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.
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.
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 on OTW Board Approves Meta Hosting on the AO3
TinnyThoughts (Guest) Sat 16 Feb 2013 03:45PM UTC
Comment Actions
admin-claudia (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 12:43AM UTC
Comment Actions
TinnyThoughts (Guest) Mon 18 Feb 2013 04:20AM UTC
Comment Actions