![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The independent archive survey ran from 23 June through 7 July 2023. Eighty-two respondents took the survey during that time. The survey asked about interest in independent archives and included a section for participants interested in building or volunteering for an independent archive. The survey was open to all creators and readers/viewers of fanworks.
The survey defined an independent archive as "a website where creators can share their fanworks. What makes it 'independent' is that it is run by fans but unaffiliated with any for-profit or nonprofit corporations or organizations. Historically, independent archives have grown out of fan communities that create fanworks."
On Tumblr, I am using the tag #independent archives for survey results and ongoing work to restore independent archives to fandoms that want them. This master post will collect data as they become available. I will post twice per day to Tumblr, so it is very likely that, during that time, this post will have data not yet available there.
I welcome sharing and discussing the data here. Please credit me as Dawn Felagund with a link to this post. You do not need to ask for permission. I am giving permission right now.
Yes: 49%
No: 43%
I don't post or share fanworks: 9%
Total responses: 82
Given that I am part of the Tolkien fandom, I suspect many respondents are from Tolkien fandom as well, and we continue to have a few independent archives in our fandom. (My archive, the Silmarillion Writers' Guild, is one such example.) If the survey reached fandoms beyond Tolkien, I suspect these numbers would look very different.
What these data do show is that fans continue to use independent archives when they are available. Despite the supposed inconvenience and difficulty of using independent archives (both claims of which I question, obviously), fans who have the option to crosspost their work often do crosspost outside the "Big Three" archives of AO3, FFN, and Wattpad.
Definitely: 53%
Maybe: 38%
Definitely not: 3%
I'm not sure: 1%
I don't post or share fanworks: 5%
Total responses: 81
These data appear a ringing endorsement of the endeavor of building independent archives. More than 90% of participants would "definitely" or "maybe" use them, with most of those in the "definitely" camp! Woohoo, right?
As an archive owner for almost two decades now, I approach these data with caution, not because I don't think most people would consider an independent archive—Tolkien fandom history (as well as many other 2000s-era, long-enduring fandoms) shows that independent archives can work—but I'm not sure 91% of fans would in fact flock to use them ... or even 53%. Many people join the SWG to archive their work with us (we have a field where we ask why people are joining, solely to weed out spammers), and most of those people never do (and this is fine, for the record). There are probably many reasons why. Time, which none of us have enough of. Finding the community isn't as good a fit as they hoped. Getting to the point of posting and feeling shy—many of us have been there.
However, my previous post shows that about half of respondents already do crosspost outside of the Big Three archives of AO3, FFN, and Wattpad, so those data deserve consideration too.
The big takeaway is that there is interest in independent archives. Will more than half of fans post there in addition to AO3, FFN, and Wattpad? Maybe not. But the interest is there, and that's a better starting point than people admitting right off that they are content with where they're posting now and have no interest in crossposting further.
Writing (fanfiction, meta, etc.): 90%
Art: 34%
Audio (podfic, music, etc.): 23%
Video: 9%
I would not consider posting to an independent archive: 1%
I don't post or share fanworks: 5%
Other: Meta: 1%
Other: Fanmixes: 1%
Total responses: 80
Not surprisingly, interest is highest in using independent archives to post various types of fan writing. These fanworks are best presented using a text-based platform, which is not most social media. Even text-centric platforms like blogs can become difficult for longer written fanworks, which benefit from being able to "nest" multiple chapters under the title of a single fanwork.
But multimedia fanworks like art, audio, and video shouldn't be discounted either. There is clearly an interest in these that is not easily served by existing options (i.e., you must host images and other media files externally and link/embed them on most archives). This is possibly an area where small archives would thrive. An enormous site like AO3 understandably cannot be responsible for the cost of hosting large media files (to say nothing of the challenges of moderating visual content compared to written content).
As of this writing, the Silmarillion Writers' Guild (SWG), which despite its name has allowed all types of fanwork for two years now, has forty-eight art fanworks, fifty audio fanworks, and two videos. (Videos are the only files we require to be hosted externally.) To offer a point of comparison, in the past two years, about eight hundred written fanworks have been archived with the SWG—or one out of every nine fanworks posted to the SWG is a multimedia fanwork, not writing.
This doesn't necessarily negate the survey findings; I have posted both art and audio to the SWG but have posted far more writing. However, having run an archive (the SWG) for sixteen years now, I think it's important to go into the endeavor with open eyes, and for potential archivists considering multimedia in addition to writing on an archive (or even multimedia-only archives), these data are important to consider in thinking about the viability of such a project.
Definitely: 67%
Maybe: 29%
Definitely not: 4%
Responses: 82
The analysis here is pretty straightforward: A significant majority of people would consider reading or viewing fanworks on an independent archive.
In all of my analyses of the data, I am trying to take a cautious approach because committing to building an archive is indeed a commitment; you are taking responsibility for housing the works of other creators, which should not be treated frivolously. As in previous posts, it's important to remember that it's more likely you'll get people who are psyched about your archive and then never show up than people who are content with the archives they currently use will decide one day to give your site a try.
The word consider is also important here. There are a lot of factors that go into whether someone visits an archive. First and foremost: Is it active? Are there works there that one can't easily find on the archives one already uses? Is it easy to read/view fanworks there?
But 96% of respondents being willing to consider an independent archive also speaks for itself. It's also worth remembering that big numbers aren't often what's important on an independent archive, which typically grow out of and exist alongside fandom communities: It is the sense of connection and community, or the ability of a smaller site to meet more specific needs.
Yes: 45%
No: 55%
Responses: 82
This question was largely for me to determine if the effort I was putting into providing resources for people to build their own archives was worth the time. Interest in archives doesn't translate into wanting to build or help to run one. There is nothing wrong with wanting to participate without deeper involvement, but that alone cannot sustain independent communities.
There is clearly interest stated here, with 45% of respondents wanting to help in some way.
And this is really where the success or failure of expanding archiving options beyond the Big Three of AO3, FFN, and Wattpad will happen. The internet was much more DIY back in the 2000s. Consolidation onto fewer and larger sites and ease-of-use has made it so that our approach toward online participation is one of finding what we want rather than building or creating it.
Very interested: 22%
Somewhat interested: 42%
Not at all interested: 22%
I'm not sure: 14%
Responses: 36
Moving forward, results include only those participants who, on the previous question ("Would you consider building or otherwise volunteering for an independent archive?") answered yes. This was 45% of participants, or thirty-six people.
This question asks that subset of participants specifically about whether they'd consider building or running an independent archive. 64% responded that they were very or somewhat interested. There is, of course, selection bias at work here: If you took the time to respond to a survey about independent archives, you probably had some interest in the topic. What's interesting is that "interest" doesn't have to be positive, yet here it clearly is. (This, of course, likely reflects some bias too, as people who use independent archives already, such as the SWG, are likely overrepresented among my followers who would have seen the survey in the first place.)
But even within this biased group, there is interest in independent archives. How does this group winnow down to those who will be willing to put in the time and energy to actually building an archive? That remains to be seen, but 64% is a strong start.
Note that all options are automated, meaning that creators can add and update their own work, unless otherwise stated. Check all that apply.
