OTW Board Approves Meta Hosting on the AO3

Post Header

Published:

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:05:33 +0000

Tags:

After a long period of discussion, the OTW Board has voted to allow the posting of meta on the Archive of Our Own. We considered a range of issues while making this decision, including how this move would fit into the overall mission of the OTW, the technical and financial resources required, and demand from users of the Archive and members of the OTW. We determined that there is already a demand for meta on the Archive, and that this use of our resources is consonant with our purview and mission.

We're aware that this decision has taken some time, and we sincerely apologize for the delay. We had hoped to reach a decision sooner, but the complexity of the discussion meant we needed to think carefully about the issues. As the term of some OTW Board members ended while the discussion was ongoing, we also needed time for the new Board members to get up-to-speed with all the issues involved.

What will happen next?

Agreeing to include meta on the Archive is just the first step in this journey. The Board will now work with all related committees to define exactly how meta will be handled. Our committees, including AD&T (which will be doing the work on the technical side), Abuse, Support, and others, will be working with our Content Policy workgroup to design a workable policy.

One of the main tasks ahead of us is to agree on some definitions and policies. We need to agree on definitions that are usable and enforceable. While any category is inevitably fuzzy, we want to preserve the Archive as a site for fanworks (so for example, we don't want it to become a general blogging site). Once we've agreed on these definitions, our committees will have a whole range of tasks ahead of them, including:

Drafting revisions to our Terms of Service and FAQ. Revisions to the Archive TOS will be subject to a public review period (as detailed under Section IB of the TOS) before becoming final.
Determining technical plans for making meta more accessible. We are already planning changes to posting and browsing on the Archive to allow for multimedia hosting. We do not expect meta to require any additional coding to implement beyond what will be required for these changes, and allowing meta won't change the existing prioritization of these features, but we will need to factor it into our design.
Determining tagging policies to allow for multimedia and meta browsing.

What will be allowed?

Our Content Policy workgroup will be posting guidelines on what will fall under the 'meta' category and the policies which will apply to it in the next two weeks.

What does this mean for me?

Going forward, we hope that this will mean you can find and enjoy fannish meta more easily (and screen it out if you're not interested).

If you currently have meta posted on the Archive, or you plan to post some in the near future, you should be aware that our policies are still being finalized. As action on existing meta posts was suspended while Board deliberated on this issue, in the coming months some users may be contacted in connection to how their posts fit the new policies. We recommend that users wait until these policies are made public before putting a lot of effort into new meta posts. However, we hope that, long term, meta writers will feel their contributions to the archive are welcome and can join other fanworks in finding an audience at the AO3.

Thoughts?

If you have thoughts and feedback you'd like us to consider, we ask that you comment here on the AO3 version of this post, to make it easier for the various committees involved to answer you and collate your replies.

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Pages Navigation

Rhiannon87 Fri 15 Feb 2013 07:30PM UTC

As someone who's in the middle of a large meta-analysis project, I'm really excited to hear this! I'm looking forward to hearing more about the policies on sharing meta on the archive. This is great news!

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:15PM UTC
  
  We'll certainly be interested in seeing the results of that when you complete it!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
klia (Guest) Fri 15 Feb 2013 08:05PM UTC

I'm very disappointed that a decision has already been made with no input from the fannish community.
I contacted AO3 about this issue months ago, and was told that the board was discussing it, and that it would be expanded to include staffers around the new year, then, "Once we have a general consensus of what we technically and realistically can handle, we’ll open it up the the public for discussion, much as we did we when decided if we could host Original Works."
Not cool to make empty promises.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:23AM UTC
  
  Hello klia!
  We understand that the announcement that meta will be a welcomed part of the AO3 has disappointed some, particularly in terms of how the decision was made. However, there were various issues that the organization had to consider aside from simply how many users were interested in the matter, and whether these opinions favored inclusion or not.
  While there was no general post made announcing this internal process, the OTW was receiving feedback from users through various means. This included the cases of meta reported to our Abuse Committee, questions about it through our Support and Communications Committees, the occasional public comment, and the increasing visibility of non-fiction material appearing on the archive.
  It was clear that a decision had to be made, both in terms of whether or not the content fit our mission, as well as what the internal impact would be of either hosting or not hosting it. These were issues that could only be decided by an internal body, since it would require input from people with knowledge of the archive's resources,
  the current and likely future technical demands, and experience with how increased activity might impact relevant groups of volunteers.
  Going forward though, we can expect user input to direct us in determining how meta should be defined, what concerns users have with its continued existence on the AO3, and how we can serve groups that support its availability as well as those who don't want it to impact their use of the archive for other types of content. For example, any changes to our content policy has to undergo a public review period where feedback will be gathered for further modifications.
  We recognize that users may see this decision as one which will impact their use of the AO3, possibly increasing or decreasing it, and the same will likely occur as we become able to better support non-text formats. However, we see this development as part of the AO3's natural growth in its userbase, and its relevance to many as a source of fanwork preservation and access.
  We welcome user feedback, even when it disagrees with our decisions, as this is a sign of a committed userbase who cares about this project. We hope that going forward we can continue to serve people with differing needs and expectations of the AO3 just as other fandom sites have also done.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. anon (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:40AM UTC
    
    I find your answer genuinely disingenuous considering that a decision was reached similarly without input AGAINST meta and that decision was then tabled due to lack of transparency and community input.
    It is perfectly fine if the board decides that this is solely a board decision, but then I am curious why the decision that would disallow nonfiction writing entirely was not upheld, since it was majority vote of the board.
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. FairestCat Mon 18 Feb 2013 07:13PM UTC
      
      $Black and White Cat making with his paws held in the air like an excited emoji \o/$
      
      To answer this I need to get into some of the nitty-gritty of how the Board operates. You're right, the initial vote last term was a majority decision to disallow nonfiction writing, however that vote was then discarded by that same Board because of some procedural issues related to how it was called.
      With the Board strongly divided, several alternative proposals to the Board making the sole decision were discussed and ultimately tabled, as no clear decision that everyone was happy with had been reached before term-end.
      One of the current Board's primary areas of focus has been clarify exactly what is within our purview as a Board and what isn't. When the Board reconvened in 2013, the plan had been to finish carrying out the established plan but we quickly realized that — partly as a result of the Board’s dramatically changed composition and partly because of our new focus on clarifying purview — we no longer felt it to be the best course of action.
      The changing composition of the board meant revisiting the topic with different viewpoints represented amongst us, and some Board members who had previously voted against meta changed their positions with greater time to consider the issue. Since the previous vote had been vacated by the same Board that made it, it was necessary to vote once again on the issue. We held a fresh vote and the result was overwhelmingly in favor of meta.
      We are aware that the Board reclamation of the decision seemed very abrupt, and we acknowledge that more transparency would have been preferable. The Board’s overall workload and, the emotional burnout many of us have experienced as a result of the length and intensity of the meta discussion, were obstacles that prevented us from communicating effectively. We regret our shortcomings in this area and will strive to do better in the future.
      
