reset on linkspam with a few blue giraffes

[kaigou]

If I ran the world, here's my list for linkspam, though also applicable to linkspam's siblings fandomnews & metafandom. (See comments for further discussion, clarifications, and digressions of interest.)

1. Set a grace period, say, 72 hours before linking.

We all have stupid moments, but most of us are pretty good about realizing the stupid even if it takes posting to see it in pixels and say, man, that was an idiot moment. Oh, certainly, some people are going to fail -- we all will -- and some folks won't check their own privilege -- we all do that at some point -- but for the average person, it only takes a friend replying, "man, you're being an idiot here," for us to say, hey, whoops, okay, idiot moment. Before you invite everyone and their sister to come storming down our doors for being an idiot, allow us the chance to avert the disaster of a wrecked house (or crispy-fried journal).

I had a coach in high school who, by midway through the racing season, would only call out my errors maybe every few practices. Being terribly neurotic about my technique and whether it was good enough, I cornered her once, wanting to know if her lack of coaching towards me meant that I was just so bad that she'd gotten tired of even trying. Oh, no, she assured me, she could see I was trying, and that when I screwed up, if she waited a bit, she'd see me catch myself, and do it right the next time. She could see me thinking about it, and she believed it was better to give me the space to correct myself than to only speak the one time I went wrong while being silent the ten times I had it right.

In a way, that's how I see grace periods: it's letting a person get it wrong, and giving them a chance to try again and get it right before bringing down the howling denizens to castigate the wrongness -- because most people do have some self-correcting skills. Sometimes we're just a bit belated about it.

2. Stop grouping posts under a single general header-topic.

See, in case this missed you, Linkspam and its ilk don't link to posts that declare the world is a happy place. Well, unless it's a terribly idiot oppression-laced happy place statement, in which case it's bound to get someone all het up about the oppressive element, and hence you have controversy.

That's the total heart of linkspam, the partial heart of metafandom, and to a slightly lesser degree, fandomnews: they bring us a collated list of controversy. Whatever has everyone talking. Or, this being the internets, what has everyones' panties in a freaking double windsor. And in this life we call the internets, there's always someone raring to go on just about any topic you can name; it's positively open bar for them as likes to argue when Linkspam et al provides a ready-made list of destination spots.

We are territorial creatures, we humans, and that includes our discussions. If someone out there is omgRONG on the interweebs, and their discussion is grouped under a collective heading with our own post, I'm not surprised that some folks are, essentially, acting like they're "defending" their discussion-territory. That's where you get the derailing accusations and ensuing drama, with this example being specifically Linkspam, though semi-relevant to its siblings:

a. The collective grouping creates an illusion of all posts being in alignment as part of a set-topic discussion.
b. Included posts are thus either "for oppression [of topic]" or "against oppression [of topic]".
c. If the post isn't precisely "against oppression [of topic]", it becomes "for oppression" by default, thanks to the kneejerk of "if you're not for us, you're against us".

The end result: a side discussion (and digression is a legitimate element of argument evolution) is suddenly disdained as both derailment and pro-oppression. From what I've seen, this has little to do with the post's own validity and everything to do with the fact that it's not on-topic -- to a broad topic which was foisted on that post by virtue of Linkspam grouping that post with the so-called umbrella topic, even when the post is validly and honestly tangential. Which begs the question of just who is setting the topic to judge who's in and who's out, but that's a role many are willing to take on for themselves. My suggestion is that you not help them.

Just post the links, with excerpts, and don't band them together as all-one-topic. People can read the excerpts and determine for themselves whether it's about ableism, sexuality, or pink elephants rampaging through Central Park. They're going to join a pitchfork-bearing horde if they're so inclined, and little anyone can do about it -- but Linkspam makes it awfully quick for them to find a continuing supply of easy victims. Well, more than that: Linkspam's mission statement, combined with delineating topic headers, justifies that reaction.

Alternate option:
--- If a post is tangential, put it in a secondary group.

Major clue that a post digresses (uses another post as a jump-off point): somewhere in there, usually near or at the top, the average OP will make the statement that "so-and-so's post got me thinking about something related..." and off we go. Being in the OP's own journal, it's not an automatic derailment of the main topic, although it is clearly a digression in an overall scheme; that entry-statement is a big signal for of tangentiality. If the main topic is "pink elephants in Central Park" and this digression revolves around "blue giraffes on Wall Street", then start a secondary topic labeled, I don't know, "off-shoot discussions" or "related posts". Something neutral, seeing how blue giraffes may be a completely valid topic in their own right, even if they're digressive from the issue of pink elephants.