Basic website: Fanworks are added by volunteers, not creators (NOT automated): 31%
Social platform: Adapt a social platform (e.g., Dreamwidth, Tumblr) to serve as an archive: 33%
Hosted platform: Customize your archive from a basic default and with your own rules/guidelines; you do not have to provide web hosting: 64%
Archive software: Install and customize archive software on your own web space to run an archive with your own rules/guidelines: 44%
Content management system: Configure a content management system (e.g., Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla) on your own web space to function as an archive: 31%
Custom code: Write the code for your own archive software: 22%
I don't know: 19%
I am not interested in building an independent archive: 17%
Responses: 36
Over the course of the online history of sharing fanworks, fans have built archives in any number of ways. Some fans who have more advanced technical skill have coded their own archives, but more fans have adapted existing software and platforms to serve as archives—for example, the hundreds of email lists and journal communities that functioned as archives. In the middle are fans who have used software (e.g., eFiction or Automated Archive) and content management systems (e.g., Drupal and Wordpress) intended for archive- and site-building.
Knowing which of these several options potential archive-builders prefer is key to helping me know where best to place my energy in making and gathering resources for archive-building. For example, I have a Drupal archive-building tutorial in the works, but if no one was interested in using a CMS, I might have put this on the back burner to focus elsewhere.
Overwhelmingly, the results show that potential archivists prefer a hosted option, which is unsurprising: It offers the most flexibility for the least amount of technical management. The current owner of eFiction hopes to offer hosted eFiction sites (so you can imagine that I will be writing him an email once all of the survey data are posted). In second is archive software (again, like eFiction), which also demonstrates an interest in maximizing flexibility for the least amount of technical know-how. However, all of the options for building archives received some support, suggesting that no work to expand options for independent archives is likely to go ignored.
Check all that apply.
Not having the technical skills to build an archive: 75%
Not having the technical skills to maintain an archive: 69%
The time and energy required to learn how to build an archive: 64%
Handling member expectations (e.g., making people angry, letting people down): 61%
Not knowing where to begin: 58%
The long-term commitment involved in maintaining an archive across years or decades: 58%
The regular commitment involved in maintaining an archive: 56%
Making policy decisions: 28%
Building an archive that no one ends up using: 28%
I don't know: 6%
I'm not interested in building an independent archive: 11%
Free response: The search feature 1) existing 2) being useful
Responses: 36
Technical skills dominate the concerns of potential archivists. Three out of four participants identified not having the skills to build an archive as a worry; fewer (but not by much!) worried that their skills would fall short of the maintenance tasks they'd need to do.
These results are echoed in other data as well: the softer skills of managing an archive—making policies, working with members, generating interest in the archive, etc—are a more comfortable realm for potential archivists than the technical skills. Yesterday's data about platform preference, for example, showed people have the most interest in those options that afford the most flexibility for the least amount of technical know-how.
In a way, this is good thing. Technical skills can be taught, and areas of need can be accounted for in archiving options that become available. The downside is that gaps in technical knowledge often feel insurmountable, even to people used to tackling complex problems. In other words, while learning materials can be made and other forms of support offered, the reticence around technical knowledge may mean that the biggest barrier for potential archivists is simply overcoming their own anxiety around learning the technical skills required.
What I call the "field of dreams" item—"building an archive that no one ends up using" ... or, "if you build it, will they come?"—worried relatively few respondents: just over one out of four. I found this interesting, as this was perhaps my biggest worry when I first started running the SWG and fandom events like Back to Middle-earth Month. I was always convinced that I would build something, and no one would want to use it or do it. I know I was not alone in this worry. I wonder if some of the deeper cultural and platform shifts within the fandom are to account for this: the centrality, for example, of many fandom spaces, like Tumblr, where it is relatively easy to get the word out and where it's nearly impossible to participate fannishly and not see fellow fans running events and projects that never fail to generate interest. I have to confess to a concern about a lack of concern! Most archives will require people to leave Tumblr, AO3, and other fandom havens and go elsewhere online. Will people do that? Will they participate as eagerly outside familiar platforms? Especially in an age of maximal fandom consolidation, there's no guarantee that they will, and I hope that future archivists consider how to build their communities to achieve field-of-dreams status: I built it, and they did come.
Competence Exists (>50% of respondents have this skill)
HTML
CSS
Wordpress
Competence Developing (25-49% of respondents have this skill)
Python
Other coding language
MySQL
Graphics design
Area of Need (<25% of respondents have this skill)
Drupal
Other content management system
PHP
I debated about how best to visualize these data, which are perhaps the most complex in the survey. Being an educator and therefore used to thinking in terms of proficiency, I decided to represent the data in that way: which technical skills are most needed among potential archivists.
And, to be clear, everything on this survey is not required to run an archive. I am emphatically not a coder but have run a successful archive for many years now using first eFiction and now Drupal. I had two purposes in asking this question. First: if I make tutorial materials, where is my effort best spent? You don't have to know HTML and CSS to use Drupal, but it sure makes things (especially theming!) easier if you have at least some understanding of them. Second: where are efforts to expand options for building independent archives best directed?
On the second question, Wordpress surfaces and not for the first time. There have been various efforts and making a fanfic archive plugin for Wordpress over the years. My SWG co-admin Russandol and I even tinkered with Wordpress last year, trying to build an archive using existing plugins. From what we can find of supported plugins, it doesn't seem possible at this time.
But the data here suggest that it would be ideal if it were possible. Many fans have at least some experience with Wordpress, and some have quite a bit. The ability to provide an archive option that builds on existing competence is ideal.
I do think it's likely that respondents were underestimating their skills. I do not think that only one respondent had an expert knowledge of HTML. Unfortunately, it is difficult to define what is meant by beginner, intermediate, and expert without getting bogged down, and we fandom people are very good at imposter syndrome. ("I can't possibly be an expert in this useful thing!") I'd define "expert" as "able to do what is needed using this tool or knowing how to find information to do what is needed," and I'm guessing more than a few of the "intermediates" can in fact do this for HTML, which makes me think that all of the graphs may see an upward shift in terms of expertise levels.
This question also had a follow-up question: "What other skills do you have that aren't listed above?"
There were four responses:
As an archivist myself, I can say that any kind of skill related to efficiency is very much an asset.
Check all that apply.
Complete a tutorial or course that results in an archive that is ready to use: 69%
Complete a tutorial or course that provides skills you can use to build your own archive: 58%
Have access to an instructor or mentor as you learn new skills: 44%
Figure out what I need to know for myself: 19%
I don't know: 8%
I am not interested in building an independent archive: 14%
Other: Advice by other people about why they made the decisions they did running an archive and the lessons they learned that I can apply
Responses: 36
These data have obvious interest to me in terms of decisions about how best to present information (and the tutorial I have in the works falls under the most popular choice, so yay!), but the biggest takeaway is that potential archivists don't want to go it alone. They prefer learning tools that will lead them to a usable end product, and they prefer learning tools that are self-paced. (Though more than half of respondents who were interested in archive-building would like access to an instructor or mentor too, so that should not be discounted.)
I also want to highlight the only response to the "Other" option: "Advice by other people about why they made the decisions they did running an archive and the lessons they learned that I can apply." Putting all of this together, it seems that the ideal system for learning to build an archive would be a combination of self-paced tutorials but also the option to ask questions and receive additional mentorship/support.
