Linking to Public Fan Sites

Linking to public fan sites became a topic of discussion with the advent of the Internet when more and more fans began posting their fan fiction, vids, fanzine ads and other aspects of fannish life online. 
In the early 2000s, fans began using blogging platforms such as diaryland and Livejournal to discuss both their fannish and personal lives. Even though these posts were public, many fans felt shielded from public scrutiny and TPTB by their relative anonymity and the overwhelming amount of content available on the Internet. However, as more and more fans and as more fannish discourse left print letterzines and members only mailing lists behind to embrace these public Internet forums, a cognitive disconnect arose regarding how visible fannish lives could and should be to others.
The issue of when - and if - to link to another fan's website or blog became the topic of frequent debates. Some fans felt that permission needed to be obtained before linking to another fan's website or blog. Others felt that as long as you were keeping your website or blog inside relatively small fannish circles, you could link without permission. And others felt that once something was posted publicly online, it was public and could therefore be discussed publicly in whatever forum you chose. And yet a final faction felt that while linking without permission was permissible, all linking must cease at the website or blog owner's request.
Some fans state their "linking policy" on their website or their Livejournal User Info page in the hopes of clarifying their expectations of the fandom community: "...linking: I'm fine with anyone linking to this journal, or any unlocked entry within. As far as I'm concerned if it's unlocked, it's public and fair game. (Just don't mention this journal in connection with my name if you happen to know it.)"Example User Info Page From 2003, reference link.
Another example of a linking policy asks that the author of the post be notified they have been linked: "Go right ahead! I always appreciate the notification (especially since LJ doesn't offer any statistics on referrers), but linking to public documents is the foundation of the Web and IMHO there's never any need to ask permission for links." Draconity: The literal and utilitarian views dated December 7, 2007; reference link.
However, as seen below, there is a wide variety in linking policies and many different approaches to linking to public fan websites across fandom communities. Many of these policies are community-specificSee RPF., some were created in response to historical eventsSee Age Statements and Strikethrough., and some are technologically drivenSee Twitter and Tumblr.. In the end, it falls on the individual fan and the fandom community to explicitly state their privacy and visibility expectations and to also understand that those expectations will neither be universally accepted nor universally followed. In the world of the World Wide Web, fandom policies and practices will always remain local.
==Some General Words About Fandom Visibility==
==Blanket Prohibitions==
Some fans offer blanket prohibitions against linking.
===Journals===
A typical example for blanket prohibition again linking a personal journal would be: "[...] PLEASE DO NOT LINK TO MY JOURNAL OUTSIDE OF DW!"Personal fan journal on Dreamwidth, accessed September 3, 2013, link omitted by request. Others would add a note to a specific post hoping to exclude certain types of linking: "Please do not link to this post in newsletters."Mini Meta Fest post dated September 2009, link omitted by request. Others attempted to limit linking just to their fanfiction: "Feel free to read [my stories], but please do not link them anywhere. These fics were previously locked to friends, and I'll lock them again if I find they've been linked. Please respect my wishes on this."Source: A Donald Strachey fanfic blog post dated August 2012, link omitted by request. Some fans attempted to prevent multiple types of links in one post: "Please do not link to this post, or any of my other fic! Thank you."Source: post on a Supernatural fan fic writer's writing blog dated March 2012, link omitted by request. 
===Archives and Websites===
In the case of many fanfiction archives and websites, fans would ask that links be directed to their main page or a page that contained an age statement. While the "link to the main page" practice is rooted in long standing traditions of limiting children's access to adult material, such restrictions can lead to somewhat amusing instructions. See for example a 2006 post in the rec50 fanfiction recommendation community. Ironically, the story that is being recommended only carried a PG rating. 
:"McKay has a linking policy. All links must be to the warning page. To read the story: 1.Click the big ENTER, after reading all the warnings of course. 2. Then click Fiction. 3. Scroll down and click HP FICTION: SLASH, GEN & HET. 4. Scroll till you see Love (Actually) Is All Around, click, and enjoy."foolartist in rec50. Gift of Light, Love (Actually) Is All Around, 30 January 2006 (WebCite copy). (Accessed 04 September 2013)
===Vids===
In the early 2000s, vidders who were slow to embrace YouTube and other online streaming sites would make their vids available on a limited basis and with the following caveat: 
:"PLEASE DO NOT LINK TO THESE PAGES OR FORWARD THE URL TO ANY NEWSGROUP OR PUBLIC MAILING LIST. Really, we're serious about this. If you're not sure whether a list is public or not, ask us."2002 post to the Vidder (mailing list), contact info withheld by request. 