      Comment Actions
arysteia Fri 15 Feb 2013 08:37PM UTC

Two cents' worth: I think it's really important that there be a compulsory identification for meta posts, more comparable to the warnings boxes, rather than a more standard "tag". I also think it should be one of the things that you can set to be permanently filtered out in the same way that in your preferences you can elect to always show whole works rather than chapters. I don't want to have to tick a box every time I run a search.
(On that note, I'd really love to see a similar permanent opt-in for 'show complete works only' as a default, but understand that that is a separate issue.)
I would also hope the definition of meta that gets decided upon hews closer to essays and formal reviews rather than fevered reaction posts and gif spams. If that were the case I'd occasionally look at the section, but if not I'd avoid like the plague. Those things do have their place, but I still believe it isn't here.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 11:12PM UTC
  
  Hello arysteia!
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers. But it will likely involve both actions by users and technical options. Unfortunately, a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts and tagging options, but chances are both will affect users' choices to post images to the AO3.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Ghoulmouse Sun 17 Feb 2013 01:26AM UTC
    
    What are you going to do about the large volume of non-fanfic posts that already exists?
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sun 17 Feb 2013 01:38AM UTC
      
      Hello JackofNone!
      That will depend on how the committees discussed in the post work out definitions of what counts as fannish meta.
      Claudia Rebaza
      Co-Chair, OTW Communications
      
      Comment Actions
marguerite_26 Fri 15 Feb 2013 08:53PM UTC

I'm disappointed in this decision. I appreciate the purpose that AO3 serves currently and spend possibly more time than is healthy on this site enjoying both fanfic and fanart. Trying to make this archive a platform for meta when so many other platforms already provide that service seems like you are attempting to be something you are not. I urge you to reconsider.
Assuming you are going forward with this, I can only hope that the ability to filter out meta (assuming people manage to tag their posts appropriately) will be painless, if not permanent. Maybe something as easy as it is now to filter to 'only completed works'. But again, that makes the assumption that people will tag their meta posts properly. And that is something that I have little confidence in.
Another solution that may work would be to keep fanfic/fanart completely separate from meta, for example different upload function so that the two are never confused, the entries never mixed in search results.
AO3 has become the extremely popular, particularly in the last year. Those of us who rely on your current format and functionality to easily find the works we are looking for will be very disappointed to see something like this make our searches, feeds and subscriptions cluttered with meta posts.

Last Edited Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:01PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. salty_catfish Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:08PM UTC
  
  Well, media filtering that does not rely on all the different people tagging their works consistently and submission formats for works other than fic (and also their being hosted on the servers) are things that I am desperately waiting for anyway but it's just not a priority in development. Allowing meta doesn't introduce problems that don't already exist.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Elf_Herself Tue 19 Feb 2013 03:19PM UTC
    
    It does, because even if a work is tagged appropriately, there's no simple way to *exclude* an additional tag. The advanced search function doesn't come with the filtering options that other searches do; there's no way to remove "meta" and still sort fics by word count and complete only.
    And there's a policy difference between mandatory tags (warnings & ratings) and additional tags... right now, there is no requirement to include additional tags of any kind; the abuse committee won't add "oral sex" or "homophobia" to a fanwork just because some people want to find, and others want to avoid, those topics. The "meta" tag needs to be of a different type than tags like "kink meme fill" or "pegging."
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. salty_catfish Tue 19 Feb 2013 03:39PM UTC
      
      I'm sorry, but you simply didn't understand my comment. I'm well aware of what you said.
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. Elf_Herself Tue 19 Feb 2013 04:07PM UTC
        
        Sorry about that. I do think meta brings in problems that other fanworks haven't, if only because there's no consensus on a definition so the tags are going to be all over the place until there's a policy, at which point there'll be problems with "do we retag or warn the authors for the pieces that no longer fit the policy?" These problems could exist with fanart, but since there's no direct hosting, it hasn't come up, or hasn't been noticeable.
        I agree that meta hosting brings in no technical issues that didn't already exist; we've needed a "fanwork type" feature for a long time.
        I'm strongly in favor of AO3 hosting meta and I'm not looking forward to the wankstorms as the committees sort out policies and tech to do so well.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
3. kelcat Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:42PM UTC
  
  On the other side of that argument, people who are looking forward to meta being introduced to the site would be very disappointed to see meta become difficult to access via searches, feeds and subscriptions. There are always going to be people displeased with various decisions that are made, but for this particular issue I have confidence that AO3 and OTW will do their best to satisfy both people who want to read meta and people who don't.
  As far as having no confidence that meta will be tagged appropriately--that can be said about any tag available on the archive.
  
  Last Edited Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:42PM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
4. 1. C (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 02:15PM UTC
    
    Creating a permanent opt-out option and compulsory tag for meta (for which a radio button option of Fic/Meta/Podfic/Vid/etc./Other, like the Work Rating buttons, would ensure that at least most works are tagged) does not make it difficult to find for those who want to read it. Having it categorized separately would only make it easier for those who wish to read meta on a fanwork archive to track down meta instead of fic and multimedia links.
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. FayJay Tue 26 Feb 2013 02:06PM UTC
      
      This seems eminently sensible. Identifying whether the record in question is podfic, fic, art, meta or whatever in a mandatory selection box would streamline things a lot, now that we've moved beyond simply hosting stories.
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. further Tue 26 Mar 2013 03:24PM UTC
        
        I agree.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
5. admin-claudia (Guest) Sun 17 Feb 2013 01:23AM UTC
  
