a "neutrality disputed" box on the article. Any editorial discussion should take place here on the talk page, and the box will remain until a consensus decides if the article is balanced. --Tikatu 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia (which has a lot of fan involvement) has standards that are in broad outline similar to LJs, but in detail are quite different. (Exposing conflict of interest is, for example, a legitimate reason for "outing" a Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia, even though in general it is strongly discouraged.)

Political blogging, which also has a lot of fan involvement, has a need for transparency, and so a person concealing his or her identity is pretty much on their own. While the law may not compel their ISP to name names, neither are others (especially those in an adversarial relationship) obligated to conceal identities that are easily discerned.

And even LJ makes exceptions. Rachel Moss, for example.

In any case, the "rules" concerning "outing" are very complex and are context dependent. I suggest that this is best resolved by splitting articles by context and not trying to do "Outing in fandom" as one thing, because situations in individual contexts will be much clearer.--Kathryn Cramer 18:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Kathryn Cramer's comment, articles on Fan History tend to reflect the knowledge base of the contributors for that article. The primary contributors, with the possible exception of Will Shetterly, are all people with backgrounds in LiveJournal fandom. The vast majority of the article is also written by people affiliated with Fan History which means that we're likely to edit with our shared experience involved. (We're a little cohort who, with the exception of Tikatu, came out of media fandom with roots back in to the 1990s.) It would be great to see the article expanded in much greater depth to cover more swaths of fandom than the partial bit represented there. It is just a matter of getting people outside of the admin circle to do it. If you know anyone who can help, we would very much appreciate passing the word along and inviting them to come contribute. --Laura 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is just going to need to be a work in progress. There are lots of different niches with differing rules. Different situations involve differing risk factors. Then there are people's beliefs about their personal safety and how a pseudonym does or does not protect them, which may not actually correspond to the risk factors in their situations.

Also, one thing I've found is that almost no one is consistent in their behavior with a pseudonym. A lot of people change their minds over time about their level of desired privacy. Sticking your head under the bed does not get you into the closet. True anonymity through use of a pseudonym is nearly impossible over the long haul.

There are a much wider variety of reasons for connecting names with nicknames, many of which are not malicious. The simple desire to understand who is speaking is one of them. Understanding who is trying to hurt you or is stalking you is another. And there are more.

Anyway, I'll think more about this. --Kathryn Cramer 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the article as a work-in-progress -- in a way, all articles on the wiki continually are. And it is often the case with a large issue, or fandom, that as more information is added, a new page structure (or the need for sub-pages) becomes necessary to properly provide perspective and cover all relevant aspects.

The issue of inconsistency with pseudonyms is definitely a point which should be addressed, I agree (as someone who is "guilty" of using one myself, but who is not always stringent about it, and mostly uses mine as an easily recognizable or memorable "name".) Some people use their real names/pseudonyms almost interchangeably; others try to be strict in one forum but not another about it. There's a wide range of behavior to the use of pseudonyms as well as the reasons people use them.

The admins here definitely appreciate your thoughts and feedback on this issue.--Sidewinder 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have a crack at an entry on Pseudonymity and the Futurians (or on sf writers & fans of that era). I have half an essay somewhere around here drafted on that subject. A lot of sf professionals and fans and even literary agents changed their names in order to change their lives, Hollywood style. Most often, the pseudonyms concealed wither gender or ethnicity. If I recall correctly Theodore Sturgeon cause Judith Zissman to rename herself Judith Merril. (There are many other examples.) For the most part it was both a reinvention of personal identity, plus a strategy for economic viability that drove it. Other than a few special cases like Scott Meredith and Lester del Rey who had a past they were apparently distancing themselves from, there was no real issue of outing, because there was little secrecy attached to connections between persona names and birth names.

The transitional figure was James Tiptree, Jr. who combined SF pseudonymity with CIA cover names, to produce the truly secret sf identity. My off-the-top-of-my-head recollection is that Tiptree's outing was the first SF outing (pseudonym-wise) of consequence. It was not a grudge outing. Quite the contrary. The fan who accidentally revealed her to be Alice Sheldon was named executor of her literary estate in her will. Gwyneth Jones argues that the effect of this outing was to cause a decline in the perceived importance of feminist sf: as long as feminism in sf seemed to have one male writer involved, it had a status that it lost when the feminists seemed to all be women.

Because a large number of early usenet people were also science fiction people, SF has had a disproportionate impact on internet pseudonymity. --Kathryn Cramer 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided instead to publish my draft essay from several years ago: http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2009/06/unrecognizable-.html --Kathryn Cramer 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)