At least then, if someone's wanting to stay on the issue of pink elephants, they can avoid the blue giraffes. And if they want to carry pitchforks and tar into the journal of those digressing on blue giraffes, they don't have the weight of Linkspam's own classification as justification for their cries of derailment and oppression -- because it's not always immediately oppression, and it's not fair to put a target on anyone's forehead when a discussion's natural course is to evolve. Trying to prevent such is stultifying the discussions that could otherwise occur.

3. If it's nothing but links, skip it.

Really. When a topic really gets going, there's nothing more annoying than trying to keep up -- and hitting multiple instances of what amounts to a link to an already-LS'd post, with no additional commentary. Or a post that discusses something else completely and then adds a single sentence that amounts to, "and so-and-so had this post, and you should definitely read it." If the comments then went off into a wildly long discussion, then link to that thread, but in every instance I came across of an uncommented link (not counting the "I agree with this person"), there were either comments about the non-related stuff, or no comments at all. What's the point of that?

If the intention of linking is to link to items of substance, then skip the posts whose substance amounts to nothing more than quoting someone else. Either link to the quoted person's post if it's relevant, or skip it, and let those of us paying attention to you save our energy for someone who's doing something more than just "I read this and agreed."

This goes double for uncommented posts with multiple links.

4. For crying out loud, change the freaking name.

A linkspam is not a good thing. It's a series of links on a website, in which the links are included solely for the purposes of upping someone's google ranking, and -- this is important -- by definition are links that have no intrinsic merit. Linkspams are also called nepotistic linking, and that right there is probably not the impression I'd think Linkspam would be wanting anyone to have -- but it's the first reaction I had, and I can't possibly be the only one.

Even if I really am the only one among hundreds who's aware of linkspams, for crying out loud, how can anything with the word spam in it be something good?

---

ETA: HYPOTHETICALS, PEOPLE.

If you reference past events, be glossy; if you point out issues in the track record, SUGGEST SOLUTIONS. The value of critically constructive discourse relies on making sure no one feels like they're being personally attacked, and it can be hard to distance oneself when specifics are getting specified and names are being named and sleeping arguments are getting poked with a sharp stick. Therefore, I recommend when outlining, identify only the general pattern you've seen; if you suggest ways of undoing past damage, do it from both sides, as if you were party A and as if you were party B, to give both the benefit of the doubt. Alternately, suggest how such a pattern could be prevented in the future without delving into the two sides, but that means neither mentioning who is on what side, nor how those sides formed.

Approaching any reply with this in mind will go a long way towards making sure this doesn't devolve into beating at the water long under the bridge. After all, that's not the goal of this post, which is focused more on coming up with ways to keep the next bridge from getting burnt in the first place. ...to totally whack the metaphors, there, heh.

Comments

[troisroyaumes]

Um, for what it's worth, linkspam has already started using less contentious labels and now use words like "tangential" or "problematic" instead. Moreover, in the recent ableism discussion, it included posts that talked about the sexual abuse aspect without referencing ableism as a separate but related topic of discussion, which would completely fall under your "If a post is tangential, put it in a secondary group" option. Moreover, most linkspam posts do go up considerably after the original posts are made; I was seeing discussion on the Amanda Palmer controversy long before linkspam even made a post about it--maybe it's not a regular period of 72 hours but it's usually not the very next day either. (metafandom is a lot quicker about compiling, as far as I can tell.)

I mean, I'm not trying to argue that you should feel fine about linkspam when you clearly don't, and there are criticisms you raise here which I suspect for practical or other reasons will never be addressed, just pointing out that they have altered how they word warnings. I would also argue that linkspam's purpose is not to convince people it's a good thing or to satisfy everyone who might come across it; just to be a resource for those who do wish to keep track of discussions.

(As obligatory disclaimer: am not associated with linkspam in any way but do read it regularly and find it useful.)

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

metafandom is a lot quicker about compiling, as far as I can tell.

