fears of a wankish world

[kaigou]

Recently, sevilemar left a comment on the posts I did on the dynamics of fandom. One part of the comment leapt out at me:

I think preserving earlier posts (or texts) and naming your sources like you did with obsession_inc's post are tremendously helpful when a reader wants to know more about the thing discussed. It creates a sense of tradition, and tradition is a tool of organization ... Also, earlier posts, texts and discussions can be used to demonstrate patterns or recurring themes, structures etc. if one is so inclined.

All very true, and the internet-casual "I was reading __ and it made me think of __" or the more direct, "this is in response to __'s post on __" definitely act as shorthand citations. I await the day when we develop a pattern, or an assumption of, inline notations (journalname, 2010). Unlike the footnotes and endnotes in printed text -- highly annoying, if you ask me, because of the requirement of skipping to the end of the book and searching minuscule text for that one line, only to have it say ibid (and who the hell is ibid anyway and can I shoot him now?) -- but I digress.

What that comment-bit actually made me think of was this: there have been times, many more times than I think I'd even like to admit, where I have not linked to, nor identified, who or what prompted the post. And that's because of one reason: because the text can be searched, found, and wanked.

As I've discussed before, discussions are digressive in their organic form, going this way, and back again. When I was in college, it would be a handful or so of us, at the local bar, covering all the permutations of a topic. Between us, we'd move from here, to there, and back again, sometimes arguing against ourselves as a way to make sure we'd left no conversational stone unturned. (Yes, it's called Being A Philosophy Major.) In the internet discussions, past and current, it's the same thing, except multiple voices are doing that digression, all at the same time. Hyper, I'll give you hyper -- compared to the rather languid pace of pre-internet.

However, that overlapping means the digression may no longer be organic, but cacophonous. The various link-roundups and link-spams on any given hot topic definitely give the impression of chaos, and someone out there is gonna want to force it into Proper Order. The link-roundups and link-spams (especially when accompanied by editorial commentary such as "privilege in comments" or "triggers for __") act as forces of order against a chaotic, near-post-modern discussion frenzy. And where you have the drive for organization, for order, you're going to have to determine what's in, and what's out, and as I've mentioned before, that's where you get the Proper Order's private wish that everyone would speak in turn, because all this talking out of turn is giving some folks the chance to derail -- or just digress, which is sometimes bad enough anyway -- and that, we just can't have.

Hence, wank -- and wank, when you think about it, is pretty damn meta in a bizarre way. A lot of the worst wank in the various fails isn't always only and entirely because someone was privileged; that's usually just the starting-point. The rest of the wank is wank over whether or not that critical-post was wank: in this chaotic crazy everyone-talks-at-once discussion, it's pretty much inevitable in that any decent-sized fail, there'll be an argument over the unspoken community rules of how one goes about having an argument.

Citing any of that, linking to any of that -- no matter how thought-provoking -- means getting dragged into it. Internet discussions as the ultimate tarbaby: you link, you are connected, you can be found, and your citation can be used against you. While this would be true regardless of whether link-roundups existed -- no matter how useful, overall, as historical records of a discussion's progress -- a link-roundup still creates an easy path for others to follow to your door, and thence to holler at you.

While I'm certainly not going to advocate Civility Lessons for everyone -- there are still people writing in all-caps, for crying out loud, and such advocacy would just be another opportunity for wank, anyway -- I do think that any metatastic discussions of internet conversations must take into account the pressures created by those link round-ups and their very public dispersal. From an academic or historical point, couldn't this potentially warp one's perception of a discussion, in one direction or another, if many are speaking but only in an undertone, unlinked? Or many are speaking but with self-censored neutrality when linking?

If fear of wank -- public shaming, really -- overrides the OP's investment in the actual topic, how do you know you've actually collected the discussion? What if your introduction is an unlinked post, giving the impression it starts and stops here, what does that do to how we see the post? Is a post more valuable -- or more credible -- if it risks the wank by linking? Or is it more valuable (to those within its discussion-borders) if its unlinked state means it's a safe space for the conversation-participants? Wouldn't that, in turn, make it as valuable and valid as any public, wank-risking posts, if for different reasons?


