A little disappointed in Metafandom...

[gaudinight]

Of course when Hth’s rant about the entitlement of SGA’s McShep fans hit the airwaves, I wanted to see the original post which prompted the rant.  I thought it was interesting that Metafandom linked to Hth’s post when the rant was based on an unsourced original post.

Metafandom is great so I’m not being critical of it as a whole. But occasionally

Comments

[inalasahl]

First, thanks for illustrating metafandom FAQ question #11. It's appreciated.

Just to be clear, I'm speaking solely on behalf of myself from the perspective of my own opinions.

I don’t want Metafandom to shy away from controversy but I do want Metafandom to link to posts which have a chance to be a real public discussion. If the original post isn’t linked then it isn’t possible for there to be a genuine public discussion.
While hth_the_first's post was unusual in that she flat out said that her post was inspired by a specific someone else, it is not unusual for posts linked to in the comm to be responses to other posts without link backs. I would guess (without actually doing any toting up) that over half of the posts featured on metafandom begin with "I wanted to talk about that discussion going on in fandom right now about X" or "I saw this post the other day that made me so ..." and nary a link to be found. If, for some reason, metafandom chose to require that all posts that were inspired by or responses to something else include links that would severely limit

[gaudinight]

Metafandom has very few rules. I wasn't suggesting that there ought to be more or different rules. Or that the mods broke their own existing rules.

I'm saying that in my opinion that linking to this particular post was a mistake of judgment. In this case it mattered that there wasn't a link back.

Technically the rules in FAQ inoculate the mods from any critique. Because the only criteria for linking is the post is public and the mods find it interesting. That's it. So technically, yeah, it's fine.

But actually the mods could have chosen not to link to Hth's post. They could have decided that it's not interesting. Lots of things that get attention aren't interesting. So I'm critical of the mods' judgment in this case.

[zvi_likes_tv]

how is "gets attention" equal to "not interesting"? If it got lots of attention, then it seems to me that it was interesting to people (many or all of whom, of course, may not be you.)

What is your definition of interesting? As far as I can tell, the metafandom mods have defined interesting as "discussion we would guess a number of people in mediafandom would participate in, if they knew the post existed."

[gaudinight]

Hmmm. I couldn't find that definition in the FAQ. As far as I can tell the mods linked to this definition: rousing or holding the attention.

Interesting is a totally subjective notion. What holds my attention or your attention or their attention? All different.

For me it's NOT interesting to read a discussion which is based on people talking about something they haven't read but are voicing opinions based on what someone else has said about the thing they haven't read. That's not interesting to me. It's....well...boring and stupid. Which is why I'm complaining.

Clearly that is interesting to the mods and other fans. Which is fine. I'm not saying I'm oppressed. Just saying I don't find it interesting and I'm disappointed that mods found it interesting. I'm lamenting.

[zvi_likes_tv]

Your argument seems disjointed to me.

You are saying, because the post that provoked hth into arguing wasn't sourced, hth's post wasn't interesting to me. Fair enough.

You seem to be also saying, because the post that provoked hth into arguing wasn't sourced, metafandom shouldn't have found it interesting. And when other people respond, but well, there are over 200 comments, so clearly somebody found it interesting, and metafandom is for linking to things that people will find interesting, you respond, but "it wasn't interesting to me, and further, hth's argument was dumb."

And I don't understand what something being interesting to you personally has to do with what metafandom should link to.

[gaudinight]

Mostly metafandom is cool and links to interesting things--discussions which are substantive. In my opinion. I've been reading Metafandom for over a year and I have expectations of what I will find there based on what I have found prior

[zvi_likes_tv]

This time, I found a discussion to be pointless, boring and beneath the quality I have come to expect from Metafandom.

Er, I don't find that metafandom typically judges the quality of comment discussion, but whether or not the original post is interesting. And the original post, while written in a quite inflammatory style, struck me as pretty average in terms of the quality of argument. I've seen much better, but I've also seen much worse, linked on metafandom.

Usually Metafandom doesn't link to things that are based on posts that no one has read in the way that this one was. I think the context is important to make things interesting. While I agree that linking back to the post, discussion, or what have you to which one is responding is the preferred behavior, I think it is rather more common to refrain from doing so, particularly in a case where one is addressing a general pattern of behavior rather than a single post. (hth made it quite clear she wasn't so much concerned about any individual post, as a wider pattern.) And I'm

[gaudinight]

I'm not sure what your point is

[witchwillow]

This was different from the typical un-sourced reference because Hth went into detail about a post she didn't source and it was central to her argument.

So you're saying that because Hth listed an 'unknown example' as part of her proof of a pattern of behavior, her post was automatically invalid as something Metafandom should link to?

And that this is based on your inability to read her rant as concerning a pattern of behavior, a trend, an attitude that the fandom she was discussing (along with others) should be wary of?