We try to be. It's a policy that was in effect before I joined the team, and there is or was a strong practical reason for it: LJ at least has something of a cultural norm of commenting only on fairly recent posts, so that if people were going to join a discussion they needed to be aware of it within a couple of days of it being launched. Sometimes there's an inadvertent cooling-off period, where one or more of us won't be sure whether something really belongs in our roundup and hold it for review by other compilers, but that's unusual.

I can't see that really changing, unless the surrounding culture changes and people become more comfortable about commenting on older entries. But I'm also not sure how much difference it really makes, because with the advent of delicious accounts as a kind of holding pen for not-yet-posted and/or not-yet-reviewed-by-the-full-group links, those who're so inclined need not wait for metafandom or linkspam to actually post anything. I don't know how many readers take advantage of this, but I know there must be a decent number who do; I've found that I can tell when either one of my colleagues has tagged something I wrote¹ or linkspam has done so because there's a distinct uptick in comments within hours. (Then there'll be a little lull, with comments trickling in at a steady, somewhat elevated rate, and then a larger burst of traffic when the actual link post goes up.) So even though there's already a significant lag between when linkspam will note a post for future inclusion and when they actually put it in a roundup, readers of linkspam will be along to comment on something almost as soon as one of the linkspam compilers has noted its existence.

So while I see the value of a cooling off/rewrite period, I'm not sure it's something that would really work with the technology and culture we've got.

¹I normally avoid linking anything I wrote; how do I know whether it's interesting or not?

[kaigou]

To make this clearer: I'm not saying it's necessarily good advice, what I listed, only that it's what I would do if I ran the world.

Since I don't, I'm stuck with complaining here -- and sticking with requests at tops of posts to lay the hell off linking when it's a particularly controversial topic (or one that's going to generate enough discussion that I know I'll be editing out the stupid).

And that, really, is less to do with the fact that I don't stand behind my words, and a helluva lot more to do with the fact that I can't stand the attitudes of a lot of the hungry-for-a-fight people who follow linkspam and metafandom, who will come barrelling in without a second thought and steamroller right through what -- for me -- is more of a contemplative, open-to-discussion, kind of thing. Given the comments I've seen elsewhere on my dwircle/flist, I'm not the only one disinterested in suddenly hosting a host of adamant folks who aren't really interested in true (read: evolving and potentially digressive) discussion so much as they are in persuasion, specifically persuasion towards their own objective of whatever "their" topic currently is.

Or maybe we just need icons or an acronym that politely notifies any potential linkers (without having to belabor the point) that linkage is not welcome, or maybe just not welcome right now.

Or maybe metafandom, linkspam, et al need to be a bit more adamant in their own linkage that going to someone's journal and freaking flaming them for daring to raise a topic is, well, really not cool.

*shrug*

[annotated_em]

Isn't it linkspam's policy that they feel free to link any publicly posted material, regardless of whether the post notes that the poster isn't interested in hosting a internet-wide discussion?

Which, grant you, is anyone's prerogative regarding publicly posted material, but runs rather contra to the sort of community norms that have prevailed up till recently in most of the journalling spaces (as far as I've noticed, anyway).

[kaigou]

Isn't it linkspam's policy that they feel free to link any publicly posted material...

I'm not sure if it's explicit, but it's certainly implied -- and as I think you (or the other Em?) has pointed out, that makes it even more egregious, not to mention audacious, to then have the gall to label a post as "tangential", let alone "derailing". If it's freaking derailing, then freaking ignore it.

But I think part of it's also that linkspam is like any old-time anthropologist, freely disregarding its own impact on the spaces it purports to be reporting/studying: its use of editorial comments most definitely has a major damn impact on how people perceive a conversational flow.

[annotated_em]

I just went and looked at their policies post, which doesn't explicitly state that any publicly posted entry is fair game, but does state the policy of generally not removing posts when asked (which metafandom does do) and leaving posts which were linked and then locked after the fact open.

Which is a sort of editorializing in and of itself; why would you lock your post if you didn't have anything to hide? And when did you stop beating your wife?

I know that linkspam specifically identifies as anti-oppression, and I do think that some of the work they've done in the past has been valuable. But I'm also starting to think that, as it's become an established presence and people are starting to follow it who haven't, in essence, done their homework about anti-oppression work are starting to pick up on it, it's becoming a locus for people who like to go in and shout other people down, with the added frisson of getting to feel that they're right for doing so. (Caveat: I'm not saying that everyone who follows linkspam is doing this, or that some people aren't definitely Wrong on the Internet. But I'm saying that it seems like some people are doing that, and the net result is that it's shutting down conversation.)

