#price l.

[fanhackers]

Transformative and participatory information behaviours – for starters

The premise of fandom studies is that fannish works and cultures are distinctive. So, in this case, fannish information behaviours are distinctive. One way, specifically that they are distinctive is that

fanworks, in both physical and digital form, are seen to take a central place in the information environment;

Price, L.; Robinson, L. (2017). ‘Being in a knowledge space’: Information behaviour of cult media fan communities. Journal of Information Science, 43(5), 649-664. doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0089

It is not the primary source that takes central space in fannish information systems but transformative works, this transformation being the unique way fans alter the information. (That the information is altered is in itself not in opposition to general information behaviours. Organisation and dissemination, for example, can also be framed as alteration of data without considering any other processes.)

In the same research, there were some statements that the majority of fans participating in the experiment agreed on:

Fans collect information for other fans in the form of creating rec lists, link lists, wikis, tutorials, guides, etc.

Other fans are an important discovery tool and source of information.

Certain fans act as information sources or gatekeepers for the wider fan community.

Price, L.; Robinson, L. (2017). ‘Being in a knowledge space’: Information behaviour of cult media fan communities. Journal of Information Science, 43(5), 649-664. doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0089

These statements also place fandom (other fans, fanworks as in rec lists, fan community) in the focus of these information behaviours. If we squint, we can also catch the participatory nature of fandoms, that of the active consumer: here are the tutorials and guides you can follow, here are the lists leading you to further information and here are the fanworks where you have to place together how it builds on canon yourself.

There is an old joke in humanities where a professor proclaims something to be a social construct. The audience finds that a really interesting starting point and urges them to keep talking. They say, no, that was the conclusion. So, let us start here and continue with the scholarship the researchers of both fandom studies and information sciences have provided us with.

Posted by: Szabó Dorottya

[fanhackers]

This time, it's about information behaviours: by the fans, for the fans

The clickbait title of this post would have been: gatekeeping in fandom. Fandom’s information behaviour is of much interest to scholars as

(…) cult media fans are seen to be an information-intensive group in many respects, with a variety of sophisticated online and offline information practices.

Price, L.; Robinson, L. (2017). ‘Being in a knowledge space’: Information behaviour of cult media fan communities. Journal of Information Science, 43(5), 649-664. doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0089

These sophisticated practices might involve the role of information gatekeepers.

These gatekeepers seem to have a network that extends outside of the immediate social structure and as such they seem to possess strong ties even to external resources. They are able to filter the flow of information when passing the knowledge on to others. This kind of gatekeeper or information provider can be observed within the context of the game, either at a low level, like in a guild, or at a high level, like someone who for one reason or another has earned acclaim and thus earned credibility.

Nyman, N. (2010). Information Behaviour in World of Warcraft [Master’s thesis, University Umeå].

Nyman here talks about gaming environments and it would be dangerous to generalise based on that, but some takeaways might be warranted. Gaming is based on voluntary and active participation, the communities are collaborative and not based on fixed hierarchies, these are presupposed for the purposes of this post.

Then, Nyman expected to see that the information needed for this participation (how to complete a quest) was gathered through the personal relationships in the game (from the people the gamers are already raiding with, for example).

Well, close enough.

The most common way to gather the information needed (to complete in-game tasks) was by visiting a third-party website.

Nyman, N. (2010). Information Behaviour in World of Warcraft [Master’s thesis, University Umeå].

Nyman’s speculation was based on how information sciences gather the most effective ways to gather information. Then, the result could also suggest that third-party websites are, in some way, more effective in providing information.

The game is taking place online, as such Internet is but a few clicks away. So even if the knowledge exists withint he social structure to resolve many of the needs, the quickest path to a satisfactory result is to use a website for research.

Nyman, N. (2010). Information Behaviour in World of Warcraft [Master’s thesis, University Umeå].

In their description of a gatakeeper, the acclaim can be earned either in the game or outside of the game world, while still related to the game. There is reason to think that that acclaim (or social capital) could be earned through contributing information to third party websites.

Furthermore, the voluntary participation of gaming communities is interest-based. While they might not be interpretative communities in the same way fandoms are, it can be speculated that information resources for gamers by gamers will organise and disseminate information in ways that makes sense for these gamers, therefore, making these resources close to as effective, as if they were personally tailored to the information seeker.

It has been observed that fandoms

are saturated and defined by distinctive information behaviours, affecting all aspects of the information communication chain, from creation and dissemination, to organisation and use.

Price, L.; Robinson, L. (2017). ‘Being in a knowledge space’: Information behaviour of cult media fan communities. Journal of Information Science, 43(5), 649-664. doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0089

So fandoms can provide information effectively to fans specifically because of the distinctive information behaviours, but they are distinctive in what ways? This is something to be further discussed.

Post by Szabó Dorottya

[fanhackers]

The social life of bookmark tags

Paratext (on the Internet) has historically been used, not only for folksonommy, but for social functions, too. This is true for websites that have a broader range of social media-like features, such as comments, likes and private messages and for those that lack one or more of these. However, Bourlai observes differences in how paratext is used and ties it to the above features of the site:

Since Tumblr does not have a separate comment section for posts, the tag section may also be used for tags with discourse functions such as expressing an opinion, a reaction, or including asides. (…) The results suggest that social tagging practices on Tumblr are influenced by both the technological specifications of the platform and the social structure of the website. E. Bourlai: “Comments in Tags, Please!: Tagging practices on Tumblr”

Those interested in fandom might instantly think about the paratext and especially the tags of Archive of Our Own. The archive, will providing commenting options, the post themselves serve no social function in theory. It is all the more telling, what communicative functions the different elements of a post serve. While the post itself would need to contain the fanwork only, a space known as Author’s Notes is provided where the users can communicate additional information. However, users still relegate some of this information to the comments.

Comment tags play no role in enhancing the visibility and searchability of a post and would not be considered metadata labels like keyword tags. They are part of the content and would normally be included in the body section of a post. By placing part of the content in the tag section, users indicate a logical or structural division in the post.  E. Bourlai: “Comments in Tags, Please!: Tagging practices on Tumblr”

This logical separation is so embedded in fannish practices that folksonomical functions and social functions have become entangled where we see some messages becoming codified (i wrote this instead of sleeping), while some tags might start out with intending to categorize the post but end up in a conversation with the reader (Hua Tuo would regret featuring in this fic, Lin Chen regrets nothing). These suggest that a tracing of historical development of tags would be possible. It also suggests an awareness on the users’ part for what is more fitting as an Author’s Note and what is more fitting as a tag. Two further quote might highlight the significance of this awareness.

As can be seen from the examples shown above, particularly on Tumblr and AO3, these motivations can result in rich tagging practices, that evidence the fan community’s desire to share and engage widely with one another, as well as to accurately and usefully organise and classify their works. Price, L. and Robinson, L.: “Tag analysis as a tool for investigating information behaviour: comparing fan-tagging on Tumblr, Archive of Our Own and Etsy”

While some of these activities are not necessarily „important” in themselves, they are the enabling conditions for fan cultural productions and for the construction of fandom as a social community. Jenkins, H. Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. Routledge.

Author: Szabó Dorottya