yourlibrarian (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yourlibrarian) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
marchmetamatterschallenge2023-02-01 12:38 pm
yourlibrarian) wrote in marchmetamatterschallenge2023-02-01 12:38 pm
Entry tags:
One Month Until March Meta Matters Challenge Begins Again!
It's February 1, so that means the kickoff to this year's March Meta Matters Challenge is just 4 weeks away! As usual, the challenge involves locating and copying over meta you've created to a second site in order to ensure its preservation, plus there will be some prompts for creating new meta.
However this year there is a proposed change. As those who have read posts I made here since last year's challenge wrapped, several people have experienced issues with meta works at AO3 being reported as violations of the Terms of Service, and these works have been taken down. These takedowns also count as strikes against the account: three of them and the account gets deleted.
Besides myself, three people have had works removed after being reported within the past year, two of whom also took part in the MMM Challenge. All of these were considered to be "ephemeral" works, and in all three cases reviews were involved.
When I asked for more details about the first challenge to my own reviews, I was told that "We do not consider responses to movies or episode reactions to be non-ephemeral fanworks, regardless of how analytical they are. Changing the format in which you present these works will not change that they are not permitted under the Terms of Service."
This obviously means that the problem is what constitutes a "review" versus a "response". However when a second set of works was reported several months later, I got the following response to my query about that distinction:
Note that the first response said that no amount of analysis would make a "response" non-ephemeral but the second one said that "substantial" or "extended" interpretation or commentary would shift it to a "review" status. What constitutes substantial or extended is very likely in the eye of the beholder however, and I, at least, would not want to bet my account on someone's decision on where the line will get drawn.
More significantly to me was that all the examples of "allowed nonfiction" offered were works about fandom and not works about canon. I commented as much when I replied but got no further response as to whether or not that was a critical factor or if a fandom-focused work could be considered ephemeral for some other reason such as brevity.
As a result, I would not advise anyone to post canon-related meta -- especially if it is focused on an episode or could be considered in any way a review -- to AO3. There just seems to be far too much wiggle room in considering something a violation or not, and clearly there are a number of people willing to report nonfiction content regularly given that this has happened to multiple people within the past year.
So what are the options? AO3 was chosen for the MMM Challenge as a secondary site to copy content to because of its non-commercial status and focus on preservation, as well as offering complex search option to find works. However there is another site that fits these criteria, which is SquidgeWorld.
This site runs on AO3's code, allowing for the same searchability and a familiar interface, as well as the ability to have a MMM Collection at the site. As of this month Squidge.org is a 501c3 organization so it can take tax-deductible donations (for those in the U.S.) and (separately) it also offers image and other forms of hosting. The archive also has a long-term preservation plan that will not involve a future sale of the site.
Importantly for this challenge, meta is welcome. Aside from confirming with the site owner that SquidgeWorld accepts meta, I have transferred all the contents of my AO3 account there and have received comments on posts from the owner. I also had an entry chosen for the monthly gift card contest in December. So I feel fairly confident in endorsing it as a site we can use for the Challenge, which includes many kinds of meta.
This does not mean that any challenge participant must use the site. If you would prefer to use AO3, to copy content from Tumblr to Dreamwidth, to ensure content is backed up at the Internet Archive, etc. you can choose whatever second destination you would like. The MMM Challenge is primarily concerned with preserving meta so that it doesn't disappear or get lost with site changes, and secondarily with ensuring meta can be easily found so that people can engage with it. Some sites do better at ensuring these things than others.
Other than adding SquidgeWorld as a recommended destination for copying meta to, our 2023 session should be the same as in previous years. Feel free to ask questions here about the challenge, locations, etc. Otherwise look for our opening post on March 1!
However this year there is a proposed change. As those who have read posts I made here since last year's challenge wrapped, several people have experienced issues with meta works at AO3 being reported as violations of the Terms of Service, and these works have been taken down. These takedowns also count as strikes against the account: three of them and the account gets deleted.
Besides myself, three people have had works removed after being reported within the past year, two of whom also took part in the MMM Challenge. All of these were considered to be "ephemeral" works, and in all three cases reviews were involved.
When I asked for more details about the first challenge to my own reviews, I was told that "We do not consider responses to movies or episode reactions to be non-ephemeral fanworks, regardless of how analytical they are. Changing the format in which you present these works will not change that they are not permitted under the Terms of Service."
This obviously means that the problem is what constitutes a "review" versus a "response". However when a second set of works was reported several months later, I got the following response to my query about that distinction:
"A review such as your work "LEGO Avengers Video Games Review" is considered a live reaction, which makes it ephemeral content. Reactions to video games, movies, or other media consist of a factual summary of the events that transpired and an individual's initial impressions of the source material and its events. These reactions provide little or no analysis or interpretation of the source material, and are therefore not classified as transformative fanworks.
The type of nonfiction allowed on the Archive is both non-ephemeral and fannish in nature. Examples include character interpretations, discussions of fannish tropes, analysis of fandom trends, critiques on fandoms, guides for creating fanworks, and many other things.
To address your question, a review should have substantial analysis, extended interpretation, or extensive commentary to be considered a nonephemeral fanwork."
Note that the first response said that no amount of analysis would make a "response" non-ephemeral but the second one said that "substantial" or "extended" interpretation or commentary would shift it to a "review" status. What constitutes substantial or extended is very likely in the eye of the beholder however, and I, at least, would not want to bet my account on someone's decision on where the line will get drawn.
More significantly to me was that all the examples of "allowed nonfiction" offered were works about fandom and not works about canon. I commented as much when I replied but got no further response as to whether or not that was a critical factor or if a fandom-focused work could be considered ephemeral for some other reason such as brevity.
As a result, I would not advise anyone to post canon-related meta -- especially if it is focused on an episode or could be considered in any way a review -- to AO3. There just seems to be far too much wiggle room in considering something a violation or not, and clearly there are a number of people willing to report nonfiction content regularly given that this has happened to multiple people within the past year.
So what are the options? AO3 was chosen for the MMM Challenge as a secondary site to copy content to because of its non-commercial status and focus on preservation, as well as offering complex search option to find works. However there is another site that fits these criteria, which is SquidgeWorld.
This site runs on AO3's code, allowing for the same searchability and a familiar interface, as well as the ability to have a MMM Collection at the site. As of this month Squidge.org is a 501c3 organization so it can take tax-deductible donations (for those in the U.S.) and (separately) it also offers image and other forms of hosting. The archive also has a long-term preservation plan that will not involve a future sale of the site.
Importantly for this challenge, meta is welcome. Aside from confirming with the site owner that SquidgeWorld accepts meta, I have transferred all the contents of my AO3 account there and have received comments on posts from the owner. I also had an entry chosen for the monthly gift card contest in December. So I feel fairly confident in endorsing it as a site we can use for the Challenge, which includes many kinds of meta.
This does not mean that any challenge participant must use the site. If you would prefer to use AO3, to copy content from Tumblr to Dreamwidth, to ensure content is backed up at the Internet Archive, etc. you can choose whatever second destination you would like. The MMM Challenge is primarily concerned with preserving meta so that it doesn't disappear or get lost with site changes, and secondarily with ensuring meta can be easily found so that people can engage with it. Some sites do better at ensuring these things than others.
Other than adding SquidgeWorld as a recommended destination for copying meta to, our 2023 session should be the same as in previous years. Feel free to ask questions here about the challenge, locations, etc. Otherwise look for our opening post on March 1!