Fanlore vs. other fannish wikis: notes to TWC article

[cesperanza]

Just posting here because I've been reading the new issue of Transformative Works and Cultures and I was quite horrified by Jason Mittell's (really great) essay on Lostpedia, maybe because Fanlore (and somebody's question about how much canon vs. how much fanon should be in Fanlore) was on my mind.

Mittell explains that when he first started working on Lostpedia, "Lostpedia had a space for queer readings and shipping fandom on the page called Pairings," and Pairings were defined as "relationships, either real or suggested, that fans enjoy and would love to see consummated. The desire for love to blossom on the Island between several pairs of characters, to varying degrees of commitment and affection is explored further in fan fiction". Mittell further notes that: "Same-sex pairings were unproblematically included in this list."

But then!

"On January 2, 2009, the Pairings page was transformed without discussion. On that day, a Lostpedia sysop removed all noncanonical relationships from the page, offering only the explanation "removing fan wished relationships. non-encyclopedic cruft."

Mittell himself went in and created a "Pairings (fanon)" page but he also looked at the history of the pairings page and found controversy about shipping, slash, and pairings ("This is an unneeded, idiotic and ridiculous article btw.") and female fans defending themselves ("Emotion and human relationships ARE a totally legitimate part of the Lost world. Just because it's not hard math or supermystical doesn't mean it's not important.")

Anyway, it struck me like some Mirrorverse world of Fanlore, *g*, where the canon is important and fanon, including pairings and fanworks, was not. It did seem also to confirm the sense I got from the Fanlore mods that Fanlore is there to be a record of US and what we made and did more than a record of the shows/canon, etc. So viva "non-encyclopedic cruft!":)

Comments

[nigeltde]

hear hear!

[anatsuno]

nonono, see, what's needed is a recalibration of the meaning of 'encyclopedic'! People seem to use it to say 'only fact-based' whatnot - like, Wikipedia describes the world, and your opinion is not a fact of the world, so your opinion on the Hadron collider is unwelcome on the wikipedia page for it (it is irrelevant).

But Fanlore's OBJECT is the world of/by fen: when we document fanon, tropes, wank, fail events, a particular fanwork or a particular fan, we document facts of the fandom world; these informations ARE encyclopedic. They're just encyclopedic to the world under consideration, and that referent is what is different from other sites.

Lostpedia's welcome to all of the 'encyclopedic' information of the show itself or the TPTB sanctioned 'content' - while Fanlore's happy to welcome the Lost fans who might like to document their community of fans fanon, pairings of note, fiction et al.

(it IS horrifying, oh my god. idiots.)

[christycorr]

Fancruft is a big issue in Wikipedia—and, to a lesser extent, in Wikias (such as Lostpedia). It's...understandable—a wiki has to define its focus, and Lostpedia has a hard enough time encompassing Lost canon, which is crazy and amorphous enough without fan-created subtext added to the mix :D

Fanlore really isn't about canon, though; it's very much only about us! Canon information is probably what we'd consider cruft. *laughs*

[kass]

To my mind, this is one of the most substantial differences between Fanlore and other fannish wikis such as Lostpedia. The community norms at Lostpedia are strongly invested in preserving canon -- and, granted, Lost is an unusually complicated show whose canon alone could fill an encyclopedia without trouble! But what I see in this article is the polarization between those who are interested in documenting canon and those who are interested in relationships, fanworks, shipping -- all that "girly" stuff. *wry grin* Whereas Fanlore privileges fanon, fannish experience, fannish output. It's a completely different model. &hearts!

[crypto]

I don't visit it much, for Not My Fandom reasons, but I've always been impressed by how the Supernatural Wiki straddles both canon and fanon/fandom. My impression is that the extensive canon entries there, unlike Lostpedia, are primarily motivated by the desire to provide a resource and repository for fanworks creators, more than analysis and speculation about the show itself per se.

But that approach probably works best for a fandom-specific wiki, and Fanlore has a different niche in the wiki ecology.

[mific]

"Encyclopedic" as an adjective actually means "all encompassing" or "fully comprehensive" so I reckon "encyclopedic cruft" is definitely the thing, and excludes nothing. Except non-cruft, but who's interested in that? Not me *G*

The Lostpedia story does highlight the problem with wikis though. Or the politics, anyway. Democracy? Anarchy? Hierarchy?