Check all that apply.
community activities (events, challenges, etc.): 69%
member support (helping creators use the archive): 56%
moderation (monitoring fanworks/user interactions, addressing/removing content/interactions that violate archive policies): 50%
policy development: 33%
promotional (social media, recruitment, etc.): 30%
tech support (software upgrades, bug fixes, etc.): 22%
I don't know: 5.6%
Other:
Financial
I am currently running a Dreamwidth archive and looking to expand it
Responses: 36
As I noted above, there are multiple items that show relatively low interest in the technical aspects of running an archive compared to the creative and "soft skills" areas, and nowhere is this more obvious than in this dataset. This isn't surprising. Creative/soft skills more closely align with what we already do in fandom. More of us could, for example, plan a challenge or help a newcomer than fix a software bug, given the skills we have right now. A lot of skills we use all the time in fandom concern creativity, communication, and interaction, so "leveling up" in those areas, so to speak, in an official capacity, is less of a stretch for most people.
Of course, as we (re)build independent archives, the technical aspects are essential in a way that none of the others are (with the possible exception of policies ... but even there, small archives have gotten by with minimal policies or trusting the culture among a small group of users to serve in this regard). This loops back to the question of how to educate possible archivists to handle the technical demands of running an archive, but also making this either comfortable and interesting to enough fans that technical needs can be met. A familiar refrain to anyone who works on technical fandom projects is the loneliness and lack of help/support, and many fandom projects have failed for lack of interest in maintaining the technical aspects. I know, personally speaking, that having Russandol as a second tech admin on the SWG feels like a gift. When there is a problem to be solved, there is someone to bounce ideas off of and work alongside. In short, if we're to see independent archives work again, we need to figure out how to make that 22% a bigger number.
Check all that apply.
small archives can close without warning: 72%
multiple small archives make it harder to find fanworks to read/view: 71%
crossposting to multiple archives is time-consuming: 54%
activity on small archives may be too low or drop off over time: 49%
small sites can become cliquish or otherwise exclude some fans: 48%
I'm unsure if software is being maintained and regular backups made: 44%
small sites may not have the features I want or have come to depend on: 43%
smaller sites may be difficult or unfamiliar to use: 39%
I may have a smaller audience for my fanworks, fewer comments, etc.: 35%
I may not be able to archive all of my fanworks in one place: 32%
small archives put too much power/control in the hands of one or a few people: 22%
my fandom friends may not be interested in the same archives I am: 21%
I don't have any concerns about small archives: 1%
I don't know: 2%
Responses in the "other" field:
Responses: 82
What leaped out at me in these results was the most-chosen concern: that small archives may close without warning. I have come to think of the unannounced archive transfers/closures of archives in the Tolkien fanworks fandom as its "collective trauma" and felt myself rather dramatic for using those particular terms, but this suggests I'm not that far off-base. The whole concept of independent community archives, in my mind, is predicated upon an assumption of caring that exceeds what a large organization (like the OTW) or for-profit site (like FFN or Wattpad) can reasonably be expected to muster. The closure of a small site, without warning and the chance for people to save fanworks, undermines that basic assumption. Future archive owners, take note: What can you do to alleviate this worry that your archive will rip the rug out from under its users? This is definitely an issue I believe we need to address collectively moving forward. What do best practices in this area look like?
Difficulty finding fanworks to read/view is hot on the heels of archive closures, however, as far as concerns. With these data in hand, I'd love to know more about the specifics of this concern. Is this around search features (which were mentioned in another free-response field elsewhere in the survey) not working as well as they should? Is it about having to visit multiple sites, especially when those sites may not have new content every day? What can a small site offer that makes it easier for users to access new fanworks without having to visit daily? (Social media? Newsletters? What else?)
The middle of the pack in the data are mostly concerns around convenience and traffic, the latter of which translates into not just comments but feeling like a site is part of a living community. It's hard to argue with convenience; smaller sites are less convenient than a large site that includes everything or almost everything. Furthermore, the ubiquity of large sites—specifically AO3—makes "different" feel like "inconvenient" when it's actually not. The fact that a small archive doesn't behave exactly like AO3 is not an inconvenience anymore than it is an inconvenience when the produce section is the right in Grocery A and the left in Grocery B, but people will treat it as such because they have become so ingrained to doing and seeing and experiencing things only one way. (This is probably true of the internet and websites more broadly.) As site owners, we have to remain cognizant of how we can offer what AO3 et al cannot—which I would argue is community and consideration for individual users and fandom cultures—and how we can support new creators and visitors as they use something not-AO3.
Finally, the two lowest concerns surprised me. I thought that, in light of what has happened with the OTW this year, "too much power/control in the hands of one or a few people" would rank much higher. Perhaps it is knowing that those in leadership roles are people you know, versus people who feel at best unreachable and at worst are entirely anonymous, that makes the difference, the fandom version of the small-town ideal of being able to trust someone on the basis of a handshake (and the fact that you will have to look each other in the eye during routine community encounters). Perhaps it is an assumption of transparency that comes with that knowing. I'm sure I was not the only person surprised by the breadth and depth of dysfunction at the OTW, but I always had a sense back in the day about which small-site archivists were struggling to keep up with their sites, or which communities were dramamongers, or which moderators played favorites or otherwise acted in ways that were unfair.
The last concern, about using archives that one's friends do not, is an interesting shift because I recall this as a primary reason for some fandoms, including Tolkien, not adopting new platforms in the past (e.g., Dreamwidth and Tumblr), because one's friends weren't there. I wonder the extent to which this lack of concern reflects the lack of community on large sites. Convenience and universality have superseded community and connection as considerations—but that's part of the point, isn't it?
Check all that apply.
the organization is slow to respond to fandom concerns: 59%
consolidation of most fandoms and fanworks onto AO3 increases the risk of a mass loss of fanworks: 57%
volunteer safety is not taken seriously enough: 45%
concerns about racism within the organization and AO3 are not being adequately addressed: 38%
the organization is slow to respond to individual fans who need their help: 28%
moderation of potentially harmful content is inadequate: 27%
the organization is not transparent enough about decisions: 22%
AO3 users' safety is not taken seriously enough: 18%
the AO3 code is not properly documented and maintained: 18%
organization leadership (e.g., Board members, Legal, committee chairs) wield too much power: 17%
I don't have any concerns about OTW/AO3 archives: 12% (note: 2 of the 10 respondents who chose this did select concerns from the list; eliminating these responses, 10% of respondents had no concerns)
I don't know: 2%
Responses in the "other" field:
Responses: 82
I hesitated to include this item at all. I really do not want this to become a small archive vs. AO3 issue or to be presented as an either-or. We can and should have both, and for the 999th time, I want the OTW and AO3 to succeed for a variety of reasons. However, getting a sense of concerns seemed important as we move forward into crafting next-generation small archives that meet the needs of their creators, visitors, and fandoms. So the question went in.
Not surprisingly, fewer people overall are concerned about OTW/AO3 than small archives. About one in ten respondents did not have concerns at all, and no single concern was selected as often as the top ones in the corresponding dataset for small archives. Again, this is not a surprise. Despite the past few months, many of the concerns on the OTW/AO3 list remain hypotheticals, whereas concerns about small archives have happened at one time or another (if only because there have been thousands of small archives and just one AO3!) Furthermore, many of the concerns on this list were in response to some of the whistleblowing of recent months, and it's possible not all respondents were even aware of what was going on.