[kaigou]

I'd say that in general, if you get twenty people commenting via link-roundup (regardless of who listed you), and all twenty are fairly civil, if not complimentary, but at least stick to the topic and help you get a better handle on whatever, then... yeah, value. But in practice, all it really takes is one person making your life absolutely miserable for one to start feeling like maybe this wasn't such a good idea, because this one person's animosity isn't just taking your spoons, it's eating them by the handfuls enough that you feel exhausted the next day, as well. Have the unfortunate luck to be linked twice, and go through it twice, and by the third time, most people I've seen in these discussions don't care any more if the other twenty people are twenty or four times that -- the one energy-suck determined to wreck the party does, in the end, wreck the party.

And no, I don't agree that if one is being stupid then one's party should be wrecked. No, I think in that case, stupidity does -- especially in this communication-heavy environment -- get served far better if it's simply shunned. There have been plenty of times I've posted, realized my stupid, and realized that this might've been the reasons for the silence: people were waiting for me to smack myself on the forehead and say, okay, that was stupid.

But then again, the party-wreckers don't seem to care about that, so much as they care about being righteously indignant with alleged justification, context or no.

Ehhh, whatever, because now I shall post something that I'm sure will bring them out of the woodwork, if not in this post, in its conclusion. Oh, joy! I can hardly wait.

*suddenly feels compelling need to organize sock drawer*

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

I'm not saying it's necessarily good advice,

I'm sorry. I fear that I must have sounded more defensive, or more combative, or both, than I intended. It was really only the policy geek in me coming out to play and being too exuberant about it.

Given the comments I've seen elsewhere on my dwircle/flist, I'm not the only one disinterested in suddenly hosting a host of adamant folks who aren't really interested in true (read: evolving and potentially digressive) discussion so much as they are in persuasion,

You are emphatically not the only one. Oh, how well I know it.

Metafandom's policy has always been to honor do-not-link requests, no questions asked and no belaboring needed. I only wish that it hadn't become quite so obviously desirable to make those requests under some circumstances.

[kaigou]

Well, the list is generally aimed at all of them, but you can tell not all are applicable to the groups. Metafandom seems to be the most level-headed, yes, and Linkspam is (though its very nature and mission invite this) the most wankalicious at times. Fandomnews is actually the most annoying, in that it simply doesn't change anything at all -- like linking to a post I did (that wasn't even about fandom, for crying out loud, except, hrm, I think it mentioned the word, okay, but whatever), and it got the post's title wrong and didn't even link to the post but to the third cut. No one ever changed it, no one ever even replied to me about how it'd be changed (if at all), and it just seemed to me to be highly lackadaisical.

I don't mind linkage, so long as there's a way to modify when linkers make mistakes, as they will, being human. Although linkspam has its own idiosyncratic foibles (like leaving up posts even when the post is locked or deleted, which kinda defeats the purpose of being a 'resource' since you can't read it, and really acts more like a shaming device after the fact), at the very least, when it gets a link or title wrong, it does (sometimes) appear to correct that much.

And the truth is that I don't mind linkspam in theory. It's the fact that it may put a different context around my post, creating a pre-existing expectation/impression for visitors, that really pisses me off. It's one reason I'm (only sort of) glad I never posted about deconstructing M/M romance, back in December (when, unbeknownst to me, the entire slash fandom was exploding). I don't read [fandom] slash these days, being barely on the periphery of any fandoms, so I've no interest in deconstructing it, but I do find romance (in all its versions) to be of massive deconstructionist interest -- so the context is different. Based on linkspam's track record, can I a) really trust that they'll get that there's a difference between "gay characters in slash" and "male romance", or b) expect that they'll leap on the first instance of "m/m" and lump it in with the existing controversy and then declare my pretty-much-unrelated topic to be digressive, if not outright derailing?

Hmmm. Lemme think. Sorry, Bob, I'm going to have to go with door number two, and expect Linkspam to screw it up in the worst way possible.

There's Murphy's Law, and then there's the Linkspam Law: if there's any potential for controversy by misrepresenting a post, Linkspam do it just to enjoy the toasty warmth of the flamewars.

ps: no, you didn't sound combative or defensive at all. see, I like policy geeks. always extra fun at parties when you make them balance their pocket protectors on their nose if they want to have a martini!

