Documenting fandom history: Getting the bias out

Documenting fandom history: Getting the bias out is a 2008 essay by Laura Hale at Fanthropology.
It alludes to the conflicts Hale was having in fandom due to her Fan History Wiki.
 
==Excerpt from the Post==
==Comments to the Post==
* [gournay]: "That list is a sum of the common sense behind writing essays or anything non fictional. Always ALWAYS make clear where you are standing and where you're getting your facts from, but most important don't forget to make a clear statement about what your personal opinion is. That will help a lot when it comes to answer the “nasty” comments. As in; “I never said this was the only side of the coin. But it is mine! Now let me see yours.” This is the internet, not every one cares as much as you do about commenting. Also getting down what you really want to say is hard when the fine nuances in the language are crushed by fast typing and short temper, misunderstandings happens all the time. I would say that what are driving the discussion forward are those that don’t agree with the original statement. Then it is up to you as the writer, and sort of moderator, to respond in a “responsible” way to lift the discussion from “u zooo bad” to “I hate your text because…”. Also those well researched rebuttal are rare for a reason. It takes great courage to post one. I would guess that many out there got a really good reply just waiting to get typed down. Alas, those words won’t survive long or maybe worst they will be forgotten before they even has been typed."
* [pandorasblog]: "This is interesting. I've come across the problem in a small way recently: the fact that fandom history is written by self-selected people, and self-selected people may avoid writing about fandom history. I'd tried to get people to collaborate in updating the FH wiki entry for a particular fandom, but found that (given the fandom's precarious legal/copyright history) people were highly reluctant to do so, since being thorough would involve mentioning website names, including the name of the site where the discussion was taking place. Others felt that the discussion site (seen by participants as a literate haven compared to perceived triviality elsewhere in fandom) being mentioned/linked in a history would bring in new members of the sort they didn't want to converse with. Both are understandable points of view within the context of the fandom, but it did make me think that fandom history changes as much because of those who don't write it as because of those who do..."
* partly bouncy: "self-selected people may avoid writing about fandom history. That's true. There are things in my own personal fannish history I don't talk about for a variety of reasons. (And there are things which I over talk about because of my own interest.) That's one of the reasons why, in regards to Fan History, I keep trying to get more people involved because the more people involved, the less that should be a problem. ... Theoretically. (The truth to that is actually up for debate and could go back to the whole concept of the effectiveness of wikis in general as a source of shared knowledge.) since being thorough would involve mentioning website names, including the name of the site where the discussion was taking place. Yeah. That can often challenge or threaten the status quo. It can also challenge vested interests or rehash things that people want to go away. Lots of reasons not to want the history out there. being mentioned/linked in a history would bring in new members of the sort they didn't want to converse with. I haven't really heard that one much. (But that might be because I don't see Fan History as a traffic driver for particular fandoms.) So interesting... but it did make me think that fandom history changes as much because of those who don't write it as because of those who do... True. Yeah. Bias can be in histories because of those who don't participate. I have similar issues with some of the survey research done in fandom: It represents a select group who give voice to their particular opinions. Those who don't speak may come at things from a totally different perspective. I don't know that you can honestly get a complete history that gives a totally accurate reflection of the history of fandom or a particular subset of fandom. Efforts can be made... but it generally requires a LOT of work and crossing people who might not want to be crossed in order to do a good job. For many people who might be interested in the topic, I don't know if it is worth the risk. :/"
==References==
Category:2008 Meta
Category:Meta on Journal Sites