===RPF===
And finally, in the case of many RPF fan websites and communities, there are pleas for fans to not link or share their websites with the actors, sportsmen, celebrities or their agents: 
:"Please do not link to or share content from [our community] with the players or mainstream baseball blogs (Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs, Deadspin, RiverAveBlues, MotownSports, etc.) via Twitter/Tumblr/email/blogs/links/websites/etc. Obviously, we can't know for sure if you're linking our content, but we would appreciate it greatly if you not do that. If it's discovered that you've shared content from this community with blogs or sites, you'll be removed and banned."Profile page of an RPF baseball Dreamwidth community, accessed September 2, 2013, link omitted by request).
==Fandom Positions On Linking/Privacy/Visibility==
One of the difficulties in finding posts that speak against public linking is that such posts are often locked or the owners cannot be reached to obtain permission to link publicly. This irony somewhat skews the representative examples listed below. Additional cites and links always welcomed.
Pre-2000: See Slash and the Arrival of the Internet
From 2000: Some fans conflated linking and unauthorized archiving: 
From 2002: some fans could not understand how there could be any online discussions without linking: 
From 2002: always requiring permission limits discussion, but it would be nice to be asked:
From 2002: Some fans confused linking to fanfic to unauthorized translations of fanfic: 
From 2002, a fan points out that diaries were never meant to be published or posted online:
From 2002, given that the way the Internet is structured, linking is necessary and the norm and it should be up to the blogger to signal to their readers if they expect something different:
From 2002, blogging often requires ignoring the fact that you are publicly posting. It is when we forget this fact that fans experience conflict between reality and illusion:
From 2003: others pointed out that online fandom life was rapidly changing with little to no control over who read or linked to your content: 
From 2005, a contributor to metafandom newsletter explained her approach to linking:
From 2007: some fans pointed out that blogging was fundamentally changing how fandom interacted with one another: 
From 2008, after fan fiction was featured on a National Public Radio program:
From 2008: and to deny these changes was futile: 
From 2010: other fans still struggled to keep up with fandom's constant migration towards less controllable forums: 
From 2013: often linking policies are intertwined with the debate on the need to maintain the Fourth Wall:
==Linking to Sites Using the Wayback Machine or Permalinks==
There has been a lot of discussion about whether it is okay to provide links to other fans using the Wayback Machine or other services that can be made to make permanent links to fanworks. 
One fan's opinion in 2008: 
=='Studying' Fans or Text?==
In the academic world, different ethical rules apply to studying people (anthropology, ethnography or psychology) or studying texts (literary analysis, commentary or criticism). While these standards apply to only a small subset of people (acafans or academics who study fandom), a similar conceptual approach may help frame some of the ongoing debate within fandom about linking to public fandom posts. In other words, if fans are to be treated as research subjects (even by other fans), permission to link before discussing would be required. If fans are to be treated as content creators (stories, vids, and art), then permission to link before discussing would not be required. 
This conceptual approach (people vs. text) was discussed in fandom circles on tumblr following an incident where Caitlin Moran, a UK writer, asked the actors of a popular TV show to publicly read slash fanfiction excerpts. The overall perception among the fan community was that this was done to mock fans who wrote slash fanfiction.See Why fans are outraged at Sherlock and Watson reading sexy fanfic article by Aja Romano at The Daily Dot, Dec 16, 2013; reference link.
On December 17, 2013, annejamison wrote a tumblr post titled: "What I have in common with Caitlin Moran, and what I don’t." In the post she compared her critique of fanworks to what Caitin Moran did in order to point out that Caitin's actions were not isolated and therefore not deserving of the high level of fandom criticism:
Some fans appreciated annejamison's observations.