[cofax7]

[edited by reason of not wanting to get into the whole thing in public with the subject of the comment]

[kaigou]

I appreciate your respect for the post's tone by keeping the specifics on the down-low. At the same time... I don't really have any true bone in this fight, although I appreciate the sentiment of trying to fill me in on missing details. (Unfortunately, the lack of bone means I don't really have a framework for incorporating the details into a bigger picture, since I don't really have much of a big picture at this point. Unusual for me, but there it is.)

Okay, that all said, if you've got any suggestions for when you run the world what you'd like to see in digest-style posts (any or all or just vague "digest" style), feel free to list!

[troisroyaumes]

For the record, the comparison was not meant as criticism of metafandom but merely as observation. I don't particularly care about grace period either way. I forgot about the delicious accounts though since I don't use delicious at all; thank you for the correction.

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

Ack, I'm sorry: I didn't mean that to sound defensive. It was more a matter of, 'oh, look, here's an interesting policy issue, what would help address it?'

(Also, I'm totally open to criticism of metafandom; when things go offtrack my feeling is that it's good to try to diagnose the problem and fix it if it can be fixed. So I'd feel faintly apologetic about sounding defensive even if you had intended to be critical. Which a number of people have of late, so it's on my mind.)

[troisroyaumes]

Heh, you didn't come across as defensive, but as you said, I belatedly remembered that people have been vocally criticizing metafandom on a lot of issues lately and just wanted to be clear that I wasn't arguing for a policy change for metafandom. (And as is clear in my comments, I am obviously being defensive about linkspam myself!)

[kaigou]

*dryly* because "warning: tangential" is so much of an improvement.

I would also argue that linkspam's purpose is not to convince people it's a good thing or to satisfy everyone who might come across it; just to be a resource for those who do wish to keep track of discussions.

to convince people *what* is a good thing: linkspam itself, or the topic it's covering, or something else? not being sarcastic, just can't tell what the "it" in the sentence refers to.

Either way, I can see value in warning people about triggers (like for rape, or abuse, etc), but when Linkspam starts getting into the editorial comments, I figure, well. Y'know, some people are stupid, and either you figure that out when you read the post, or the person figures it out based on replies, or maybe you remain utterly ignorant of someone's need to check their privilege. Or, of course, you can include the warnings and basically put up a big honking neon sign that says, "OMG SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNETS" and inflame the fight-seeking folks even more, because now they're not only justified via linkspam's collection of the topic, they're freaking handed a blank check because Linkspam has additionally, and formally, categorized the post as OMG WRONG in some way. And, as a result, from what I see, there are plenty of folks who will flyby in droves and come with the pre-existing expectation that you are, truly, wrong, which is basically the same thing as saying their minds are made up, and that increases the chances that any valuable or valid statements you might have buried in there are going to be dismissed just as easily, because, y'know, the Linkspam PTB have already come down with a verdict, so the hordes are just the enforcers who come by to mete out their idea of proper justice.

(Also obligatory disclaimer: am not associated with linkspam in any way, and don't read it anymore because it was getting too annoying for words. Heh.)

But again, like I said to phoebe, if I ran the world, then I'd do it my way. But I don't, so I just fuss about it over here in my corner, and don't honestly expect that anything would come out of it -- because frankly I don't care enough to really push the issue. More like, I complain, get it out of my system, and move along.

Well, then again, I do that about nearly everything, come to think of it. Very little is worth hammering on for very long.

[troisroyaumes]

I don't think "tangential" carries all that much of a negative connotation myself, though it's true that "warning" does. That being said, I haven't seen a post labeled as "derailing" or "tangential" that did not try to dismiss the original concern or criticism being raised; the only example that people have been citing in discussions seems pretty clearly not a case of wanting to talk about blue giraffes instead of pink elephants, if I may borrow your example (link here). I do acknowledge that not seeing something happen doesn't rule out the possibility of it happening. Still, posts that genuinely seem to be approaching the discussion from an entirely different angle are not given "warnings": as an example from the latest digest, "[The following link shifts focus from the ableist aspects to the problematic depictions of childhood sexual abuse in the Evelyn Evelyn project]".