Sometimes I hate my brain.

Comments

hi! thankyou!

[nagasvoice]

Came over on a reccie from dharma_slut, who's been involved in some big wankfests herself, and I find this delightful analysis of the problem of citation when you talk about something that's turning into FAIL.
Civility!
Which is really nice, since I've been mad for two days, having just got myself all wrapped round the axle getting ticked at somebody whose opinions normally provoke conversation but not fury. Yep, they've provoked wank bigtime, too, getting all breezy and privileged and exclusive and stuff.
Notice I'm not using pronouns, either.
There's often a perception that if you link to somebody's cyclone of fail, or even an explanatory post which further cites chapter and verse, you're encouraging dogpiling.
And it really doesn't take much to start feeling like you're getting dogpiled if negative comments come back round to you, either.
Plenty of people are too cautious about all of that to commit themselves to the point of pointing out actual wording.
At the same time, if you come in later on, how do you ever find out what it was really all about, and whether it was blown out of scale in the echo chamber, or it really was a problem.
I love your remark here that it's inevitable (at some point) that people will digress to tussle over appropriate community standards for the discussion, too. When in doubt about what to do, argue over the rules!

[kaigou]

When in doubt about what to do, argue over the rules!

Ain't that the truth!

[nagasvoice]

I also hate it when terms are so vague that people using the same word find themselves screaming at each other.
Some ideas twist up into polar opposite meanings. That nasty little word "wealthy," or that other one "poor," for instance.

[kaigou]

Ayup. This is one benefit of that philosophy education, in that I tend to try and define my terms as clearly and narrowly as possible, to make it clear they're being "jargonized" and that the common/broad definition may not apply.

Although every time I do so, the SO snarks about the philosophy majors he'd overhear at University, all arguing amongst themselves: "define your terms!" being the most-repeated phrase. I tell him that phrase is beloved for a reason, damn it.

exactly!

[nagasvoice]

And then there's the maddening bit about, "at the center of the onion is a mystery." Those last two or three inner layers are just doozies, and the amateur theologians really don't help.
Of course there's plenty of room for discussion while going through all those other layers first. You can narrow things down considerably-- such as that old chestnut, "Oh, so as a Libertarian you didn't *really* mean 'totally no government', say as in Somalia right now, you actually meant 'some place that still has a base level of law enforcement'! Now, what does 'base level' mean? For that matter, what do you mean by law 'enforcement'?"

Man, the things that hook me onto the axle can be so apparently and maddeningly trivial, makes me feel like a complete amateur.

Re: exactly!

[kaigou]

Debating [endlessly, I should qualify] over the definition of a term is one thing I find infuriating, frustrating -- and the hallmark of someone who for some reason is reluctant to debate the topic itself, so bogs down the debate via nitpicking.

Ultimately, the OP defines the limits of the discussion; if the OP has defined a term as X and I think it's better defined as Y, and that seeing it as Y brings in a completely different reading... I present my case and if the OP says, "for the sake of this discussion, I'm limiting the meaning to X," I can either agree or disagree, but that's the extent of it. Me, I don't see any value in wasting my time going further, and have little patience with those who do, because any counter-argument is arguing both terms and conclusions: in effect, it's arguing that the OP should be arguing some other point. Wrong-headed or not, them there's the OP argument, and you argue on its merits or you don't.

Or shorter version: refining the meanings of one's term is useful, but when people start arguing over the definition of 'is', I get bored. Heh.

Re: exactly!

[nagasvoice]

Of course (in most cases) people are also free to take the discussion of Y somewhere else if OP is not interested in discussing it further. There can be exceptions to that--where it's about something f/locked for privacy reasons, and discussing even a hypothetical is too precise and identifiable.