And 
Others did not and honed in on the part of annejamison’s post where she stated that she treated fanworks like literary works, instead of looking at fanworks as part of human research:
In her tumblr, annejamison then went on the explain her process for quoting from fanworks or public posts: 
Some fans disagreed and felt that because literary or critical analysis also involves living people (the writers), it should be held to the same ethical standards as medical research. This meant that commentators should obtain consent from all who are being quoted or discussed: 
The follow-on argument was that if all forms of critique (both literary and scientific) were subject to the ethics of science research and those ethics require informed consent, then the failure to obtain consent shows a lack of respect to others. Furthermore, not obtaining consent is at odds with fandom community privacy norms.
Another point raised by annejamison was that quoting from text in the context of reviews and discussions is well established fair use: 
However, to some fans, the issue was not so much as fair use but inaccurate representations. One fan, who was quoted by annejamison over her objections , felt that the quotes, when taken out of contest, cast her in an unfavorable light. 
While inaccurate representation is a problem in any context, to many scholars, the idea that they would not be allowed to quote because they may *possibly* misquote, is unthinkable:
The applicability of these discussions to fandom in general may seem tenuous at first in that most fans who are commenting on one others blogs and websites are not doing research or literary criticism. However, the discussion does highlight some of the different approaches to fandom and how these differences frame the “obtain consent before linking” debate. For some, fandom participation is seen to be membership based with the emphasis on person to person connections, a shared consensus and the existence of community norms that can be used to police the conduct of others. Phrases like “respect”, “boundaries”, “privacy”, “autonomy” and “consent” point towards a more intimate and personal connection between members of the community. 
For others, fandom is more like an ongoing public debate with fanworks and blog entries being interchangeable components of that public debate. To hold that there is an expectation of privacy in public Internet posts which requires fans to “opt in” before being publicly discussed, does fandom a disservice by restricting community interaction and limiting thought and speech.
==Livejournal Newsletter Communities==
As fandom migrated away from mailing lists to more decentralized blogging platforms such as Livejournal, finding fannish discussions began much more difficult. Hundreds of fandom themed "newsletters" sprang up where volunteers would collect links to public fandom discussions and post the links on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. See List of Newsletter Communities.
Most newsletters would only link to public posts and many limited their links to posts made to Livejournal blogs. A few newsletters would only "watch" or monitor journals that had been submitted by the journal owner.Trek News a Star Trek fandom newsletter post dated Jan 7, 2011:"We compile our links from a watchlist, aggregating links from public posts in the journals and communities on that list. We do not link to locked posts, nor do we repost material from those we link to (other than the obligatory information about author/rating/summary, etc.). We are purely a link-gathering and compiling service for Star Trek related, publicly posted material. We will not add personal/individual journals to our watchlist unless it is requested by the owners of those journals.Every day we sift through dozens, often hundreds, of posts, breaking them down to bite-sized, informative links and repackaging them as a daily digest format of Trek fandom on LJ. I'm sure you'll appreciate that this is a time consuming task and it is fairly unfeasible for us to contact each individual author within the communities we watch to ask for permission to link to their post. We will gladly remove links at the author's request, but our general rule-of-thumb is to link to things which are posted publicly in a community." (reference link). And finally, many newsletters would remove links to posts upon request of the blog owner.See bbc-merlin-news Profile Page which asks blog owners to contact them directly "If you: 
-want us to delete a post of yours we have linked to 
-want us to not link to any post made by you on your LJ." reference link.
Interestingly, a number of these community newsletters have not opted out of Google's search index, thereby making the posted links more visible outside the fandom community.Ex: the supernatural newsletter.
==Meta Linking Communities==
There exist numerous Livejournal and Dreamwidth communities that focus on collecting links to meta fan discussions. Below is a list of some of the more popular communities. However additional communities can be found in the 2005 LJ Meta Fandom Primer post.reference link.
===Metablog Linking Policy===
Metablog was founded in 2002 with the goal of being a "resource for linking to blogs and LJs that discuss issues of importance to fandom. It is multifandom and metafandom. Metablog is not meant as a discussion forum; rather, it's meant to help fans find current discussions elsewhere." It had no linking policy and any member was allowed to add a link to any interesting discussion on LJ. However, a closer reading of some of the posts that are still public indicate that members were only allowed to link to public posts.sorry about the confusion post dated March 25, 2003: "Sorry about the confusion the last time I tried to post this; I'd accidentally linked to what was then a private post, but Bluster has now opened it up for public viewing."