  Hello marguerite_26!
  The question of how much meta's inclusion would impact the archive as a whole has definitely been an issue of concern for those working on the AO3. The only thing that we can currently be certain of is that the addition of further text works is unlikely to have as big an impact on the archive as it would if we were prepared to host multimedia at this time. And there are definitely plans for doing that in the future, so the archive will continue to evolve in terms of its hosting. While we will undoubtedly see more meta hosted on the AO3 as a result of this decision though, there's no way to know how much more there will be or how quickly it will grow.
  But just as art, podfic and video can already be found on the AO3, so is meta. The difference, of course, is that the AO3's current infrastructure already supports the direct hosting of meta in text form, so meta's continuation on the archive has been more of a policy issue than a technical one. Even so, the ability to filter content in or out of searches is going to become an even more important aspect of searching on the AO3 and one which the meta decision will be helping us develop. The committees who will have to put this into place are already beginning to discuss what will be needed, though a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts.
  Thank you for your feedback and we hope that the AO3 will continue to be a place you enjoy spending time at.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
6. Elf_Herself Tue 19 Feb 2013 03:13PM UTC
  
  I haven't found other platforms that provide meta archives. I haven't found *any* other than the LJ comm hp_essays and a couple of other similar single-fandom forum/communities. When I wrote 6000 words of multifandom meta for kink_bingo, I discovered that there was no community on DW that was open to it; I wound up asking someone to start a new comm because I didn't want to post explicit content publicly in my journal. I would *love* to read meta on multiple topics from multiple authors--there is no archive for such works.
  Thousands of meta essays were lost with the Geocities takedown. Thousands have been lost to abandoned sites, disappearing when the host no longer cares about that fandom niche and stops paying for the domain hosting. Thousands are scattered in forums and individual blogs, where the authors would love to have a permanent, central place to archive it.
  So I can see a solid reason for AO3 hosting meta. However, I can also very much see a need to keep it *separate* from fic. My (IMHO awesome) 6k-word kink_bingo essay touches on about twenty fandoms; it'd be ridiculous for it to show up in searches for those fandoms. (I haven't posted it to AO3 because of exactly that reason; the current tagging system doesn't support meta.) AO3 desperately needs a "fanwork type" checklist of buttons... this is art, this is fic, this a vid, this is meta, this is filk, this is a gaming supplement, etc. People need to be able to avoid the ones they're not looking for. "Additional tags" is not enough... fics are tagged "art" if the characters plan an art heist; they're tagged "meta" if they break the fourth wall.
  
  Comment Actions
Leela Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:07PM UTC

I hope you're going to require submitters to identify the meta appropriately so those of us who aren't interested and don't want to read it can filter it out.
Otherwise, the inclusion of meta will make the archive even more difficult to use and the search results even less useful.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 11:13PM UTC
  
  Hello Leela!
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers. But it will likely involve both actions by users and technical options. Unfortunately, a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts and tagging options.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
kisahawklin Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:27PM UTC

Well, I'll step up and say I'm glad for it. I appreciate the inclusiveness. I look forward to the multi-media changes and hope meta fits within that framework to everyone's satisfaction (including those who never want to see it).

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:26PM UTC
  
  Hello kisahawklin!
  Glad to hear you're pleased with this step.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
Griddlebone Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:47PM UTC

My thoughts: I don't know how feasible this would be, but I'd love to be able to selectively (and accurately) filter for a work's media type, since I mostly visit this site to read fanfics and have little interest in things like meta, videos, or podfic. Having the option to view works of all media types on the same page may have its uses and may work well for some people or situations, but it would also be nice to be able to filter it down to just the type of work that you're looking for without having to rely on posters to use tags properly (or at all).

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:25PM UTC
  
  Hello Griddlebone!
  Yes the ability to filter content in or out of searches is going to become an even more important aspect of searching on the AO3. The committees who will have to put this into place are already beginning to discuss what will be needed, though a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
Podcath Fri 15 Feb 2013 09:50PM UTC

Yet another voice of a happy user of the archive who is both unhappy that there was no input beyond the board and that this adds even more to the problem of filtering in/out different media. Beyond the near impossibility of separating out meta from other forms of nonfiction conversation and the fact that there are plenty of services that allow meta postings insofar as meta has always been covered under fair use in ways that fiction and other creative fanworks have not, we are already struggling with an archive that was primarily built for fiction and users are desperately trying to create workarounds for other fanworks. (In my medium, for example, I'd love a mandatory length requirement in minutes rather than the word count of the announcement of a podfic which is absolutely useless to determine anything.) Hopefully, maybe what y'all weren't able to do for fanart and fanvids, and podfic, you'll do now for meta, but I'd really prefer the issue be fixed before adding yet more material (which possibly could lead to enormous quantities of posts--behold tumblr!). AO3 is by far the best archive around, even before the fact that it's owned, written, and run by *us*, and I know we can't decide every decision democratically, but this seemed like a decision with potentially huge changes for the community and no real input from us.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. klia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 06:09AM UTC
  
  "Beyond the near impossibility of separating out meta from other forms of nonfiction conversation and the fact that there are plenty of services that allow meta postings insofar as meta has always been covered under fair use in ways that fiction and other creative fanworks have not, we are already struggling with an archive that was primarily built for fiction and users are desperately trying to create workarounds for other fanworks"
  Yes, this. Thank you.
  
  Comment Actions
2. admin-claudia (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:36AM UTC
  
  Hello Podcath!
  We understand that the announcement that meta will be a welcomed part of the AO3 has disappointed some, particularly in terms of how the decision was made. While there was no general post made announcing this internal process, the OTW was receiving feedback from users through various means. This included the cases of meta reported to our Abuse Committee, questions about it through our Support and Communications Committees, the occasional public comment, and the increasing visibility of non-fiction material appearing on the archive.
  Going forward though, we can expect user input to direct us in determining how meta should be defined, what concerns users have with its continued existence on the AO3, and how we can serve groups that support its availability, as well as those who don't want it to impact their use of the archive for other types of content. For example, any changes to our content policy have to undergo a public review period where feedback will be gathered for further modifications.
  We recognize that different mediums, such as podfic, will need different forms of information provided (such as your suggestion of running time) but there are some differences between the appearance of multimedia works here, which still need to be hosted elsewhere, and meta, which can be stored directly on the AO3. At the present time there are undoubtedly many vidders, podficcers and visual artists who prefer not to host links to their content here yet because of our current limitations. In the past week there were a series of posts made about the work of our Systems team, and the concluding post mentioned both our continued intention to make multimedia hosting happen in the future, but also the serious problems we will have to overcome before that day comes. In short, hosting meta is not likely to delay the implementation of multimedia hosting, and might even make some of the work that will be needed for it come sooner. All we can be sure of is that it is going to be a learning process for all involved.
  We welcome user feedback, even when it disagrees with our decisions, as this is a sign of a committed userbase who cares about this project. We hope that going forward we can continue to serve people with differing needs and expectations of the AO3 just as other fandom sites have also done.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
3. 1. Podcath Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:59AM UTC
    