[eatsscissors]

This is an incredibly interesting post. There is a massive amount of information as to one side of a story or another that either never gets told because people don't want to enter the fray (or, interestingly, gets told on anonmemes, but sorting good argument from "Whee, I'm naked, look at my ass!" on anonmemes can be fucking exhausting) or because the linkspam roundups pass it over. (Best example of the latter being the h/c imbroglio of the last summer: it turned out that a lot of people were arguing in favor of it and against the thesis that it was inherently ablist, but Metafandom wasn't linking them.)

(Yes, it's called Being A Philosophy Major.)

*snerk* And then after you graduate, you have to relearn how to communicate with normal people. Been there, done that.

[kaigou]

Part of the reluctance to link, I think, is because sometimes we do have to go through being naked before we can put on proper approach clothes -- and on some level we know this. The linkage becomes a barrier, then, to the open discussion needed to learn: in other words, if you're afraid you're going to be shamed for ignorantly "just not getting" how calculus derivatives work, then you'll never speak up in class, and you'll end up remaining ignorant about them. The worst result is that you'll go out of your way in future to avoid any possibility of learning them, because you've become conflict-avoidant.

The process of learning requires stupid questions, like "but why can't you divide by zero?" ... That learning is going on in posts I've seen excoriated for ignorance, when (to my eyes) I can see the posters don't get something, are aware others say this "not getting" is not okay, and need to work through and/or reconcile their current knowledge with this new or revised understanding. It's a process of internalization, I suppose. But that process requires sometimes saying something (outwardly) stupid -- but still valid -- like, oh, "but girls are weaker than boys... aren't they?" If you get slapped for just plain asking the question... you learn not to ask the question.

Shutting down that learning process with the full onslaught of public disapproval is, I think, the greatest damage done by the dogpiling enabled by link-spams.

[sevilemar]

Shutting down that learning process with the full onslaught of public disapproval is, I think, the greatest damage done by the dogpiling enabled by link-spams.
Especially when "the full onslaught of public disapproval" is as big as it is in most English-speaking fan communities *grimace*

But the reverse is also true: If you never feel just how many people you offended with your behaviour, you can always agree to disagree and never look at it again, which means you'd never know that it was not just your friend's opinion, but that of a whole group of people. I'm not saying a point is more valid the more people have it, I'm just saying that by not realising the cultural impact of a question, sometimes you miss a chance to learn just why it's a question of cultural impact.

[kaigou]

Agreed that one should realize the broad impact of holding an ignorant statement, but there's a difference between assumption of maliciousness versus assumption of just plain ignorance, when it comes to any hope IMO/IME of changing that ignorance. The dogpile enabled by linkspam, more often than not, appears to assume intentional offense rather than ever giving any benefit of the doubt.

'Tis the nature of anger to be angry, and in nearly every fail case I can name, the angry parties have every damn right to be angry. It just seems like sometimes that anger, in the right dose, can change minds. In extremes, it becomes more like a scorched-earth tactic, and no one learns.

[sevilemar]

The dogpile enabled by linkspam, more often than not, appears to assume intentional offense rather than ever giving any benefit of the doubt.
Something to do with group dynamics and not-really-knowing the one who gets dogpiled, I think.

It just seems like sometimes that anger, in the right dose, can change minds. In extremes, it becomes more like a scorched-earth tactic, and no one learns.
And the problem of the internetz is that one can't really control the dosage, because it's open to anyone. I think I see your point.

[Yes, I'm still thinking about this, even if it's about light years old in internet terms^^]

[kaigou]

I don't think I have a comprehension of 'internet age' sometimes, so no fear. Besides, any discussion I have, I'll always come back around to, eventually. There's always more to consider, a better way to look at things, or just a different way that might shed light on previous ways.

Though you're right about unable to control the dosage on the internetz, I was thinking more in terms of each individual reply. Twenty people expressing anger but tempered with hope that I'll learn don't do half the damage of two people excoriating me, and those extreme burns... well, they say once burned, twice shy, eh?