What were the concerns? Two dominated. The organization's slow response to fandom concerns, was top—also not a surprise. It's nearly cliche to point out that the wheels of large bureaucracies grind slowly, and one needn't be versed in the latest discussions around the OTW to have likely seen this at some point in its almost fifteen-year history. I will note that this is an area where smaller archives can succeed ... but aren't guaranteed, of course. On the SWG, it has always been a policy to take no longer than twenty-four hours to respond to a task, question, or issue, and most of the time we are significantly quicker than that. (Sometimes actually fixing the issue takes longer, but even that is rare.) However, you have to commit to doing this. The potential is there (where I'd argue it's really never going to be for an organization the size of the OTW), but it needs to be realized.
Secondmost was the worry about consolidation and the possibility of the mass loss of fanworks. I have been yelling about this for years, so I'll admit that it felt pretty good to see that those words haven't gone entirely unheeded. Is this unlikely? Yep. Is it possible? It is. Sorry, sweet summer children, it really is, and if it does happen, it is devastating in a way that the closure of a small archive never will be. And for the last dataset about small archive concerns, I made the case that the data around archive closures possibly reflected the Tolkien fandom's "collective trauma" about the unannounced transfer of ownership or closure of small archives. (And I imagine most respondents participate in the Tolkien fandom; my signal boost wasn't passed that widely around.) Of course, this happens against a backdrop of Fandom's collective trauma around unannounced content purges. Point being, these possibilities are on our mind.
There are a couple responses that pair naturally between the small archive and OTW/AO3 datasets. There is much more worry about the technical stability of small archives than AO3. Again, we've seen small archives fail and degrade due to tech issues, so this isn't hypothetical in the way it is for AO3, for all that's been said about spaghetti code. On leadership and the power given to a site's leaders, the two sets are remarkably even. This does surprise me! For all that's been revealed about the OTW's governance in recent months, they do have a process of governance that is more transparent than most archives, and they do offer points of democratic input, whereas many small sites do not.
The "Other" option was also more used for the OTW/AO3 dataset than the small archive dataset and includes some interesting responses that elaborate on the concerns from the list and identify some new ones. A couple mentions of "community" jump out at me here—and again, this is what small archives have to offer (potentially! again, "potential" and "actual" can be quite starkly divided) and what AO3 really cannot in most circumstances (and I'd further add was not intended to. I've argued before that a universal archive cannot offer the community features many people want and need by definition.)
If you want to elaborate on any of your responses or tell me anything else on the topic of independent archives, here is the place to do it! Note that I may quote responses here in public posts I make on the topic.
What is an independent archive?
The survey defined an independent archive as "a website where creators can share their fanworks. What makes it 'independent' is that it is run by fans but unaffiliated with any for-profit or nonprofit corporations or organizations. Historically, independent archives have grown out of fan communities that create fanworks."
On Tumblr, I am using the tag #independent archives for survey results and ongoing work to restore independent archives to fandoms that want them. This master post will collect data as they become available. I will post twice per day to Tumblr, so it is very likely that, during that time, this post will have data not yet available there.
How you can use these data
I welcome sharing and discussing the data here. Please credit me as Dawn Felagund with a link to this post. You do not need to ask for permission. I am giving permission right now.
Do you currently post/share your fanworks on any sites or archives other than AO3, Fanfiction.net, or Wattpad?
Results
Yes: 49%
No: 43%
I don't post or share fanworks: 9%
Total responses: 82
Analysis
Given that I am part of the Tolkien fandom, I suspect many respondents are from Tolkien fandom as well, and we continue to have a few independent archives in our fandom. (My archive, the Silmarillion Writers' Guild, is one such example.) If the survey reached fandoms beyond Tolkien, I suspect these numbers would look very different.
What these data do show is that fans continue to use independent archives when they are available. Despite the supposed inconvenience and difficulty of using independent archives (both claims of which I question, obviously), fans who have the option to crosspost their work often do crosspost outside the "Big Three" archives of AO3, FFN, and Wattpad.
If an independent archive existed that accepted some or all of your fanworks, and where you were comfortable with its policies, governance, etc, would you consider posting there?
Results
Definitely: 53%
Maybe: 38%
Definitely not: 3%
I'm not sure: 1%
I don't post or share fanworks: 5%
Total responses: 81
Analysis
These data appear a ringing endorsement of the endeavor of building independent archives. More than 90% of participants would "definitely" or "maybe" use them, with most of those in the "definitely" camp! Woohoo, right?
As an archive owner for almost two decades now, I approach these data with caution, not because I don't think most people would consider an independent archive—Tolkien fandom history (as well as many other 2000s-era, long-enduring fandoms) shows that independent archives can work—but I'm not sure 91% of fans would in fact flock to use them ... or even 53%. Many people join the SWG to archive their work with us (we have a field where we ask why people are joining, solely to weed out spammers), and most of those people never do (and this is fine, for the record). There are probably many reasons why. Time, which none of us have enough of. Finding the community isn't as good a fit as they hoped. Getting to the point of posting and feeling shy—many of us have been there.
However, my previous post shows that about half of respondents already do crosspost outside of the Big Three archives of AO3, FFN, and Wattpad, so those data deserve consideration too.
The big takeaway is that there is interest in independent archives. Will more than half of fans post there in addition to AO3, FFN, and Wattpad? Maybe not. But the interest is there, and that's a better starting point than people admitting right off that they are content with where they're posting now and have no interest in crossposting further.
What types of fanworks would you consider posting to an independent archive?
Results
Writing (fanfiction, meta, etc.): 90%
Art: 34%
Audio (podfic, music, etc.): 23%
Video: 9%
I would not consider posting to an independent archive: 1%
I don't post or share fanworks: 5%
Other: Meta: 1%
Other: Fanmixes: 1%
Total responses: 80
Analysis
Not surprisingly, interest is highest in using independent archives to post various types of fan writing. These fanworks are best presented using a text-based platform, which is not most social media. Even text-centric platforms like blogs can become difficult for longer written fanworks, which benefit from being able to "nest" multiple chapters under the title of a single fanwork.
But multimedia fanworks like art, audio, and video shouldn't be discounted either. There is clearly an interest in these that is not easily served by existing options (i.e., you must host images and other media files externally and link/embed them on most archives). This is possibly an area where small archives would thrive. An enormous site like AO3 understandably cannot be responsible for the cost of hosting large media files (to say nothing of the challenges of moderating visual content compared to written content).
As of this writing, the Silmarillion Writers' Guild (SWG), which despite its name has allowed all types of fanwork for two years now, has forty-eight art fanworks, fifty audio fanworks, and two videos. (Videos are the only files we require to be hosted externally.) To offer a point of comparison, in the past two years, about eight hundred written fanworks have been archived with the SWG—or one out of every nine fanworks posted to the SWG is a multimedia fanwork, not writing.
This doesn't necessarily negate the survey findings; I have posted both art and audio to the SWG but have posted far more writing. However, having run an archive (the SWG) for sixteen years now, I think it's important to go into the endeavor with open eyes, and for potential archivists considering multimedia in addition to writing on an archive (or even multimedia-only archives), these data are important to consider in thinking about the viability of such a project.
If an independent archive existed that accepted fanworks you were interested in reading or viewing, would you consider reading or viewing fanworks there?
