>>There's certainly a valid point there, but not all people do it so I think it has a lot to do with an entitlement mindset -- the idea that everything everywhere must be designed for you in mind.<<
I agree that the modern sense of entitlement is part of the problem.
I think another part is when you raise people with little or no boundaries, then you get people who see nothing wrong with violating other people's boundaries, because they can't actually see those boundaries. The younger folks have grown up in a post-privacy surveillance world, and it shows. So now that's everyone's problem.
>>Your point #4 seems to me something particularly needed, as a sort of pre-quiz before using the site. For-profit sites aren't going to do it because they want to make starting a new account as frictionless as possible, to encourage people to create the account and start engaging. But if the purpose is to both inform new users of site features and expected behavior, and the outcome to create fewer clashes between older and newer users, it could be well worth it.<<
I'm not a fan of forcing people to do things, but there's something to be said for earning perks. So I would layer it:
* Anyone can look at the content on the site and link to it. That's mostly what meta is for. They will have tools to find what they want and avoid what they dislike. You shouldn't need to make an account or do anything else just to look at things.
* If you want to do things on the site, that's different. So people should read the forum parameters before they participate in the forums by making comments or posts. And if they don't stick to the parameters, they don't get to keep using the forums.
* If you want to add things to the site, whether that's people uploading their own meta or uploading submissions from outside, that requires more familiarity with the parameters for site content itself. There's value both in having dedicated staff to read submissions and upload the good stuff, or go out looking for good meta to add, and for having volunteers ad their own meta.
* If you want to edit or delete things that are already on the site, that's a higher level yet again, and probably best kept to a handful of experienced staff. Though there's something to be said for letting people keep the ability to edit or delete their own content but not other people's content.
The ability to do things on a site should grow with the user, as they establish that they know what they're doing and can be relied on not to trash the place. And conversely, the site should not ask for things from users until it has established that it is in fact of use to them and reasonably reliable. Build the pyramid.
>>You're right about how meta can be considered particularly upsetting, because even if fiction expresses the same views it's not as direct. By contrast, most meta is a specific, personal point of view on something. And even when it's a more general piece, say, presenting evidence of current trends, people might want to shoot the messenger.<<
It depends on the type of meta, but yes, a lot of meta is a personal perspective. The less-personal examples include introduction to canons or descriptions of tropes. Once you get into reviews, character studies that explore fanon, or pairing manifestos, that's a lot more interpretive, thus personal, and thus controversial. I think the meta warehouse should have a range of many types so folks can make, find, and share whatever they need.
Re: Thoughts
I agree that the modern sense of entitlement is part of the problem.
I think another part is when you raise people with little or no boundaries, then you get people who see nothing wrong with violating other people's boundaries, because they can't actually see those boundaries. The younger folks have grown up in a post-privacy surveillance world, and it shows. So now that's everyone's problem.
>>Your point #4 seems to me something particularly needed, as a sort of pre-quiz before using the site. For-profit sites aren't going to do it because they want to make starting a new account as frictionless as possible, to encourage people to create the account and start engaging. But if the purpose is to both inform new users of site features and expected behavior, and the outcome to create fewer clashes between older and newer users, it could be well worth it.<<
I'm not a fan of forcing people to do things, but there's something to be said for earning perks. So I would layer it:
* Anyone can look at the content on the site and link to it. That's mostly what meta is for. They will have tools to find what they want and avoid what they dislike. You shouldn't need to make an account or do anything else just to look at things.
* If you want to do things on the site, that's different. So people should read the forum parameters before they participate in the forums by making comments or posts. And if they don't stick to the parameters, they don't get to keep using the forums.
* If you want to add things to the site, whether that's people uploading their own meta or uploading submissions from outside, that requires more familiarity with the parameters for site content itself. There's value both in having dedicated staff to read submissions and upload the good stuff, or go out looking for good meta to add, and for having volunteers ad their own meta.
* If you want to edit or delete things that are already on the site, that's a higher level yet again, and probably best kept to a handful of experienced staff. Though there's something to be said for letting people keep the ability to edit or delete their own content but not other people's content.
The ability to do things on a site should grow with the user, as they establish that they know what they're doing and can be relied on not to trash the place. And conversely, the site should not ask for things from users until it has established that it is in fact of use to them and reasonably reliable. Build the pyramid.
>>You're right about how meta can be considered particularly upsetting, because even if fiction expresses the same views it's not as direct. By contrast, most meta is a specific, personal point of view on something. And even when it's a more general piece, say, presenting evidence of current trends, people might want to shoot the messenger.<<
It depends on the type of meta, but yes, a lot of meta is a personal perspective. The less-personal examples include introduction to canons or descriptions of tropes. Once you get into reviews, character studies that explore fanon, or pairing manifestos, that's a lot more interpretive, thus personal, and thus controversial. I think the meta warehouse should have a range of many types so folks can make, find, and share whatever they need.