Perhaps it's the 'me-too' aspect of the internets, that if someone posts/replies, it's the next twenty people who have nothing to add but just want to pile on their agreement. Somehow, sometimes, that makes the burn much worse. Not because it's not justified, but maybe I've just gotten to a point in my life where I fail to see use, sometimes, in hurting a person so deeply they entrench rather than engage.

Which means that for me, personally, I tend to stay out of certain conversations once I know someone else has already covered what I would've said -- but it also means the fastest way to annoy me in a post-discussion is to repeat what's already been said in the same post, and resolved (or resolved as unresolved). Then I wish for some kind of stamp that says, "see this other thread." Because that feels less like a person wanting to discuss the topic for itself -- in which case, the resolution would suffice, no? -- and more like, wanting to be validated, and the fact that they're repeating (and wasting everyone's time) isn't half as important as their validation.

Validation has its place and value, but I guess sometimes I resent being made to feel like I'm obligated to validate someone's (repetition of a) perspective. Which is completely off-the-rails from the topic, err, what I recall of it, and probably best saved as meat for some other post.

When I really want to stir up the flames, that is... and right now, I have some kitchen drawers I need to refinish, so any flame-stirring posts will need to wait!

[branchandroot]

*wry* Yeah, any Ordering adds its own layer of shape to the chaos. And, chaos being chaos, I have to doubt whether that Ordered shape is actually germane. It certainly influences the people who follow a given link-comm to feel as though there's an actual discussion (with people reading each other and responding to each other) going on. And that's dead wrong at least half the time, and there you are with more wank over the implicit assumptions of a unified community that can actually /have/ consensus rules--instead of, as it often is, people from separate communities all thinking/talking based on their own community's rules, which may be very different from each other, all being linked through a third party community (the link-comm) which, of course, has its own rules and may or may not be an actual link (be read) by some of the people talking... yeah.

[kaigou]

It certainly influences the people who follow a given link-comm to feel as though there's an actual discussion (with people reading each other and responding to each other) going on.

Absolutely -- it makes it look like we're all sitting in the same room talking, and naturally, shouldn't we have to take turns? Please, stay on topic, focus, raise your hand if you have something to say. And that impression has absolutely no basis in reality, but is created solely and entirely by the link round-ups.

The problem is that link-roundups are, undoubtedly, a useful and informative thing. It's just, I think, the more you organize and editorialize in your link-presentations, the more you give an impression of there being any kind of an order to it. When in fact you're just enforcing the veneer of a single conversation on what is really an entire cafeteria of four-tops all discussing different things amongst themselves, and only every now and then overhearing what someone else might be saying (and just as often, mishearing what someone else is saying).

[branchandroot]

*thoughtful* The link comms tend to strive for (or at least profess) a degree of neutrality. I wonder if it would reduce some of the /specific/ "everyone speak in turn, what are you doing off topic" wank if the editors were more evident in the first person--if there was more verbiage given to their own construction of the conversation/interlinkages or those of the link-reporters. It would open up a world of /other/ wank, to be sure, but it might address /this/ issue a bit.

[sevilemar]

It's what I think, too. You can't speak for all of fandom, that's virtually impossible. So why not adapt a philosophy of "This is what I know" and link not only to the meta/wank itself, but also to other link roundups.

[Sorry to butt in, it's been on my mind for quite some time now if and how we can deal with the chaos that is online fandom^^]

[kaigou]

It would open up a world of /other/ wank, to be sure

And that, right there, is why I doubt it'd ever happen (except on a very personal, every-now-and-then level). Link-collectors are just as wank-adverse as anyone else, I 'spect, and I can see it in the way nearly all of them profess objectivity. When they do have editorial comments (ie the original Linkspam), they're quick to emphasize that this is a "group decision" -- which is really the same as saying, "don't blame me [personally] because it's How Everyone Sees This". Trying to avoid being singled out for the editorializing results in giving the appearance that the editorializing is broadly supported, that is: that there's the force of a majority behind it, which in turn, I would think, also distorts how the linkspams etc are read, as though a qualified jury of our peers has passed an inarguable judgment.