Very little public discussion of Metablog's linking policy survives. There are references on the community journal to debates taking place elsewhere, but those posts, dating back to the early 2000s have since then been locked or removed.Ex: Nature of LJ post dated July 16, 2002; reference link.
===Metaquotes Policy===
Founded in 2002.
Metaquotes is a LJ community that allows members to quote and link back to any public post on Livejournal.
What little discussion there is on metaquotes has less to do with linking and more to do with their Rule 9, the limit on how much you can quote from a blog post. However, in one 2006 discussion on fandom wank the issue of metaquotes linking policy did arise:
===Metafandom Linking Policy===
Founded in 2005 and active through 2011. The discussion that led to its creation can be read here.reference link.
Discussion of the policy:
===Linkspam Linking Policy===
Linkspam was founded in 2009 with the goal of highlighting social justice issues in fandom. It was active until 2010.
Because their stated goal was to call out and highlight injustice, their linking and take down policies were more rigid and less accommodating than some meta fandom communities:
and 
Discussion of the policy:
===Metanews Linking Policy===
Founded in 2013.
From the profile page:
The FAQ goes into greater detail:
Discussion of the linking policy
To date public discussion of the metanews linking policy has focused on their decision to *not* ask permission before linking to a tumblr post:
The moderator's response:
===thisweekmeta Linking Etiquette===
Founded by DoctorSidrat in January 2019. 
After a Fanlore article that discussed a fan's 2006 meta post was linked in the newsletter, the fan and several friends objected to the linking policy. The editor set up a poll asking for community feedback as to when and how to (a) link to websites and blog posts and (b) whether it was OK to link to Fanlore: "It asks about etiquette regarding Dreamwidth/LiveJournal communities, Fanlore pages, Fanlore-found links, and what to do when an Original Poster is not available for contact."
The editor then summarized her opening thoughts:
==Fanlore Linking Policy==
You can read Fanlore's Citation Policy here. Additionally, individual Fanlore editors are working on a draft list of suggestions and best practices here.
==Fanhackers' Linking/Quoting Policy==
Fanhackers is a OTW-sponsored fandom news blog that was launched in 2012 and is the successor to Symposium. The linking/quoting policy as it was originally announced:
Some fans expressed concern that the requirement to obtain permission from fannish sources was artificially limiting fannish discussion and also erasing large portion's of fandom history:
Others worried that by making it easier to quote or link to non-fannish sources, fandom's voices would be drowned out: 
Some fans agreed pointing out that the default should be "link/quote without permission" with a focus on allowing fans to "opt out" (to state in their blog or website that linking/quoting requires permission): 
In response to the criticisms, Fanhackers requested input on a proposed change to their quoting/linking policy: 
==Twitter/Tumblr==
Like Livejournal, neither Twitter nor Tumblr have policies regarding linking to public posts - in fact, Tumblr operates on the assumption that every post is designed to be reblogged and disseminated far and wide. Twitter, like Livejournal, does enable its users to lock or privatize their tweets but this is an affirmative step the user must take on their own.
In spite of the openness and accessibility of both platforms, many in fandom still feel uncomfortable and unhappy when their posts are shared beyond their immediate circle of friends. And, when that circle includes TV show creators or actors or other celebrities, many feel that fannish etiquette is being violated and fandom as a whole is damaged.
For example, after Tyler Seguin tweeted a picspam that had links to RPF fan fiction, the Hockey RPF fandom reacted with dismay and many writers began deleting or locking their fanfic, journals, and tumblr and twitter accounts.
Or as one fan succinctly said on twitter:
Others see the positive side of being linked to a wider audience:
==Meta/Further Reading==
* by cereta (August 12, 2002)
* (After the most recent kerfuffle, I thought I would take this opportunity to ask what folks felt would be the best practices for the newsletter regarding certain sites and types of links) (Jan 26, 2019)
* (I've been thinking for the last couple weeks about call out culture and dog piles, vs. linking and discussion, especially on DW) (Jan 2019)
* (I always felt that meta, like any other fanwork, was free to link to (assuming unlocked post), but there's a lot of discussion in thisweekmeta that suggests otherwise.) (Jan 26, 2019)
* (To be honest, this whole debate about linking has just...killed my desire to engage with fandom meta on this site) (Jan 28, 2019)
==References==
Category:Fan Activities