Results
Definitely: 67%
Maybe: 29%
Definitely not: 4%
Responses: 82
Analysis
The analysis here is pretty straightforward: A significant majority of people would consider reading or viewing fanworks on an independent archive.
In all of my analyses of the data, I am trying to take a cautious approach because committing to building an archive is indeed a commitment; you are taking responsibility for housing the works of other creators, which should not be treated frivolously. As in previous posts, it's important to remember that it's more likely you'll get people who are psyched about your archive and then never show up than people who are content with the archives they currently use will decide one day to give your site a try.
The word consider is also important here. There are a lot of factors that go into whether someone visits an archive. First and foremost: Is it active? Are there works there that one can't easily find on the archives one already uses? Is it easy to read/view fanworks there?
But 96% of respondents being willing to consider an independent archive also speaks for itself. It's also worth remembering that big numbers aren't often what's important on an independent archive, which typically grow out of and exist alongside fandom communities: It is the sense of connection and community, or the ability of a smaller site to meet more specific needs.
Would you consider building or otherwise volunteering for an independent archive?
Results
Yes: 45%
No: 55%
Responses: 82
Analysis
This question was largely for me to determine if the effort I was putting into providing resources for people to build their own archives was worth the time. Interest in archives doesn't translate into wanting to build or help to run one. There is nothing wrong with wanting to participate without deeper involvement, but that alone cannot sustain independent communities.
There is clearly interest stated here, with 45% of respondents wanting to help in some way.
And this is really where the success or failure of expanding archiving options beyond the Big Three of AO3, FFN, and Wattpad will happen. The internet was much more DIY back in the 2000s. Consolidation onto fewer and larger sites and ease-of-use has made it so that our approach toward online participation is one of finding what we want rather than building or creating it.
How interested are you in building or running your own independent archive?
Results
Very interested: 22%
Somewhat interested: 42%
Not at all interested: 22%
I'm not sure: 14%
Responses: 36
Analysis
Moving forward, results include only those participants who, on the previous question ("Would you consider building or otherwise volunteering for an independent archive?") answered yes. This was 45% of participants, or thirty-six people.
This question asks that subset of participants specifically about whether they'd consider building or running an independent archive. 64% responded that they were very or somewhat interested. There is, of course, selection bias at work here: If you took the time to respond to a survey about independent archives, you probably had some interest in the topic. What's interesting is that "interest" doesn't have to be positive, yet here it clearly is. (This, of course, likely reflects some bias too, as people who use independent archives already, such as the SWG, are likely overrepresented among my followers who would have seen the survey in the first place.)
But even within this biased group, there is interest in independent archives. How does this group winnow down to those who will be willing to put in the time and energy to actually building an archive? That remains to be seen, but 64% is a strong start.
Which of the following would interest you as options for building an independent archive?
Note that all options are automated, meaning that creators can add and update their own work, unless otherwise stated. Check all that apply.
Results
Basic website: Fanworks are added by volunteers, not creators (NOT automated): 31%
Social platform: Adapt a social platform (e.g., Dreamwidth, Tumblr) to serve as an archive: 33%
Hosted platform: Customize your archive from a basic default and with your own rules/guidelines; you do not have to provide web hosting: 64%
Archive software: Install and customize archive software on your own web space to run an archive with your own rules/guidelines: 44%
Content management system: Configure a content management system (e.g., Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla) on your own web space to function as an archive: 31%
Custom code: Write the code for your own archive software: 22%
I don't know: 19%
I am not interested in building an independent archive: 17%
Responses: 36
Analysis
Over the course of the online history of sharing fanworks, fans have built archives in any number of ways. Some fans who have more advanced technical skill have coded their own archives, but more fans have adapted existing software and platforms to serve as archives—for example, the hundreds of email lists and journal communities that functioned as archives. In the middle are fans who have used software (e.g., eFiction or Automated Archive) and content management systems (e.g., Drupal and Wordpress) intended for archive- and site-building.
Knowing which of these several options potential archive-builders prefer is key to helping me know where best to place my energy in making and gathering resources for archive-building. For example, I have a Drupal archive-building tutorial in the works, but if no one was interested in using a CMS, I might have put this on the back burner to focus elsewhere.
Overwhelmingly, the results show that potential archivists prefer a hosted option, which is unsurprising: It offers the most flexibility for the least amount of technical management. The current owner of eFiction hopes to offer hosted eFiction sites (so you can imagine that I will be writing him an email once all of the survey data are posted). In second is archive software (again, like eFiction), which also demonstrates an interest in maximizing flexibility for the least amount of technical know-how. However, all of the options for building archives received some support, suggesting that no work to expand options for independent archives is likely to go ignored.
What would worry you about starting an independent archive?
Check all that apply.
Results
Not having the technical skills to build an archive: 75%
Not having the technical skills to maintain an archive: 69%
The time and energy required to learn how to build an archive: 64%
Handling member expectations (e.g., making people angry, letting people down): 61%
Not knowing where to begin: 58%
The long-term commitment involved in maintaining an archive across years or decades: 58%
The regular commitment involved in maintaining an archive: 56%
Making policy decisions: 28%
Building an archive that no one ends up using: 28%
I don't know: 6%
I'm not interested in building an independent archive: 11%
Free response: The search feature 1) existing 2) being useful
Responses: 36
Analysis
Technical skills dominate the concerns of potential archivists. Three out of four participants identified not having the skills to build an archive as a worry; fewer (but not by much!) worried that their skills would fall short of the maintenance tasks they'd need to do.
These results are echoed in other data as well: the softer skills of managing an archive—making policies, working with members, generating interest in the archive, etc—are a more comfortable realm for potential archivists than the technical skills. Yesterday's data about platform preference, for example, showed people have the most interest in those options that afford the most flexibility for the least amount of technical know-how.
In a way, this is good thing. Technical skills can be taught, and areas of need can be accounted for in archiving options that become available. The downside is that gaps in technical knowledge often feel insurmountable, even to people used to tackling complex problems. In other words, while learning materials can be made and other forms of support offered, the reticence around technical knowledge may mean that the biggest barrier for potential archivists is simply overcoming their own anxiety around learning the technical skills required.
What I call the "field of dreams" item—"building an archive that no one ends up using" ... or, "if you build it, will they come?"—worried relatively few respondents: just over one out of four. I found this interesting, as this was perhaps my biggest worry when I first started running the SWG and fandom events like Back to Middle-earth Month. I was always convinced that I would build something, and no one would want to use it or do it. I know I was not alone in this worry. I wonder if some of the deeper cultural and platform shifts within the fandom are to account for this: the centrality, for example, of many fandom spaces, like Tumblr, where it is relatively easy to get the word out and where it's nearly impossible to participate fannishly and not see fellow fans running events and projects that never fail to generate interest. I have to confess to a concern about a lack of concern! Most archives will require people to leave Tumblr, AO3, and other fandom havens and go elsewhere online. Will people do that? Will they participate as eagerly outside familiar platforms? Especially in an age of maximal fandom consolidation, there's no guarantee that they will, and I hope that future archivists consider how to build their communities to achieve field-of-dreams status: I built it, and they did come.
What skills do you already have in web design, web development, or site-building?