    But listening to those that complain isn't really community-based; it just means that those who complain got a voice and the rest of us who were hoping for a chance for input when it was brought to the table didn't. It also does not show the transparency that we were promised last fall!
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. Cat M M (FairestCat) Mon 18 Feb 2013 05:24AM UTC
      
      This was a very complicated and time-consuming decision to reach, and some of the lack of transparency comes from the fact that there was 50% Board turnover while this conversation was ongoing.
      Ultimately, when the new Board convened for this term, we looked at the conversation that had been happening within and outside the Organization for the previous six months (according to the Board minutes the question of meta was first officially discussed by the Board on July 7th) and came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of both our users and our staff that a basic decision be made as soon as possible. We had many users who had been waiting all that time to find out if their meta could stay on the Archive, and several committees, particularly Abuse and Support, who needed an answer in order to perform their duties properly.
      So, we narrowed the question of meta down as far as we could and looked at the one part of it that is ultimately a decision that the Board has to make: Does hosting meta fall under the purview of the OTW as described in our Mission Statement. And the answer we came to was yes.
      Determining how meta should be supported is a matter for committees and users. How multimedia hosting ultimately works on the Archive is also a question for our committees and our users. But determining whether supporting meta on the Archive is consonant with OTW’s mission falls squarely within the Board’s purview.
      We’re aware that our decision seems very abrupt, and we agree that more transparency would have been preferable. Your criticism on that point is entirely justified. The Board’s overall workload and the emotional burnout many of us were feeling regarding this topic were obstacles that prevented us from communicating effectively. We regret our shortcomings in this area and will strive to do better in the future.
      Cat Meier
      OTW Board Member
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. Podcath Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:07PM UTC
        
        Thanks, Cat!
        That's the answer I really wanted to hear from the board, and I wish it had been included in the announcement. I'll still be worried about the ability to require media categories, but that's another issue entirely, and one that we'll hopefully get to eventually. But the fact that this was decided by the board and that y'all own up to making that decision was the point of contention for me. I agree that this is in your purview and I feel that it might have been better to just say that rather than mask it as a shared decision where the only stakeholders heard were those complaining loud enough one way or another. You eight (we're at eight now, right?) decided, and you were indeed elected (or appointed) and to me that's OK. We can't have every decision made by committee or by stakeholder referendum. Just please say that and acknowledge and own it. I really appreciate your candor!
        FWIW, I disagree ideologically with the decision, and am just realizing why as i'm trying to wade my way through this discussion and the fact that anything I might repost to AO3 would miss the vital conversations in comments that for me are the center of why any of my posts might be important. But that's my personal preference, and I totally understand and respect why others feel strongly about maximum inclusion.
        Anyway, ideological disagreements are for a conversation better held in journal space. Thank you for commenting and explaining the rationale for how and why this decision was reached and publicized now.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
cypheroftyr Fri 15 Feb 2013 10:00PM UTC

This is great news! As someone with a lot of meta idea running amok in my head this pleases me. Thank you for this decision.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:23PM UTC
  
  Hello cypheroftyr!
  Glad to hear it made someone's day!
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
StormDragon Fri 15 Feb 2013 10:40PM UTC

I am alright with this but would suggest that AO3 fix the filtering, I believe that will quell most users. And perhaps adding a new Category too?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:23PM UTC
  
  Hello StormDragon!
  Yes the ability to filter content in or out of searches is going to become an even more important aspect of searching on the AO3. The committees who will have to put this into place are already beginning to discuss what will be needed, though a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
Arduinna Fri 15 Feb 2013 11:14PM UTC

I'm cautiously optimistic and happy about this decision. Meta is a big part of my fannish output/contributions, and despite what others are saying, I don't think it's all that easy to find, since there are really no central archives for it anywhere. It's all up on individual people's websites and blogs, and if you don't know about it, you don't know to look for it.
I think it's going to be tough coming up with the guidelines for what does and doesn't belong on the archive, but I'm hopeful anyway.
10-15 years ago, it would be easier to sort out the things that I personally would consider archive-appropriate meta: "is this something you would post to your website or submit to something like the Fanfic Symposium as an essay? If yes, it belongs on the archive. Is this something you would post to a mailing list or forum as part of a general discussion? If yes, it probably doesn't belong on the archive, but instead should be taken to that list or forum."
It's a lot harder in these days of journals and tumblr, where everyone bundles all their stuff together and most people don't have that sort of dividing line in their head between personal ramblings and public essays, especially since the term "meta" has come to mean "anything that isn't a creative work" for many fans.
But if a balance can be struck, I'd love to see it happen. I do consider meta essays to be fanworks, and I'm happy they'll have a place on the archive. A filterable meta category would be grand.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. briar_pipe Sat 16 Feb 2013 02:40AM UTC
  
  +1 to this comment in so many ways. Language drift, yes. A large part of the current debate is about pinning down semantics, and with fandom, that's hard.
  
  Comment Actions
2. Arduinna Sat 16 Feb 2013 06:27AM UTC
  
  Thinking about this more, I'm wondering if maybe one thing that might be worth doing is changing the name, for a couple of reasons.
  The specific change I'm thinking might work is to use "Nonfiction" instead of "Meta".
  First, this may just be me, but "nonfiction" brings with it connotations of things like the nonfiction section of a bookstore or library for written works, where various subjects are explored; DVDs like documentaries; audio like interviews.
  It has the feel more of essays, studies, in-depth exploration, rather than just an off-the-cuff "yay, my show is awesome!" post. (Again, this may very well just be me!) And that might make people stop and decide if they really want to post something to the archive as "nonfiction", rather than to their journal because mostly it's just an off-the-cuff squee or rant post.
  The second reason beyond my own associations with "nonfiction" is that "meta" as it's being used here is a pretty LJ-fandom-specific way of using it (although it's probably shifting to tumblr as well). For fans who come to the AO3 from spaces that weren't particularly LJ-influenced, "meta" to mean "anything other than a creative work" isn't going to be intuitively obvious.
  "Nonfiction", on the other hand, might be more obvious.
  Especially if the posting form -- ooh. Suddenly I'm thinking something like this:
  Click Post New Work, have a drop-down choice of: Written, Audio, Video, Physical, Multi-media, Other [whatever]
  Click one of those and be taken to an appropriate posting form, where the first radio button option is:
  * Fiction
  * Nonfiction [popup help explaining what kinds of nonfic are allowed]
  Fiction chosen by default, but selecting Nonfiction deselects fiction -- something can be one or the other, not both.
  And then just the regular posting form to fill out, so that everything is posted within its correct category, whatever category that may be.
  If it's a fiction/nonfiction radio button, there should be a way to put a choice in the filters for "fiction only" and "nonfiction only", so people can narrow down to just what they want, no?
  I know you don't want to clutter that up too much, but the more I think about this, the more I think that a super-top-level differentiation between fiction and nonfiction, with media categories below that, would be the way to go. Because really, meta/nonfiction can and does happen in any category.
  