I've read her post and the early responses to it seemed to be discussing the pattern. The post in question sparked Hth's thoughts on the pattern. It was a convenient example but her rant wasn't about it in specific. If it was, then a) she wouldn't have mentioned a pattern of behavior and b) she'd have stated 'in so and so's locked post' - or something to that affect

[inalasahl]

I'm saying that in my opinion that linking to this particular post was a mistake of judgment. In this case it mattered that there wasn't a link back.
This is the part where I'm a bit stuck. It sounds like you're saying that metafandom should not have linked to this post, because there was no link back. Which to me means that you think either a) metafandom should never link to posts that don't have links back to the origin of the discussion or b) some posts that do not link back should not be included, because they don't link back, but not all.

Now if you're going for option A, then you are stating that metafandom should add a new and different rule. And it's a rule that I don't find feasible. As I've already stated, quite a few of the things currently linked are posts without links back to their genesis. I'd hate to lose them.

If you're going for option B, that posts that don't have links back to their origins should not be linked sometimes then I don't get what that sometimes is. Sometimes when?

[gaudinight]

I'm for option B. Not A. Because I find most of what's on Metafandom to be very interesting. Lots of posts link back and those that don't are not depending on specific posts for context, so it's okay

from metafandom, perhaps ironically

[carmarthen]

You don't need a rule to give it a pass.

Okay, so you're not asking for a new rule: you're wanting the mods to share your judgement. Somehow That's not exactly easy to implement, nor is it really something you in particular have any more right to than any other metafandom reader.

I find a lot of discussions on metafandom boring or problematic myself--generally uninteresting, not my fandom, heard them a zillion times, occasionally misogynist, often loaded with white privilege. And I can scan a post, realize that, click the back button, and move on to the next link, which is usually more interesting.

The mods cannot conform their judgement to please every single metafandom reader. It's impossible. And they shouldn't even try, because then metafandom would be sanitized and homogeneous and less interesting.

You think the mods should have given this link a pass. Why is your opinion more important than theirs, or the readers who found hth's post interesting?

Re: from metafandom, perhaps ironically

[kita0610]

If I'm reading correctly, this poster isn't saying her opinion is, or ought to be, more important than the mods', or anyone elses'. She's saying that in this one specific instance, she disagreed with their choice. And she's saying it in her own LJ, in a very polite way. And yes, what's ironic is that metafandom is now linking to it, so this post will now too be debated. It's THE CIRCLE OF META. Sometimes fandom makes my head hurt.

the sweet smell of iront :)

[cathexys]

Well yes...but think what would have happened if we *hadn't* linked :)

OP says: I don't find it interesting and I'm disappointed that mods found it interesting. I'm lamenting. so, if Hth's lament wasn't worthy, maybe this one wasn't either? :) Luckily, we're not really making worthiness (or substantiveness) judgments...only what we saw that we found kinda interesting and think others might too.

Personally, as I've stated again and again, I feel no responsibility to the *readers*. Linking Hth's post, I may have compunctions about what linking did to *her*, about pointing bunches of readers contextless to her rant; I don't feel guilty that an MF reader might accidentally click on a post she finds not worthy (plus, what part of "hth_the_first: MY FUCKING FANDOM GIVES ME FUCKING FITS, part 34,849" did not scream to an accomplished LJ reader rant??? :)

Re: the sweet smell of iront :)

[gaudinight]

Yes. It's pretty clear you don't feel a sense of responsibility about this. Because as you said in comments to Hth's post:

I don't think you should delete, b/c I think this is a totally reasonable and not actually in any way, shape, or form offensive rant.
http://hth-the-first.livejournal.com/46403.html?thread=689219&format=light#t689219

I personally had a problem with the fact that she paraphrased another person's post, used it as Exhibit A to back up her claims and didn't reference it. But you thought it was "totally reasonable."

It's the unsourced reference I had a problem with, not the rant, nor the content of the rant other than that.

And it surprises me that you didn't have a problem with the unsourced reference. But you encouraged her and linked her!

Re: from metafandom, perhaps ironically

[zvi_likes_tv]

She's saying that in this one specific instance, she disagreed with their choice. I think that what is making us say, "but why should we agree with you?" is because this situation is not analogous to, say, writing an lj post about Veronica Mars, where, no matter what one says, Rob Thomas will be a misogynist slug next week. If a reader of metafandom makes a sufficiently convincing case for a change on metafandom, such a change might come to pass. It seems that gaudinight wants metafandom not to link to some category of posts which are unsourced, but hasn't made an argument as to why metafandom's editors should agree with her preferences. (And has also failed to clearly define what sorts of posts she's talking about.)

And the thing is, potentially she could change the metafandom editors' minds, if she would make an argument about why they should listen to her. Instead, she's just said why she didn't like hth's post, and "I thought that post was boring" isn't a reason for metafandom to work differently.