Results
Competence Exists (>50% of respondents have this skill)
HTML
CSS
Wordpress
Competence Developing (25-49% of respondents have this skill)
Python
Other coding language
MySQL
Graphics design
Area of Need (<25% of respondents have this skill)
Drupal
Other content management system
PHP
Analysis
I debated about how best to visualize these data, which are perhaps the most complex in the survey. Being an educator and therefore used to thinking in terms of proficiency, I decided to represent the data in that way: which technical skills are most needed among potential archivists.
And, to be clear, everything on this survey is not required to run an archive. I am emphatically not a coder but have run a successful archive for many years now using first eFiction and now Drupal. I had two purposes in asking this question. First: if I make tutorial materials, where is my effort best spent? You don't have to know HTML and CSS to use Drupal, but it sure makes things (especially theming!) easier if you have at least some understanding of them. Second: where are efforts to expand options for building independent archives best directed?
On the second question, Wordpress surfaces and not for the first time. There have been various efforts and making a fanfic archive plugin for Wordpress over the years. My SWG co-admin Russandol and I even tinkered with Wordpress last year, trying to build an archive using existing plugins. From what we can find of supported plugins, it doesn't seem possible at this time.
But the data here suggest that it would be ideal if it were possible. Many fans have at least some experience with Wordpress, and some have quite a bit. The ability to provide an archive option that builds on existing competence is ideal.
I do think it's likely that respondents were underestimating their skills. I do not think that only one respondent had an expert knowledge of HTML. Unfortunately, it is difficult to define what is meant by beginner, intermediate, and expert without getting bogged down, and we fandom people are very good at imposter syndrome. ("I can't possibly be an expert in this useful thing!") I'd define "expert" as "able to do what is needed using this tool or knowing how to find information to do what is needed," and I'm guessing more than a few of the "intermediates" can in fact do this for HTML, which makes me think that all of the graphs may see an upward shift in terms of expertise levels.
This question also had a follow-up question: "What other skills do you have that aren't listed above?"
There were four responses:
- basic library catalouging
- Learning Javascript, currently a web content manager/front-end web developer
- Organizational wizard. I have coordinated many a meeting and project in different volunteer associations. Don’t know if this is relevant but I am fluent in four languages and would love to strengthen the non-English fandom
- Can write a lot of emails really fast. Data Entry.
As an archivist myself, I can say that any kind of skill related to efficiency is very much an asset.
How would you prefer to learn new skills to build an independent archive?
Check all that apply.
Results
Complete a tutorial or course that results in an archive that is ready to use: 69%
Complete a tutorial or course that provides skills you can use to build your own archive: 58%
Have access to an instructor or mentor as you learn new skills: 44%
Figure out what I need to know for myself: 19%
I don't know: 8%
I am not interested in building an independent archive: 14%
Other: Advice by other people about why they made the decisions they did running an archive and the lessons they learned that I can apply
Responses: 36
Analysis
These data have obvious interest to me in terms of decisions about how best to present information (and the tutorial I have in the works falls under the most popular choice, so yay!), but the biggest takeaway is that potential archivists don't want to go it alone. They prefer learning tools that will lead them to a usable end product, and they prefer learning tools that are self-paced. (Though more than half of respondents who were interested in archive-building would like access to an instructor or mentor too, so that should not be discounted.)
I also want to highlight the only response to the "Other" option: "Advice by other people about why they made the decisions they did running an archive and the lessons they learned that I can apply." Putting all of this together, it seems that the ideal system for learning to build an archive would be a combination of self-paced tutorials but also the option to ask questions and receive additional mentorship/support.
In what other ways might you be interested in volunteering for an independent archive?
Check all that apply.
Results
community activities (events, challenges, etc.): 69%
member support (helping creators use the archive): 56%
moderation (monitoring fanworks/user interactions, addressing/removing content/interactions that violate archive policies): 50%
policy development: 33%
promotional (social media, recruitment, etc.): 30%
tech support (software upgrades, bug fixes, etc.): 22%
I don't know: 5.6%
Other:
Financial
I am currently running a Dreamwidth archive and looking to expand it
Responses: 36
Analysis
As I noted above, there are multiple items that show relatively low interest in the technical aspects of running an archive compared to the creative and "soft skills" areas, and nowhere is this more obvious than in this dataset. This isn't surprising. Creative/soft skills more closely align with what we already do in fandom. More of us could, for example, plan a challenge or help a newcomer than fix a software bug, given the skills we have right now. A lot of skills we use all the time in fandom concern creativity, communication, and interaction, so "leveling up" in those areas, so to speak, in an official capacity, is less of a stretch for most people.
Of course, as we (re)build independent archives, the technical aspects are essential in a way that none of the others are (with the possible exception of policies ... but even there, small archives have gotten by with minimal policies or trusting the culture among a small group of users to serve in this regard). This loops back to the question of how to educate possible archivists to handle the technical demands of running an archive, but also making this either comfortable and interesting to enough fans that technical needs can be met. A familiar refrain to anyone who works on technical fandom projects is the loneliness and lack of help/support, and many fandom projects have failed for lack of interest in maintaining the technical aspects. I know, personally speaking, that having Russandol as a second tech admin on the SWG feels like a gift. When there is a problem to be solved, there is someone to bounce ideas off of and work alongside. In short, if we're to see independent archives work again, we need to figure out how to make that 22% a bigger number.
What concerns about independent archives do you have?
Check all that apply.
Results
small archives can close without warning: 72%
multiple small archives make it harder to find fanworks to read/view: 71%
crossposting to multiple archives is time-consuming: 54%
activity on small archives may be too low or drop off over time: 49%
small sites can become cliquish or otherwise exclude some fans: 48%
I'm unsure if software is being maintained and regular backups made: 44%
small sites may not have the features I want or have come to depend on: 43%
smaller sites may be difficult or unfamiliar to use: 39%
I may have a smaller audience for my fanworks, fewer comments, etc.: 35%
I may not be able to archive all of my fanworks in one place: 32%
small archives put too much power/control in the hands of one or a few people: 22%
my fandom friends may not be interested in the same archives I am: 21%
I don't have any concerns about small archives: 1%
I don't know: 2%
Responses in the "other" field:
- many of the concerns about the otw apply to smaller archives as well
- site design - i haven't seen a single-fandom archive whose design i like as much or find as easy to use (as a reader and author) as ao3. given the choice between reading the same fic on swg and ao3, i'll chose ao3 because it's easier on my eyes
- subcat of "too much power" -- smaller archives may go down if the maintainer can no longer fulfill their duties
- Fics being used in AI without author consent, changing/unclear guidelines, fanworks being removed without warning (ie. FFN, LJ, at the will of moderators bc they don’t like xyz)
Responses: 82
Analysis
What leaped out at me in these results was the most-chosen concern: that small archives may close without warning. I have come to think of the unannounced archive transfers/closures of archives in the Tolkien fanworks fandom as its "collective trauma" and felt myself rather dramatic for using those particular terms, but this suggests I'm not that far off-base. The whole concept of independent community archives, in my mind, is predicated upon an assumption of caring that exceeds what a large organization (like the OTW) or for-profit site (like FFN or Wattpad) can reasonably be expected to muster. The closure of a small site, without warning and the chance for people to save fanworks, undermines that basic assumption. Future archive owners, take note: What can you do to alleviate this worry that your archive will rip the rug out from under its users? This is definitely an issue I believe we need to address collectively moving forward. What do best practices in this area look like?