  Comment Actions
3. 1. cupidsbow Sat 16 Feb 2013 06:56AM UTC
    
    Some great points here. I will point out an additional wrinkle: unless you can apply both the fiction and the nonfiction tag to the same work, you would make ficto-criticism or metafiction almost impossible to tag correctly.
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. Arduinna Sat 16 Feb 2013 07:11AM UTC
      
      I was thinking about that a bit as I wrote up my comment, but I think the distinction between fiction and nonfiction still holds. That's where the meta tag - as a regular tag - would be useful; lots of fiction (and art, and vids...) is meta commentary without being nonfiction. They're experienced differently than an essay or documentary.
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. cupidsbow Sat 16 Feb 2013 08:42AM UTC
        
        I agree it holds for about 99% of works, but the type of works I'm talking about genuinely contain both meta and fiction.
        ETA: I mean 99% of works with meta in, not all fanworks. :)
        
        Last Edited Sat 16 Feb 2013 08:45AM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      2. Podcath Sat 16 Feb 2013 04:02PM UTC
        
        That's a great point, though I'm thinking it's even more crucial to works that have more than one medium (story with images, pod_together where story and podfic are published together, etc.) But we do that already with crossovers, right? A work can show up in two fandom categories at the same time. So I think it should be easy to allow something to be labelled as art and fiction or even fiction and non-fiction at the same time. (Though I'm still not sure what works would fall under that, because metafiction to me would be the place I'd assume I'd find fictional works with genuine meta--I'd assume they'd be tagged fiction as category and then meta as tag.)
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        cupidsbow Sat 16 Feb 2013 05:02PM UTC
        
        Yes, all good points, especially with the rise in pictorial artforms thanks to Tumblr.
        I agree that most of the examples I've seen are metafiction, but there have been just a couple of ficto-criticisms in fandom, and there are more outside it, so I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more common at some point. Ficto-criticism is kind of the flip side of metafiction. Where metafiction uses fiction to overtly illustrate/discuss meta issues, ficto-criticism usually combines sections of non-fiction with sections of fiction in order to talk about an issue. I have also read some examples in which scholarly theory is articulated directly through a quasi fictional narrative -- not really fiction, but not a formal scholarly paper either. A really well known example is Plato's Republic.
        It's a really cool genre, and I wish there were more of it.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        Arduinna Sat 16 Feb 2013 06:28PM UTC
        
        If you walked into a bookstore to buy Plato's Republic, would you look in the fiction section, or the nonfiction section?
        That's pretty much what it boils down to for me. It's nonfiction that uses elements of fiction to make its point. There's nothing stopping anyone from tagging it ficto-criticism or fiction or "fictional elements" or whatever else would be useful.
        But if someone's saying to themselves "I really want to read a good Steve/Tony story" and they click on the most recent result under Fiction, Avengers, Steve/Tony and instead of a story they get ficto-criticism about whatever issue someone has with Steve/Tony fic, they're probably going to be a little pissed off.
        OTOH, if someone is thinking, "I really want to read some good analysis of Steve/Tony", they're probably going to filter for nonfic, and will happily click on the first result, and probably pleased as punch to find ficto-criticism of that person's issue with Steve/Tony.
        People who don't filter out to just one or the other will see it regardless, but for people who specifically don't want to see meta, it would probably be maddening to have people start categorizing their critical essays under Fiction just because they have fictional elements, or are presented in a narrative style.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        cupidsbow Sat 16 Feb 2013 07:57PM UTC
        
        Look, it's rare enough that it probably doesn't matter in a meaningful way. But I do think you're missing the point that I'm talking about a genuine hybrid genre -- if it wasn't I wouldn't have bothered bringing the example up in this context.
        I'd look for Republic in the Classics section, then wander around to whichever of fiction/non-fiction was closest and check it first. The few examples I've read in fandom were the equivalent of Steve/Tony, and were also meta just as legitimately.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        TinnyThoughts (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 01:27PM UTC
        
        Sorry for butting in, but using fiction to critically analyze a thing, does not make something not be fiction. Fiction, specially fanfiction can very well be metatextual in nature and be seeking also to comment on certain things. But no, it does not make it non-fiction under any definition in the world. And specially when talking about "meta" which is a fandom term and construction, meta literally means that the writing in question not be written in form of a narrative fiction. If it's written in the form of narrative fiction, no matter how many deep and important thoughts it explores, it's still fanfic, not meta.
        I would be very interested in hearing your examples of both fiction and non-fiction. Because while I understand you, I really don't agree with you at all.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
  3. Pslasher Sat 16 Feb 2013 03:59PM UTC
    
    I also really like this as a menu set-up
    
    Comment Actions
  4. Elf_Herself Tue 19 Feb 2013 03:42PM UTC
    
    These are some good points, but they leave out other kinds of nonfiction works. I'm a tabletop RPG gamer; we have a habit of making worldbooks for our favorite fandoms and other topics. GURPS Gulliver and the Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge are both unauthorized, unofficial worldbooks. They're nonfiction, in the sense that they're certainly not stories, but I wouldn't expect people to want to find them in searches for meta, and people who are looking for that kind of thing won't want a barrage of essays about specific fandoms.
    There are specific-fandom gaming supplements like the Complete Guide To Metallica For Fantasy Roleplaying Games and GURPS Harry Potter. I'd love to see AO3 eventually host things like these; I don't want them mixed up with meta.
    