As soon as the so-called objective opinion is revealed as subjective perspective on the part of one person, there's wank. That ties into something else I've noticed (and we see it again with BNFs and fandom): that if someone claims authority, there are going to be twenty other people who feel compelled to undermine, even outright destroy, that authority. A good half of the threads I've ever read on fanwank seem to boil down to: this person is getting too big for his/her britches, and we are here to take them DOWN a notch. Or eighteen. If someone were to round-up links regularly and become a singular 'voice' of collecting-authority, wank will soon ensue, because that collection and voice are taking on a mantle of authority. Linkspam itself is a victim of that, when the original/primary collector was forcefully shoved out, in the middle of the Lamda Awards fiasco -- and there you go, that single voice was replaced by a 'group' authority, editorializing to a much stricter and less flexible level that that single person ever did, leastaways from what I read.

Something about the internet does not like a single authority. Or more harshly, something about the internet believes that only group-opinions deserve respect.

[sevilemar]

Not so short after all, ey? ;)

you link, you are connected, you can be found, and your citation can be used against you
Very true, and I hadn't thought of that. I guess you have to decide time and again while posting which is more valuable to you, being recognized as part of a larger discussion and potentially encounter wank and other opinions that frustrate you to no end, or posting your equivalent of "Why are they carrying that stupid rainbow flag?" to a more closely knitted group of friends who might explain more patiently.

But let me just say, I really appreciate that in fandom, we have at least some kind of choice in the matter. In university, especially in first and second year, when my knowledge was little and my circle of friends even more so, I have often found myself at the recieving end of pitying/angry/dissapointed etc. looks and comments (academia's version of public shaming and dogpiling) just because I asked a question out of curious ignorance. But if you want to know, mostly, you have no choice, especially if your friends study other things than you do.

So yes, I think both forms of discussions have equal value, or rather, what is more valuable should be decided anew with every post. From an aca-fan perspective, link round-ups are very helpful and finding the silent parts of a discussion can be a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make them any less valuable for analysis once you've found them.

how do you know you've actually collected the discussion?
In my opinion, we should never delude ourselves that we can read all aspects of any given discussion, know all perspectives on a given topic; online fandom is just too vast for that. Even if you do a halfway decent job of collecting English meta, what about non-English meta on the same topic? What about related discussions on related topics on non-fannish blogs? etc.

What if your introduction is an unlinked post, giving the impression it starts and stops here, what does that do to how we see the post?
To me? I might see it as an unconnected opportunity for discussion; far more likely: When I'm through with it, I'd google keywords or take a look at recent metafandom posts if the topic interests me and I have the time^^

[kaigou]

Short? This was positively a one-sentence post, compared to some posts I've written!

Perhaps we have a choice in fandom in re exposing ourselves to broader discussions... but I think it's more a matter of extremes. In either academia or fandom, we can ask the question after class/in private. Asking a stupid question in class might get you the derision of your classmates, which granted can be hard to take (especially if their reaction is the first indication of the full extent of your ignorance). Asking a stupid question on the internets... and suddenly you have 400 vitriolic comments, with your name being dropped as Example of Stupid, in who know how many other journals, blog posts, and so on. It'd be like if every stupid question were rounded up and reprinted in the local university rag for the enjoyment of all, and then students were encouraged to seek you out and remind you, again and again, how stupid you were to ask that question in class.

My point is that damage control on the internets is... well, nearly impossible, really. Or more bluntly, internet discussions can end up being a lot of damage and zero control.

I'm aware of googling keywords, etc; my point behind the question was that if one's impression of a post is that it's a solitary incident, how this may impact our view of the question itself. Frex, if one is privileged and blind to that privilege, one might be more likely to write off the unlinked post's points as a single voice out in the wilderness, because obviously it's not important enough for anyone else to care -- or else there'd be links, some indication that the person is taking part in a larger discussion. Lacking that, the impression could be: this is just one journaler's personal opinion. It's much easier to write off, and privilege always looks for a way to rationalize ignoring someone.