Difficulty finding fanworks to read/view is hot on the heels of archive closures, however, as far as concerns. With these data in hand, I'd love to know more about the specifics of this concern. Is this around search features (which were mentioned in another free-response field elsewhere in the survey) not working as well as they should? Is it about having to visit multiple sites, especially when those sites may not have new content every day? What can a small site offer that makes it easier for users to access new fanworks without having to visit daily? (Social media? Newsletters? What else?)
The middle of the pack in the data are mostly concerns around convenience and traffic, the latter of which translates into not just comments but feeling like a site is part of a living community. It's hard to argue with convenience; smaller sites are less convenient than a large site that includes everything or almost everything. Furthermore, the ubiquity of large sites—specifically AO3—makes "different" feel like "inconvenient" when it's actually not. The fact that a small archive doesn't behave exactly like AO3 is not an inconvenience anymore than it is an inconvenience when the produce section is the right in Grocery A and the left in Grocery B, but people will treat it as such because they have become so ingrained to doing and seeing and experiencing things only one way. (This is probably true of the internet and websites more broadly.) As site owners, we have to remain cognizant of how we can offer what AO3 et al cannot—which I would argue is community and consideration for individual users and fandom cultures—and how we can support new creators and visitors as they use something not-AO3.
Finally, the two lowest concerns surprised me. I thought that, in light of what has happened with the OTW this year, "too much power/control in the hands of one or a few people" would rank much higher. Perhaps it is knowing that those in leadership roles are people you know, versus people who feel at best unreachable and at worst are entirely anonymous, that makes the difference, the fandom version of the small-town ideal of being able to trust someone on the basis of a handshake (and the fact that you will have to look each other in the eye during routine community encounters). Perhaps it is an assumption of transparency that comes with that knowing. I'm sure I was not the only person surprised by the breadth and depth of dysfunction at the OTW, but I always had a sense back in the day about which small-site archivists were struggling to keep up with their sites, or which communities were dramamongers, or which moderators played favorites or otherwise acted in ways that were unfair.
The last concern, about using archives that one's friends do not, is an interesting shift because I recall this as a primary reason for some fandoms, including Tolkien, not adopting new platforms in the past (e.g., Dreamwidth and Tumblr), because one's friends weren't there. I wonder the extent to which this lack of concern reflects the lack of community on large sites. Convenience and universality have superseded community and connection as considerations—but that's part of the point, isn't it?
What concerns about OTW/AO3 do you have?
Check all that apply.
Results
the organization is slow to respond to fandom concerns: 59%
consolidation of most fandoms and fanworks onto AO3 increases the risk of a mass loss of fanworks: 57%
volunteer safety is not taken seriously enough: 45%
concerns about racism within the organization and AO3 are not being adequately addressed: 38%
the organization is slow to respond to individual fans who need their help: 28%
moderation of potentially harmful content is inadequate: 27%
the organization is not transparent enough about decisions: 22%
AO3 users' safety is not taken seriously enough: 18%
the AO3 code is not properly documented and maintained: 18%
organization leadership (e.g., Board members, Legal, committee chairs) wield too much power: 17%
I don't have any concerns about OTW/AO3 archives: 12% (note: 2 of the 10 respondents who chose this did select concerns from the list; eliminating these responses, 10% of respondents had no concerns)
I don't know: 2%
Responses in the "other" field:
- Other projects besides AO3 seem to fall by the wayside (e.g. fanlore); AO3 is hostile to outside fixes for code problems; volunteers are burned through quickly; volunteers must go through an intensive onboarding process that weeds out people who actually want to help; functions of AO3 don't work as intended/advertised (the exchange interface, the prompt meme, tagsets)
- I have concerns as noted but I also hope and want Ao3 to improve and succeed (while also supporting the existence of more archives!)
- Moderation of illegal content is inadequate
- My main concern with OTW is that it has grown too large as an organization/project to continue operating solely on volunteer labor. To be honest, most of their issues stem out from that main problem or are exacerbated by it, in my opinion. But it isn't some simple thing to start bringing on paid staff either. Anyway, in short, the org has outgrown its model, but switching to a new model will also take time and there will be more growing pains as a result before things improve.
- Not enough moderation in general. Hard to remove/report harassing comments, spam fics, etc.
- for how long it's been around, the feature set is surprisingly immature (e.g., blocking/muting is just now being added, the time-based posting bug)
- No sense of community
- The size makes for a lack of community; the weight placed on quantitative measures (work stats)
- I use it too little to personally experience the negative effects, however I'll support people I know and trust who do.
- administration of the site feels to far from the individual user
Responses: 82
Analysis
I hesitated to include this item at all. I really do not want this to become a small archive vs. AO3 issue or to be presented as an either-or. We can and should have both, and for the 999th time, I want the OTW and AO3 to succeed for a variety of reasons. However, getting a sense of concerns seemed important as we move forward into crafting next-generation small archives that meet the needs of their creators, visitors, and fandoms. So the question went in.
Not surprisingly, fewer people overall are concerned about OTW/AO3 than small archives. About one in ten respondents did not have concerns at all, and no single concern was selected as often as the top ones in the corresponding dataset for small archives. Again, this is not a surprise. Despite the past few months, many of the concerns on the OTW/AO3 list remain hypotheticals, whereas concerns about small archives have happened at one time or another (if only because there have been thousands of small archives and just one AO3!) Furthermore, many of the concerns on this list were in response to some of the whistleblowing of recent months, and it's possible not all respondents were even aware of what was going on.
What were the concerns? Two dominated. The organization's slow response to fandom concerns, was top—also not a surprise. It's nearly cliche to point out that the wheels of large bureaucracies grind slowly, and one needn't be versed in the latest discussions around the OTW to have likely seen this at some point in its almost fifteen-year history. I will note that this is an area where smaller archives can succeed ... but aren't guaranteed, of course. On the SWG, it has always been a policy to take no longer than twenty-four hours to respond to a task, question, or issue, and most of the time we are significantly quicker than that. (Sometimes actually fixing the issue takes longer, but even that is rare.) However, you have to commit to doing this. The potential is there (where I'd argue it's really never going to be for an organization the size of the OTW), but it needs to be realized.
Secondmost was the worry about consolidation and the possibility of the mass loss of fanworks. I have been yelling about this for years, so I'll admit that it felt pretty good to see that those words haven't gone entirely unheeded. Is this unlikely? Yep. Is it possible? It is. Sorry, sweet summer children, it really is, and if it does happen, it is devastating in a way that the closure of a small archive never will be. And for the last dataset about small archive concerns, I made the case that the data around archive closures possibly reflected the Tolkien fandom's "collective trauma" about the unannounced transfer of ownership or closure of small archives. (And I imagine most respondents participate in the Tolkien fandom; my signal boost wasn't passed that widely around.) Of course, this happens against a backdrop of Fandom's collective trauma around unannounced content purges. Point being, these possibilities are on our mind.
There are a couple responses that pair naturally between the small archive and OTW/AO3 datasets. There is much more worry about the technical stability of small archives than AO3. Again, we've seen small archives fail and degrade due to tech issues, so this isn't hypothetical in the way it is for AO3, for all that's been said about spaghetti code. On leadership and the power given to a site's leaders, the two sets are remarkably even. This does surprise me! For all that's been revealed about the OTW's governance in recent months, they do have a process of governance that is more transparent than most archives, and they do offer points of democratic input, whereas many small sites do not.