    Comment Actions
4. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 11:24PM UTC
  
  Hello Arduinna!
  Our Content Policy workgroup is definitely going to be busy in the coming month! As you note, there are a variety of issues that will have to be examined in how meta is defined since this can vary a great deal. The discussion going on in response to your comment is helpful to consider.
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers. But it will likely involve both actions by users and technical options.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
onlyforreading Sat 16 Feb 2013 01:16AM UTC

Compulsory. Tagging. If you upload meta and it is not tagged as such (and thus can't be filtered out) then it can be reported and yanked down.
Or better yet, separate category for meta. And fanart, And podfic.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:57PM UTC
  
  Hello onlyforreading!
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers. But it will likely involve both actions by users and technical options. Unfortunately, a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts and tagging options.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
reader (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 02:29AM UTC

I don't read or write meta, but I'm happy for those who do and want to see meta represented on the archive. I just hope that this decision makes fanwork type filter fields a priority now. Not just to filter in/out meta - I've been looking forward to a way to filter out podfic, fanart, fanvids etc so if this is the push AO3 needs to get some categorization in progress (and maybe tweak the upload form so it's more relevant to different fanwork types as needed) then I think this can only be a good thing.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:20PM UTC
  
  Hello reader!
  You're right about how the meta decision will impact this aspect of searching on the AO3. The committees who will have to put this into place are already beginning to discuss what will be needed, though a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
cupidsbow Sat 16 Feb 2013 06:51AM UTC

Really pleased about this result. OTW was always, from the beginning, meant to offer support and resources for all transformative fanworks, doing its best not to pander to particular factions/fandoms or types of fanwork.
Meta is a really important part of the fannish discussion and transformation of canon, and deserves its place alongside the fictional and artistic works which are speaking about the same issues.
While a working definition, updating the TOS, tagging and searching, and server loads are important issues, difficulties in resolving them are not good reasons to exclude this (or any) important genre of transformative fanwork from the AO3.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:28PM UTC
  
  Hello cupidsbow!
  Glad to hear you're pleased with this step.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
Andraste Sat 16 Feb 2013 07:21AM UTC

I'm really pleased to hear about the Archive hosting meta, and once there's a content policy I am going to post ALL THE THINGS. (Well, some of the things. I have a few old essays that I think are at least as worthy of preservation as my early fanfic.)
However, I would really like to see new top-level categories. Sorting the podfic, vids and art from the fanfic can be challenging enough without throwing a pile of meta on the top.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:31PM UTC
  
  Hello Andraste!
  Glad to hear you're pleased with this step. Having non-fiction posts is something that will affect searching on the AO3, and our next challenge will be finding ways to address those problems. The committees who will have to put this into place are already beginning to discuss what will be needed, though a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
navaan Sat 16 Feb 2013 07:27AM UTC

I love meta and meta discussions, but it would have never occured to me to see it as fanwork in the same sense as fanfic, fanart, podfic, vids and so on - and I never had spaces where meta was seen as something problematic, while other fanworks have been banned and contested in many spaces. I'm not sure meta really needs this space, as it would usually be part of discussion and other spaces seem better suited for this than an Archive and I'd probably feel more comfortable joining discussion on a journal space than I would here where it seems less like a conversation and more like a "fanwork", but I'm not against giving people the option to host here.
I'm happy the OTW is holding themselves to maximum inclusiveness, but I do think there will be even more drawbacks for the usabilty for the Archive if you allow meta before you solved the media browsing issue. Like many people I browse either for fic or when the mood strikes me for a specific other medium like fanart or vids. I rarely want to randomly see everything that was created across every medium.
Tags are nice and there are some great ways to filter and search via tags, but the system is far from perfect. With the maximum inclusiveness a way to make it clear what media a work is going to be (apart from e.g. writing podfic into the title) and give users an easy way to filter them out or only filter for one media type should really have been implimented from the start. (Why can't it work like the language function for example?) I'd really ask you to wait with allowing meta until this problem is solved in a way that allows people to actually find what they are looking for. (And finding this here can be hard enough as it is already with the way tags and filtering work.)
I'm looking forward to see the definitons for allowed meta you come up with.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 11:07PM UTC
  
  Hello navaan!
  As you point out, the decision to host meta was not primarily based on its risk for takedowns, although when it comes to long-term preservation from either the loss of a large hosting platform (like Geocities) or a smaller single-fandom archive, it is under the same risk as other fanworks. However, one issue of concern was the question of how much its inclusion would impact the archive as a whole. The only thing that we can currently be certain of is that the addition of further text works is unlikely to have as big an impact on the archive as it would if we were prepared to host multimedia works, which is still a part of our future plans. Also, while we will undoubtedly see more meta hosted on the AO3 as a result of this decision, there's no way to know how much more there will be. So it will be interesting to see if a "culture" of comment and discussion develops around meta here the way it has on other sites.
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. But just as art, podfic and video can currently be found on the AO3, so can meta. The difference, of course, is that the AO3's current infrastructure already supports the direct hosting of meta in text form, so its continuation on the archive has been more a question of policy than ability. This does not mean that there won't be technical issues involved, particularly when it comes to users' desire to filter their search results to find or exclude it.
  What we do know however, from current activity on the AO3, is that the uncertain status of meta on the AO3 made it more difficult for the affected committees to proceed with deciding how or if it should be addressed. While the board's decision will please some users and make others unhappy, it will at least provide a path for our various committees to begin dealing with those concerns in a broad, consistent way.
  We realize there will likely be frustration in the short term as options that users would like to have may not come into being as quickly as we would all like. But this decision is a first step so that OTW volunteers and staff and users alike can start thinking of workarounds in the short term and solutions in the long term to better satisfy a variety of archive user needs.
  Thanks for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. navaan Sun 17 Feb 2013 09:11AM UTC
    
    Thank you very much for the detailed answer, athough I have a feeling this was directed more at the community at large.
    So I'll repeat this: I'm happy the OTW is holding themselves to maximum inclusiveness, but I do think there will be even more drawbacks for the usabilty of the Archive if you allow meta before you solved the media browsing issue.
    You are already allowing fanworks of different media not hosted on the Archive anyway and implementing the option to categorize and browse by media type should have top priority before you put up the new policies to allow even more. If that is solved first, I'll welcome meta with open arms.
    
    Comment Actions
  2. Penknife Mon 18 Feb 2013 05:29PM UTC
    
    The only thing that we can currently be certain of is that the addition of further text works is unlikely to have as big an impact on the archive as it would if we were prepared to host multimedia works, which is still a part of our future plans.
    Do you really think so? I understand that meta doesn't present the technical problems that hosting multimedia does. However, podfic and vids aren't likely to overwhelm fandom categories, because of the time involved in their creation; there will never be as many podfics or vids as there are stories. But I think you're underestimating the degree to which a flood of meta reposted from LJ, DW, and Tumblr is going to affect the experience of people who are here to read fanfic.
    I want to echo the voices of other commenters here and say that there needs to be a mandatory way to categorize works, and that the faster that's put into place, the less of a mess there will be in the long run. If people post high volumes of meta for ... weeks? months? ... without being required to tag it in some way that allows readers to filter it out, I think it will become hard to ever fix the problem in a way that makes it possible to browse fanfic and only fanfic easily.
    