"It" referring to linkspam itself, in response to your paragraph that says that the name gives a bad impression. Which I agree it does, particularly without the context of the archival work done during Racefail, but I don't think that linkspam mods particularly care about that impression.

I understand your position about labels giving free license to criticize and censure without assessing the post on its own terms. Still--and I know I am only speaking for myself here--I don't engage with posts that are labeled as problematic. On issues where I feel that I am not privileged, I don't engage because it's hostile territory; on issues where I am, I don't see any purpose in my white-knighting on behalf of others. Plus, there have been posts that I thought were great that ended up labeled as problematic; in those cases, the labels did make me think again, but I don't think they automatically changed my opinion so much as made me pay more attention to the dissenting views. In the majority of links I've read, the posts I've seen labeled as problematic on linkspam don't even have comments from people outside the poster's friends list. The m/m fiction and slash debate was the major exception because most people in fic-writing fandom had a personal stake one way or the other in the matter.

Again, I agree that you don't have to read or like linkspam, and I'm not disputing your right to complain at all. I just wanted to clarify that the warnings on linkspam have not remained the same since complaints were first raised because not everyone who's been discussing the issue lately seemed to take that into account. Granted, perhaps the points would have been better raised elsewhere, but I have to admit I felt more comfortable commenting in your journal.

[kaigou]

Still--and I know I am only speaking for myself here--I don't engage with posts that are labeled as problematic.

Which is entirely my point about the fact that such warnings need an incredibly light touch -- or else you've got a group of people (outside the ones who'll be following the links & reading for the first time) who are passing value judgments on posts. Let's set aside whether or not those posts deserve such judgment, in toto, and just think about the objective pattern that's likeliest as a result:

1. Some readers (I'd posit the majority) will just avoid that post altogether.

Basically, Linkspam is saying, "someone posted on this topic, but what they're saying isn't worth listening to." For a group that purports to be all about anti-oppression, I find it hugely ironic that they then proceed to do the exact same dismissive action I see so often in the "oh, you're just a ____, you have nothing to contribute." With only a very very few exceptions of really remarkable fail, most posts do have something to contribute, even if it's to observe the momentary stupid come around to wiser comprehension via discussion in the comments. But, in the end, I just don't believe that anyone's words can, or should, be dismissed out of hand -- and when Linkspam says, "this post is problematic" or "this post is digressive/derailing", that's what they're doing: they're creating justification for seeing that specific post as not worth reading. In which case, why freaking link? If it's such a pointless waste of pixels, what's the point, other than (I am left to conclude) to act as a shaming device?

2. Some readers will go out of their way to zero in on the posts tagged as OMG RONG in some way.

Because, y'know, it's a discussion, and that whole territoriality thing I mentioned in the main post.

Upshot: with or without context, with or without indication of willingness to communicate and shift in position, with or without acknowledgment of any other shortcoming that may prevent perfect communication and with the benefit of the doubt because every freaking one of us has privilege blinders of some sort, a post judged as failing by linkspam will therefore get far fewer open-minded readers willing to engage, and a much higher percentage of angry readers more than happy to engage, with flamethrowers.

As for commenting: you are more than welcome to comment here, and I'm glad you feel comfortable doing so! Sure, perhaps the points would've been better raised elsewhere, but see, that assumes I actually really care enough to make that much effort. Hmm, maybe I might at some point, but that caring would only last until the next distraction comes along -- and right now, my energy is being directed towards finding a lost cat. The idea of opening myself up elsewhere to anyone telling me that just making these suggestions are indication of privilege (with its attendant implication that I therefore can be dismissed, now go away) -- or even just minor criticism, to be honest (at this specific point in time) would draw energy away from something far more important.

Or maybe it's that I don't particularly care because I have so little energy left to do more than meander about/around it here, where I can feel relatively safe to do so.

[troisroyaumes]

Hm, well, again, just speaking for myself here, but I usually do go read posts labeled as problematic (unless the conversation is about racism or xenophobia, which I avoid for my own emotional energy levels and not because I've automatically written them off) along with everything else that gets linked even if I don't engage, and I try to figure out why the label was applied. In cases where I do possess my own privilege blinders, sometimes it takes me a while to see it, and sometimes I don't see it at all. Of course, my going through a learning process doesn't really justify anything, but I do think that this response is not as unlikely as you may think.