The "Other" option was also more used for the OTW/AO3 dataset than the small archive dataset and includes some interesting responses that elaborate on the concerns from the list and identify some new ones. A couple mentions of "community" jump out at me here—and again, this is what small archives have to offer (potentially! again, "potential" and "actual" can be quite starkly divided) and what AO3 really cannot in most circumstances (and I'd further add was not intended to. I've argued before that a universal archive cannot offer the community features many people want and need by definition.)
Free response field
If you want to elaborate on any of your responses or tell me anything else on the topic of independent archives, here is the place to do it! Note that I may quote responses here in public posts I make on the topic.
| Although I don't want to run an archive I'm keen to using multiple smaller archives, (although it can be confusing keeping track of what is where!) I do like the idea of ceating a self-managed site for my own works customised to display things the way I like (a mix of art and fic) I also enjoy finding other creators' personal sites. So not an archive as such, but potentially another use for what you're offering. |
| My experiences with single-fandom archives have been negative and I've found the communities around them to be unwelcoming, gatekeeping and cliquish; I get the impression that the leaders of those communities want to create a monoculture and aren't welcome to fans who come from different backgrounds and hold different views (on canon or otherwise). I'm also concerned about the intra-fandom power dynamics it might foster or how fic can be excluded if the owner and moderators of the archive don't like the content or the author. While I theoretically am mildly in support of single-fandom archives, I will not post on any of the ones in my own fandom. |
| I did not choose "Moderation of potentially harmful content is inadequate" in the above question because "harmful content" is a rather wide brush and can include/mean things antis want to get rid of that are actually not harmful. |
| AO3 was never meant to become the sole repository for all fanworks. It was meant to be a place where writers could post their works, especially sensitive or controversial works, without worrying that corporate overlords would shut it down or strict archive requirements would keep it out. The originally small userbase has grown exponentially though, to the point that a lot of users don't really understand what the site's purpose is or why it is run the way it is. I think it would be healthy for independent archives to become more common again so that people who are frustrated with AO3/OTW or disagree with its purpose feel they have more options. But I also think that in today's modern internet, users (especially young ones) are used to getting everything they want from just 1-3 sites/apps, so they won't take well to visiting different small archives for each fandom they might be interested in. I miss the unique charms of independent archives, but I think their era might already be long passed. |
| I'm old enough to remember when independent archives were the norm and, for all its flaws, AO3 is better. It streamlines comments and kudos gives an easy way to people who liked your fic but don't want to comment too interact. Everything is in one space so things don't get lost, it's fast and simple to upload to and, while I don't take it being there forever for granted, at least it has an established base and is removed from any for profit business so I think it's less likely that something will happen like, say, geocities disappearing. Or yahoo groups. I think there's certainly space for ao3 to improve and there's also certainly space for smaller, more curated archives if people want to establish them but they'd have to offer me something significant other than "not AO3" for me to consider cross posting to them. For example, maybe if the archive was for a rare pair (though I'd probably still prefer to link out to my fic on ao3) or also incorporated an active community element (like forums) though that would risk it becoming drama ridden too. |
| The OTW's dysfunction is not qualitatively unique and most of its problems can occur on a smaller scale. Small archives are perfectly capable having a racist or queerphobic culture (Stories of Arda comes to mind for the latter); archive runners and their friends can (and have) engage in harassment of fans or ignoring the needs of fans. I worry about small archives and communities creating a monoculture within a small fandom (e.g., the Mary Renault livejournal community, for a particularly dysfunctional example). I've seen small archives delete fic by authors because the archive runner or their friends got into arguments with them. AO3 being a multifandom archive which is removed from any one particular fandom is one of its main positives for me, not just because I can read or post anything there but because it's distanced from intrafandom drama. I don't trust the OTW but neither do I trust the owners and moderators of small fandom archives and the latter are more likely to cultivate a culture that makes the single fandom unwelcoming or act like they "own" the fandom. In my experience, small fandom archives and the communities around them talk of being inclusive and friendly but in practice are not. |
| Honestly the main reason why i use only ao3 is because the tagging system is so good, many smaller archives aren't as good at seeing the tags of a work and at searching and excluding works on the basis of the tags, and i really depend on that to find writing I'll like without anything that squicks me |
| I run my own archive which is just for me – most of my answers reflect that. I'm not interested in contributing to small archives that accept work from multiple contributors as I think there is too much risk of disagreement and potentially becoming associated with "problematic" people (more so than on AO3, where the large size means people don't tend to assume ordinary members have anything to do with the board/site administrators). I do post most of my work to AO3, but all of it is posted to my own archive, which I love because I can customise it to do exactly what I want. |
| I do think AO3 is used more as social media than it should be. The ongoing features (kudos, bookmarks, and comments) are not merely a ways of saving a favorite story/writer but it's become a ways of comparing the success/quality of works that otherwise don't have that much publicity (which occurs majorly via Tumblr or Twitter). AO3 makes sharing works on these platforms easy, since you don't have to be logged in to view the majority of works or even comment, which is something smaller archives can't afford to have (and which I am in total favor of.) Comments SHOULD be moderated or at least guided by a policy such as you have on SWG, though I understand that it got out of AO3's hand due to its current size. Anyway, don't know if this helps at all or not, but this is why I think AO3 has caught the attention of the public and why, in part, it is so difficult to address/correct |
| The audiofic archive exists as a place to listen to podfic and host/archive podfic and is not automated (per your first independent archive example). Vidders.net exists for vids, both as an archive and as a host though hosting is I think only available by donation (?). There has been some discussion of what a simple archive could look like with indexing/discoverability provided via activitypub, and that’s very interesting. To separate the archiving/hosting from the indexing & subscription. So here you could post on your archive or a small archive and be indexed/discoverable in a wider way (if you want) and don’t need to crosspost (within this network). Of course, this all needs more thought and consideration and mapping. I think my biggest concern about independent archives is the inability to download epubs, especially on mobile. I absolutely depend on this. I know of some third party tools that work but they are third party so a separate point of failure (and possibly don’t do chapters well). Example: the embeddable code from dotepub to provide a button to download a page’s content as an epub, and there’s also a bookmarklet so it does work on mobile. I absolutely understand that generating epubs is complicated and that there are desktop browser extensions and programs like calibre, but I’m afraid that just isn’t practical for me and I assume other people as well (like I’ll bookmark it to create an epub later and just…not get around to it). Maybe someone out there can help with this angle? |
| AO3 is already too consolidated, people generally don't go looking elsewhere anymore |
Tags:
(no subject)
Date: 2023-07-22 04:40 pm (UTC)I didn't manage to fill that in.
I'm sure you have a pretty good idea what I would have said, anyway!
Anyway: 43% +1
(no subject)
Date: 2023-07-22 06:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-08-06 06:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-08-06 07:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2023-07-25 10:56 pm (UTC)Quick question: for the first question, you used the wording "sites or archives other than AO3, Fanfiction.net, or Wattpad", which I would take to mean social media sites such as tumblr and twitter (or dreamwidth) in addition to independent archives. That might have affected the results to that question?
(no subject)
Date: 2023-07-27 02:29 am (UTC)