    Comment Actions
  3. 1. kelcat Mon 18 Feb 2013 09:14PM UTC
      
      I'm curious as to why you think a flood of meta will be coming in just because it's being officially allowed now. I write a lot of meta, but I doubt I'd post it here, because I like to have it in a place where I can keep an ongoing discussion with everyone.
      I can see why some people really want meta, but I'm interested to know why you (and others) feel so strongly that there will be a huge influx of meta that has already posted at other communities.
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. Penknife Mon 18 Feb 2013 09:56PM UTC
        
        Personally, because I'm seeing meta appearing in my fandoms on AO3 where no meta used to be, and my experience is that things snowball once they reach an initial critical mass -- if it becomes "a thing people do," especially for people who mainly post to Tumblr where there's not really the same opportunity that there is on LJ/DW to host a discussion in one place, I think we'll see a lot more of it.
        I'm hoping not, unless there's a way to cordon it off from fic! But I'm not betting on that.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      2. kelcat Mon 18 Feb 2013 10:08PM UTC
        
        Ah, I see. The fandoms I follow are relatively small, so I haven't seen any changes since the announcement. There's meta there, but it's stuff that's been there for ages.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      3. navaan Mon 18 Feb 2013 10:53PM UTC
        
        To be honest I feel like you about my own meta and discussions and think that there are many people who probably will think like that and leave most of their meta in one place. But I've seen "meta" pieces pop up in one of the bigger fandoms I'm reading in - a fandom that is already hard to search because people are using so many different canonical and higher level meta tags - and it was mostly about defending OTPs and preferences.
        As of now nobody can know what will happen - as we do not know what the final definition for allowed meta will be in the end (and I'm sure wherever the line is drawn there will be discontent).
        Because meta can be hosted directly here already, I expect it will be posted more than the other media fanworks that can only be linked or embedded like fanart, podfic, vids already. These non-textbased fanworks will be entirely swallowed, I expect.
        All of this isn't new. People have asked for the media categories for a long time now (as well as better bwosing functionality and filters).
        I do think that with adding another media type, possibly before implementing a way to put fanworks in mandatory categories for easy searching and browsing that will also mean that later down the line when the categories may be implemented, nobody will go back and do a thourough clean up. It makes sense to implement this sooner rather than later or at least start planning on how this will be done, before starting on the meta policy.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
Account Deleted Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:30AM UTC

I think that if meta is allowed in the archive, better filtering is needed. It would be nice if people posted essays and discussions, but it's going to be pages and pages of tumblr reaction gifs cluttering the search results.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 11:10PM UTC
  
  Hello pocketbookangel!
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers. But it will likely involve both actions by users and technical options. Unfortunately, a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts and tagging options, but chances are both will affect users' choices to post images to the AO3.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
TinnyThoughts (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 03:45PM UTC

I have to say, even as more of a meta-writer than fic-writer, I'm not sure this is entirely the right idea or the right time and that I have a lot of reservations about this.
First of all, I think it is disappointing and a action of bad faith if this decision, which is really very central to the whole idea and philosophy of the archive, has been made without taking into consideration the wishes of the people who make this archive, and that after a promise that they would get a say in this.
Secondly, I think the archive at this point needs a dose of functionality before expecting it to do yet more with what it has. As it is, the archive offers no way to sort fanworks by type - ie. fic, art, vid etc, despite this functionality being something that has been long promised by the staff. So, you can understand why users might be wary at the archive allowing yet another category (and one which promises to bring in a flood of submissions if it takes off) without an easy way of filtering them out (or finding them! as a user's inclination may be)
Thirdly, I'm unsure what kind of rules for 'What counts as meta?' the archive could reasonably impose and expect to be followed or how you would propose to implement those rules.
But my main concern if is definitely that this should not be happening before introduction of more essential functions like actual fanwork categories. Which this archive desperately needs, specially now that it's growing so fast.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:43AM UTC
  
  Hello Tinny Thoughts!
  We understand that the announcement that meta will be a welcomed part of the AO3 has disappointed some, particularly in terms of how the decision was made. However, there were various issues that the organization had to consider aside from simply how many users were interested in the matter, and whether these opinions favored inclusion or not.
  While there was no general post made announcing this internal process, the OTW was receiving feedback from users through various means. This included the cases of meta reported to our Abuse Committee, questions about it through our Support and Communications Committees, the occasional public comment, and the increasing visibility of non-fiction material appearing on the archive.
  It was clear that a decision had to be made, both in terms of whether or not the content fit our mission, as well as what the internal impact would be of either hosting or not hosting it. These were issues that could only be decided by an internal body, since it would require input from people with knowledge of the archive's resources,
  the current and likely future technical demands, and experience with how increased activity might impact relevant groups of volunteers.
  Going forward though, we can expect user input to direct us in determining how meta should be defined, what concerns users have with its continued existence on the AO3, and how we can serve groups that support its availability as well as those who don't want it to impact their use of the archive for other types of content. . For example, any changes to our content policy have to undergo a public review period where feedback will be gathered for further modifications.
  We can understand your concern about current functionality in terms of searching for or excluding types of works which are already exist on the archive. Just as art, podfic and video can currently be found on the AO3, so can meta. The difference, of course, is that the AO3's current infrastructure already supports the direct hosting of meta in text form, so its continuation on the archive has been more a question of policy than ability. This does not mean that there won't be technical issues involved, particularly when it comes to users' desire to filter their search results to find or exclude it. We don't currently have a time estimate from our AD&T committee (which runs the AO3) on how quickly a solution can be created to address that. All we can be sure of is that it is going to be a learning process for all involved as we try to find ways to best accommodate the varying needs users have.
  Thank you for your feedback.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. TinnyThoughts (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 04:20AM UTC
    
    Thanks for the reply.
    I am curious how exactly AO3 and OTW gauged how many users cared about this issue, if there wasn't actually any user input? I am unsure how somplaints and submissions of meta to archive is the sum of people caring about the issue, specially given the promises of transparency and user-input the board has made in the past. It seems like a case of punishing those who decide to wait for official channels of input, in all good faith, doesn't it?
    How exactly is AO3 planning to get the user input "to direct us in determining how meta should be defined"?
    Just as art, podfic and video can currently be found on the AO3, so can meta.
    Yes, and that is exactly the concern here, tbh. That AO3 is already been moving in people it can't yet lodge and giving us more and more re-assurance that those rooms will materialize soon, but that AO3's next action is to allow yet another lodger and still no more rooms. I don't believe adding meta means technical limitations of the Ao3 are the point here, it's the fact that adding this over user opposition is being prioritized over getting rid of the technical limitations that are fueling almost all opposition to the idea at the moment in the first place.
    Meanwhile OTW is still not accepting what technically knowledgeable volunteers it hasn't yet already burned and burned out.
    