As for why linkspam might bother to link to those posts, in some cases, the post labeled as problematic does need to be read in order to keep track of what the resulting discussion is referring to. Sometimes the post is not necessarily problematic on the issue at hand but failed on other issues (e.g. being sexist while talking about ableism). I usually assume that the link is included not because the post is worthless but that it did in fact have something to contribute and/or had an important role in the discussion. (I do agree that if neither category applies, the post shouldn't be linked. I also am sympathetic to the argument that links perceived as obviously derailing shouldn't be linked at all. The only real justification I can see is that sometimes the derailing has already taken place and the discussion has shifted to focus on the derailing post, in which case, in the interests of archival, it makes sense to link it.) Granted, my interpretation of linkspam != everyone's interpretation of linkspam, and I honestly have no idea what their criteria for including or excluding links are, so this is all just rampant speculation.

Actually, as I follow that line of thought, that's probably the fundamental problem here: linkspam is essentially functioning as a discussion-promoting comm like metafandom but its policies are based on its archiving/historical function (editorializing being inevitable when you're putting together a historical record, particularly when your very mission is to present that record from a specific, non-objective angle). Which does argue in favor of the grace period you suggested in this post.

Sure, perhaps the points would've been better raised elsewhere, but see, that assumes I actually really care enough to make that much effort.

Oh, just to clarify--my phrasing seems to be particularly inept today--I meant that I thought that my points would probably be better made elsewhere rather than in your journal, but that you got stuck with them because, heh, I do indeed feel comfortable commenting in your journal even if I don't do it very often. (And I really do mean that sincerely; yours was the first post I've seen expressing criticism of linkspam without including enraging/hurtful commentary about Racefail.) Also, if you really don't want to talk anymore about the topic even here, just say the word.

[kaigou]

I'm always up for talking, and when I'm not, I tend to just let it lie until it comes around again (which everything always does). I don't mean any specific controversy, only my interest/energy towards it. So lack of reply doesn't mean no interest, just no time currently, and then you may see a reply from me (on this post!) a month later.

But if you're comfortable talking here, then you're certainly welcome to use it as a place to poke at the topic as part of coming to a point you can articulate it for elsewhere. That's pretty much what I do with this journal, after all: bounce things back and forth until I can really distill the ideas into something a bit less, uhm, wordy. (Not that I always succeed, but that's the intent.)

Back on the general topic: when I've been following a discussion avidly, I find that I'm much less likely to click on links that have warnings of any kind. It's an automatic reaction, especially when first approaching a discussion, to want to stick to the main body of the discussion. Sort of like the same thing as walking into a lecture for the first time, and while what the people behind you are whispering about sounds interesting, you feel the need to focus on the main lecture to get a solid grounding before you can then feel equipped to contribute (or even fully grasp) what's going on in the side conversations.

When I do click on those warned-links, it's anecdotal (hm, there'd be something interesting to track) but it does seem as though such posts are either likely to have very few here-via-roundup positive replies, with the majority of positive replies seeming to be from pre-existing journal-audience, OR a higher percentage of here-via-roundup critical replies. That's one source of my impression that such warnings act as starting-gun shots for those ready and raring for an argument, doubly so if they can feel righteously justified in doing so.

The notion of linkspam as archival... that's a really good point, and one I think gets lost in the practical application. If archival, then it is valuable to record all branches of the discussion including ones that derailed, digressed, or even were deleted...

Okay, I amend my if-I-ran-the-world suggestion, to break the roundup into two. The first tracks current discussion. Probably use delicious for that, since (from what I can see) anyone can add/tag a post to that. The second uses the first to create the actual Roundup* (aka Linkspam) aka THE FREAKING ARCHIVES with all posts on a topic sorted out: Main, Related, etc. Including deleted or locked -- since that usually happens within a few days of posting, and by the time it's archived, the player can be noted as participating but withdrawn, essentially.

Or even "withdrawn" as a term itself -- because that's what deletion or locking really is: the person is withdrawing their interaction from the discussion, regardless of reason. That's what bugs me the most about noting when a post is deleted or locked, because it does imply the person was (bluntly) beaten down and then slunk away like the pro-oppression scum they are. (Not stated in so many words, but them's the honest impression from the usual Linkspam tone and from ensuing references by others, to the previously-readable post.) One can withdraw, even when one's right, simply because one doesn't have the time or energy. Frex, if one accidentally offended a personal friend in some way and wants to reconsider or just set the disagreement aside, even if overall the post was valuable to the discussion. Not everyone has a skin made of iron.