[sevilemar]

Asking a stupid question on the internets...
Asking a question might not be the worst (if it really is a question and not a rhetorical one), because it clearly indicates you really don't know about something but like to learn. I think it's more the casual manifestations of ignorance/privilege etc. in a text about something else, or the direct flaunting of it (eg writing on the subject your ignorant of/privileged about) that gets people so angry they start dogpiling. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't been involved in many wanks yet myself, but that's certainly what gets me riled up most.

Also, I think wank IME is often not so much about the initial statement/post but about how the OP reacts to the first critical/angry reactions. Maybe a lot of wank could be averted if the OP is able to look at what the criticism entails rather than at the tone of voice. It helps immensely if the OP already knows that everyone has privileges about one thing or other and is open enough to take the anger seriously.

Lacking that, the impression could be: this is just one journaler's personal opinion. It's much easier to write off, and privilege always looks for a way to rationalize ignoring someone.
Ideally, it shouldn't make a difference if one or one thousand people critizise you, but I know that's not the case. For me, it's all in the post. If I somehow get the feeling that he_she has thought about this topic a lot, I'm more likely to consider it. That can be because it's well thought out and makes a very good argument, but it can also be a reference to some pre-existing concept I've never heard of ("You're mansplaining!").

[kaigou]

I think it's more the casual manifestations of ignorance/privilege etc. in a text about something else

I think sometimes it's both. I've seen kerfluffles rise and fall due to asking a question that on the face, looks like wanting to learn, but in the asking (or the phrasing, or the attempts at self-answering) reveals major privilege. It's hard to give the benefit of the doubt in those incidents, admittedly. One may think, "ah, this person wants to learn!" and another may think, "this person already has his/her answer, and is just asking the question to appear open-minded."

This is the pattern, btw, if you're not sure what I mean: "Why does ___ always/only ___? Is it because ___ are too ____, or is it something else?" For instance, "why do fanfiction writers only write porn? Is it because they're not creative at all, or something else?" Or, "why do feminists hate men? Is it because they're ugly, or is it something else?"

It's awfully hard to see that "something else" without seeing the first part as incredibly offensive, even if the person really is repeating wisdom they've never previously questioned. They may even have posited as something unquestioned, as in "my parents always said that... but is that really it?" which sometimes strikes me as a little disingenuous, like you're trying to get the offensive digs in there without coming right out and claiming it as your own. Oh, you were just tossing off suggestions!

And I'm hardly innocent, seeing how I toss off suggestions all the time, sometimes because I'm in the early stages of questioning and sometimes to have the list to work my way down to discount each, and sometimes as advance attack of a devil's advocate move. But then, that amounts to knowing what I'm doing and doing it on purpose, as opposed to, "oh, you're offended? I had no idea! Really!"

ANYWAY. See the way I derail myself? Isn't that nifty? *stabself*

Maybe a lot of wank could be averted if the OP is able to look at what the criticism entails rather than at the tone of voice.

Heh. That whole tone of voice thing is very much a way to distract from having to deal with the criticism, though. It's a defensive maneuver, and it's right up there with, "You started your argument by saying your friend's car was blue, but it wasn't blue, it was red, so everything else you said is also false!" But sometimes it's also just hard to separate anger-with-post and anger-with-person. It's hard to keep giving a commenter the benefit of the doubt when you also suspect that they'd punch you in the face if they met you in person... then you feel as though you need to defend yourself, and what better way than to find a loophole to dismiss their comments, no matter how valid you may know them to be? Validating their comments means validating their righteous fury (read: possibly hatred) against you as a person.

I think that's one of the toughest parts in such debates, and damn, what I know now... makes me really, really glad I didn't go into the doctoral program on conflict resolution, after all. I probably would've been an abject failure, given how much I hate raised voices and fists. Sheesh.

[nagasvoice]

I like this point of sevilemar's:
Even if you do a halfway decent job of collecting English meta, what about non-English meta on the same topic? What about related discussions on related topics on non-fannish blogs? etc.