    Comment Actions
Who Shot AR (akerwis) Sat 16 Feb 2013 05:17PM UTC

Extremely disappointed that there was no opportunity for community input on this. It doesn't speak well for the turn towards transparency the OTW board has been promising.
I welcome meta to the Archive only if it comes along with compulsory media categories (fic, art, graphics/manips, vids, podfic, meta) and the ability to filter out the categories one isn't interested in. While unwanted meta (or "meta," in the case of one line of text and a bunch of reaction gifs) isn't a problem in my tiny little fandoms, I can't imagine what a pain it'd be to have to sift through larger fandoms where people are more likely to post it. I already find it irritating enough to see that someone's posted something new to a fandom of mine, only to find that it's actually a tiny icon set that I have zero interest in.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:52AM UTC
  
  Hello akerwis!
  We understand that the announcement that meta will be a welcomed part of the AO3 has disappointed some, particularly in terms of how the decision was made. While there was no general post made announcing this internal process, the OTW was receiving feedback from users through various means. This included the cases of meta reported to our Abuse Committee, questions about it through our Support and Communications Committees, the occasional public comment, and the increasing visibility of non-fiction material appearing on the archive.
  Going forward though, we can expect user input to direct us in determining how meta should be defined, what concerns users have with its continued existence on the AO3, and how we can serve groups that support its availability, as well as those who don't want it to impact their use of the archive for other types of content. For example, any changes to our content policy have to undergo a public review period where feedback will be gathered for further modifications.
  We recognize that users may see this decision as one which will impact their use of the AO3, possibly increasing or decreasing it, and the same will likely occur as we become able to better support non-text formats. However, we see this development as part of the AO3's natural growth in its userbase, and its relevance to many as a source of fanwork preservation and access. Some of it is coming sooner than we're prepared for because of user demand, and we must find the best way we can to accommodate it and its users. That will certainly mean helping users find what they want and filter out what they don't.
  Thank you for your feedback.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
aurilly Sat 16 Feb 2013 05:30PM UTC

Is there a way to make the "Post New" button a drop-down menu? Meaning, you press "post new" and have to choose "podfic", "meta" "graphics" or "fanfic" before you even get to the screen where you put in titles and summaries and stuff? That way, there's no room for people to fail to tag appropriately. In addition, I like the idea of having an account setting so you can permanently choose to "never see meta results" so that you don't have to filter it out for every single search.
ETA: Actually, I think something like that would also help within the fanfic posting menu. Right now, lots of people writing crossovers forget to tag their works as crossovers (which makes me sad, because I'm sure there are so many good ones I will never find), and then there are things with multiple fandoms in the header that look like crossovers, but actually are just drabble collections across multiple fandoms. I would love if there was a new menu when posting a new work that sat just above the part where you enter the fandom. And you would have to pick among radio buttons for "single fandom work", "crossover" "multi-fandom collection" and "other" (no idea what other would be, but I'm sure there's something I'm not thinking of). Then part of the filtering menu could let you pick what you wanted to see. That way, those of us who love crossovers (or hate them) would be more certain of finding them, and it would be easy for people like me, who would never read something in a multi-fandom post, to filter them out.

Last Edited Sat 16 Feb 2013 09:12PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 10:55PM UTC
  
  Hello aurilly!
  Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches is definitely going to be one component of hosting non-fiction (as well as other media formats) on the AO3. We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers. But it will likely involve both actions by users and technical options. Unfortunately, a technical solution is likely to take much longer than the policy parts and tagging options.
  Thank you for your feedback!
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Lydia (lydiabell) Sun 17 Feb 2013 12:16AM UTC
    
    "We are still in the early stages of discussing how we can best make that work in a way that serves both posters and searchers."
    If the mechanisms aren't in place to handle multiple types of fanworks in a way that works for both posters and searchers, I don't understand why multiple types of fanworks are allowed. Build the house first and then move in, it seems to me.
    
    Last Edited Sun 17 Feb 2013 12:19AM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. Who Shot AR (akerwis) Sun 17 Feb 2013 01:29AM UTC
      
      +1
      
      Comment Actions
    2. lilyWagging (Guest) Sun 17 Feb 2013 02:17AM UTC
      
      A +1 and a question for AO3 that's been concerning me about the replies so far.
      So when you say "Being able to categorize your work in a way that users can find (or exclude it) from their searches" does this mean that the solution we can be looking forward to is that the way to choose type of fanwork one wants to see, would be to undergo a search operation or is that mostly a figure of speech?
      
      Comment Actions
    3. 1. admin-claudia (Guest) Sun 17 Feb 2013 05:08PM UTC
        
        Hello lilyWagging!
        In the short term, searching is definitely going to be one option. Further posts on the meta issue should include some recommendations of what users can do to find or exclude content, as well as what's under consideration for long-term options.
        Claudia Rebaza
        Co-Chair, OTW Communications
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      2. lilyWagging (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 09:47AM UTC
        
        Well, I don't mind searching being one option, the problem here is if that's going to be the only option. I do believe this whole comment page has been fairly clear about that, so idk why there's this confusion?
        What exactly is the time period OTW considers long-term?
        BTW, a tangential question. I was trying to look for any information about proposed Ao3 developmental roadmaps available to users under OTWs proposed greater transparency, I'm afraid I'm not being great at navigating the OTW site. Is this information available?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
    4. salty_catfish Sun 17 Feb 2013 09:41AM UTC
      
      +1
      
      Comment Actions
    5. Forgive me (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 09:36AM UTC
      
      + 1 I understand that this announcment is more about getting started on policy and all that, but don't you think the archive should be ready for more media types before you even start with the policies? Usually it's advisable to make one step after the other.
      Maybe you should have been more clear in your announcment about the overall planning?
      
      Comment Actions

AO3 News