But then, as the reply below notes, the simple element of organization with an eye towards archival is, in itself, a hugely political situation. What goes where, and why, and what about the fact that things in this group might be 'weighted' more than things in that group, when all are valid and valuable voices in the discussion? and so on.

* of course, the problem with calling anything Roundup is that, well, it's the name of a major weed-killing company brand. Given that any discussion is by nature like an untended garden, the idea of something meant to kill the weeds might not be the best visual, especially seeing how the mainstream culture usually sees non-normative voices as, well, pretty much human versions of weeds.

[troisroyaumes]

The more I think about it, the more I really like the scheme you outline here. I think it would solve some logistic problems too--e.g. how to distinguish signal-boosting posts that don't actually add to the discussion from posts that end up having extended comment threads. And it would be easier to maintain a consistent set of editorial standards if all the posts are assessed together in the aftermath instead of while the discussion is still in full swing, though of course, any set of editorial standards would probably be controversial.

[elf]

One can withdraw, even when one's right, simply because one doesn't have the time or energy.

Or for entirely different reasons, like, "my publisher has advised me that my recent post may tread close to libel of [rival publisher] and our legal team has suggested I remove it from public view."

Or, "my mom has discovered weblandia, and this is *not* the first post of mine I want her to see."

Not every withdrawal has anything to do with the current conversation.

[dharma_slut]

yours was the first post I've seen expressing criticism of linkspam without including enraging/hurtful commentary about Racefail.

which means you never saw my post then. Nor the (never unscreened, even though I asked) protests that I have made in numerous linkspam posts before I made that open letter.

[troisroyaumes]

Er, yes, I never saw your post. And I don't see why I would have seen your screened comments either, since (as I mentioned above) I'm only a linkspam reader and not a mod. I did see your unscreened comments on the post that asked for feedback, but I also commented on that post myself, albeit expressing a different opinion. For what it's worth, I wasn't sure what was problematic with your friend's posts either, but I also didn't think that the warnings meant that she had nothing valuable to say.

Rereading my comment, I guess I implied that all critical posts were inflammatory; I'm sorry for that implication since what I really meant was exactly what I said: the reason that I haven't commented on any of the critical posts I've seen was because they ventured into territory that usually made me feel too emotional to engage, and I was glad that kaigou's post gave me a chance to babble at great length and think about the topic further.

[kennahijja]

*looks in via metafandom*

Can I suggest option

3. Some readers will prioritise those posts for reading, expecting to get something a bit more broader or controversial than the full party line?

(I admit I use linkspam 'warnings' in the warning-as-recommendation sense.)

That's not saying I don't agree with your point that they're problematic per se - just that readers might be a tad less sheeplike than you fear (or at least, some might).

[kaigou]

I don't think it's really a matter of sheeple than just having limited time and energy. I mean, metafandom might chronicle controversy but it's not a regular high-emotion, high-energy kind of thing. Plenty of metafandom's stuff is also non-controversy, after all (which is why I said it's only partially the heart of metafandom, compared to LS). When it gets that high emotion, I find myself -- and wouldn't be surprised if other folks do, too, as some have implied on this post -- limiting my reading to either names I recognize or posts that look like less of a major emotional drag, y'know?

Sometimes it's just, "man, more of this, okay, I'm trying to keep up here but I just don't have the spoons to deal with someone being stupid, not today."

However, major emotional drain days aside, I think it's an excellent point that warnings can also be read in the alternate direction, as recommendations. (Although maybe a little of "if nothing else, this may serve as a bad example to others", eh?) The problem is, as noted elsewhere in the threads, that when LS stands at the midpoint of intersecting oppressed communities (ie gay men and straight women), then... it can feel like a competition for LS' focus/support, and I don't think that's fair once we land in the tarbaby called intersectionality.

I had suggested archiving the posts (after a short stretch of time) as either "for" or "against", only to realize on second thought that I'm a sterling example myself of why that'd never work. Unless they did "for", "against", and "we have no bloody idea, but we're thinking a slightly-qualified for, but possibly a cloaked against". That third one, that'd be me.

My icon feels strangely appropriate.