I happen to be in several hobbies where non-English communities are important, and some of them with cultures where it's a big deal to get publicly shamed. It makes this issue of "do I speak up or not" really pointed for those people who can translate back and forth.
To give a particular example, one Korean doll company came out with childish-looking dolls wearing well-made uniforms which evoked the insignia and the clothing design of WWII German officers. These weren't clear reproductions of Nazi officers' uniforms, but it evoked the type clearly enough as examples of absolute authority that it severely creeped out a bunch of us Westerners who speak English. This included some of the westerners who normally sell this company's stock in other countries, such as members of the EU. Somebody commented that there's still places where it's illegal to handle regalia that could be mistaken as Nazi material, for instance; I do not know how true this is.
Fortunately, such doll companies are pretty small and informal, not like massive corporations. The bad news did get back to the folks who make their decisions. (Another whole different problem in many places in the world.) The company withdrew the clothing sets once they understood why they were getting extreme reactions, but it leaves you to wonder that they didn't check with somebody first before committing to all that work.
While not being fashion doll specialists, still these companies are well aware of the fashion trends in places like Paris and Milan and the Harajuku district in Japan, whether or not they use contemporary design in a particular case. In those places, using jackboots and MacArthur-style military caps would probably be a form of ridicule, but this was not even satire, just straight worship of authority. Many of us of greater age and responsibility are also aware of the waxing and waning popularity of fantasy BD/sm images of unchecked abusive authority--which becomes a big problem for moderators of online communities with underage members.
It still totally creeps me out that this was the Korean company's perception of the international zeitgeist, especially as they were not the only company recently who's been coming out with fascist-inspired gear for *dolls.*
But you can see where it put a massive burden on the doll forum moderators and on the company's foreign dealers and on those folks trying to translate the on-going outrage.

[kaigou]

Good point about non-English (or, to be fair, simply "not in my language") meta. Sometimes it's a matter of limitation; my fluency has dropped so much that I simply could not participate, with any coherency, in any Mandarin or French conversations. For the rest... unless someone is willing to act as translator, there are massive chunks of meta that I may be able to access (online) but certainly wouldn't comprehend.

But that's assuming I have awareness of the conversations -- which, because I participate in mostly non-English fandoms, it's hard to get away from that awareness. If my fandoms were entirely English-based, and/or American-produced, it'd be a lot easier to forget that other chunks of the world may be watching, reading, and meta'ing American products. From an academic standpoint, I don't think one can justifiably ignore the non-English participation, but I also get that (in academic ventures) it's also a matter of limiting the scope: is the discussion how the intended (in-country) audience interprets meta, or is the discussion about how anyone (in- or out-country) interprets meta?

Beyond that, though... when we get into fails specifically, the language limitations really hamper that cross-cultural understanding. (As to be expected.) It's possibly one of the worst things about online fail-dialogues, that a lack of English means being discounted from the debate. More than that, though, the assumption that one must know a certain language (almost always English) to participate acts as a definite barrier... such that I can see the possibility of one assuming there must be little other (non-English) conversation, since all the 'important' debates are taking place in English. That kind of blindspot just engenders that barrier, making it worse and worse.

Then again, one obvious solution is also the hardest: to increase multi-lingual fluency. But failing that, we can at least increase multi-lingual awareness.

And more to the point of your comment, it's also a matter of multicultural awareness, which may go hand-in-hand with multilingual awareness. Global economy and all that; one can no longer assume that the only one reading is another native-English speaker in a similar socio-economic and ethnic position.

[nagasvoice]

I like your point that there are two compounding problems there--one being discounting or ignoring meta discussions that are not in your own culture or language, and the other issue of cultural awareness, or lack of it.
I suspect the doll companies in various countries put up with thigns they perceive as shockingly rude behavior from many customers, simply out of differences in marketplace practices, such as dickering. As with sports, in that particular specialty hobby you also see really charming examples of people going to a lot of trouble to reach across those divides and connect on the basis of understanding one another's efforts. It's always wonderful to see how the other party cares just as much as you do about doing wonderful work, for instance.