![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
All you all should be coming over to help edit fanlore.org. It's very easy to log in, and then those of us who toil over there would love some toiling help. For example, there's hardly any info on the "West Wing" page; come fill it up, and bring your favorite fics!
Also, for semantics purposes; help me with these questions below? Answer with the term you would most frequently use, or answer with the term you have most frequently heard if you don't prefer one answer over the other.
[Poll #1296784]
ETA: Comments! Keep 'em coming!
Love,
Sab
Also, for semantics purposes; help me with these questions below? Answer with the term you would most frequently use, or answer with the term you have most frequently heard if you don't prefer one answer over the other.
[Poll #1296784]
ETA: Comments! Keep 'em coming!
Love,
Sab
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 09:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:06 pm (UTC)(And it gets more complex, possibly, when you factor in that the Archive of Our Own intends to host vids in a future incarnation, after this one is out of beta. So would it be a multimedia multifandom archive? A multimedia multimedia archive? A multifandom multimedia archive? etc.)
(ETA: I've never thought of vids as multimedia, though I suppose they are. It's when you incorporate fic into the audiovisual mix that it becomes MM in my brain. But sane and my brain? Not always willing to claim acquaintanceship.)
NB: I represent neither the Fanlore gardeners nor the Content Policy committee, nor indeed any entity other than ainsley, in the creation of this comment.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:12 pm (UTC)Yeah, what do we do there? I mean, in my mind AOOO has to be a multifandom, multimedia archive. First because multimedia multimedia archive is just confusing when those terms mean different things, and second because I personally use "multifandom" in the current sense, and have noticed that it has remained in use among fans who come up through zines and cons vs. internet fans -- but has it stuck around to the point where it's a straight synonym for multifandom today?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:11 pm (UTC)-- my take on "media" in this context is not that audio and video are each a type of media which commonplace vidding combines, but that the overwhemlingly most common type of vid-- show footage edited to music-- is itself a medium, and a "multimedia" vid is a vid that combines show footage with another fandom medium, like manips. (does that make sense?)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:17 pm (UTC)It does, but it's wrong. ;) It's just what they were called from the late 70s until internet fandom / computer vidding took off, around the late 90s.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:22 pm (UTC)Pretty much any vid could be considered multimedia because it combines video with music/sound (and sometimes still pics and/or text). A text story with illustrations (more than just "cover art") or other materials could also be considered multimedia. In both cases, though, that would apply whether it's about one fandom or a dozen.
Two very different terms. Sounds to me like some people have been mixing them up.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:37 pm (UTC)A multimedia challenge would be one that accepts any media form, i.e. "sumbit prompts, and your person will produce fic, artwork, or vid based on one of those prompts".
You can have a multimedia multifandom challenge/archive/etc., but the terms are not redundant, and they would need to be both multifandom (in context of what it is; multifandom fic would have to be a crossover, but multifandom archive could be non-crossover fics that collectively span more than one fandom) and multimedia (in a distinctive context; a vid archive is not multimedia, because it only houses one medium, that of vids).
(...at least multimedia/multifandom has a "look at the words, yo" explanation. don't get me started on the divergent meanings of "jossed"...)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 02:42 am (UTC)I actually don't consider "multimedia" and "mixed media" to be the same thing, either.
Multimedia is used when you're talking about "media" in the communications (journalism, entertainment, etc) sense - ie, a multimedia presentation. Mixed media is used when you're talking about media in the "artistic material or technique" sense - ie, a mixed media collage.
And for the record, NEITHER of them refer to "more than one fandom." There's a reason "multimedia" and "mixed media" refer to two very different things colloquially, when in looking at the definitions of the words involved they could technically mean the same thing. It's the same with the word "multifandom," only here it's not the mixed vs. multi distinction we're concerned with, it's the media vs. fandom distinction.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 10:50 pm (UTC)not that i'm arguing, i just see how it possibly could happen.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 11:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 11:41 pm (UTC)here via the metafandom delicious
Date: 2008-11-13 11:24 pm (UTC)To me, fanvids are kinda inherently multimedia within themselves - at the very least, you're mixing a visual source, whether it be still photographs or video clips, with an audio source of separate origin (and possibly audio sources that came entangled with the visual source, if, say, you're including a dialogue snippet from said visual source over an instrumental section in the audio source). But my first instinct for what to call an archive of vids would still be a "(fan)vid(eo) archive," not a "multimedia archive" - "multi" would imply at least two different groups of results, and preferably more.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 11:44 pm (UTC)So I disagree with the notion that the multi-media indicates the source (maybe you have a vid featuring television, music, and magazine stories, for instance)--it all comes together to make one media.
Multimedia would mean using the video as part of my theater presentation and such.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 01:03 am (UTC)So I think both definitions of "multimedia" are kind of not helpful to people who aren't familiar with this very fandom-specific tradition (and it's not even a fandom-wide tradition; it's a minority tradition among people who possibly predate the current popular definition of the word "multimedia") of using this word in ways that indicate and promote misapprehension. I think both definitions are incompatible with the way in which people use the word "multimedia" in their day-to-day lives. Given this baggage, I would relegate the early minority fandom usage to a historical footnote, rather than reviving it.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 01:39 am (UTC)(Also, man, I find it so much easier to have a discussion here on LJ than on wiki talk pages.)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 09:52 pm (UTC)So I think of
As for what to do in Fanlore, I think it's most accurate to make clear the different meanings across different fannish cultures, without privileging one over the other. Which, y'know, DUH. I am not very helpful, am I?
no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 10:12 pm (UTC)Well, I find that very helpful, me! Part of the whole point of Fanlore, as I understand it, is to preserve this very kind of cultural thing, where our own terminology and history has changed. It's clear to me that "multimedia" is a term that predates online fandom, and is primarily used by fans who predate online fandom (so to speak) and those of us "raised" by those fans. *g* So preserving the original terminology and not privileging one or the other is important, I think.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Cites, as requested
From:more cites
From:do you need more?
From:Re: do you need more?
From:no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 10:02 pm (UTC)1) multimedia
2) multifandom
3) crossover
4) Both
"Multimedia" is what I was fannishly "raised" to use to mean what a lot of fans now term "multi-fandom," in reference to both vids and zines. Kind of. But in some areas of fandom, perhaps particularly those of fans who've been in fandom for 10+ years/whose participation predates largely online fandom, it's still fairly common, at least in my experience.
I'd be more likely to use multimedia to describe a zine (text and art) or a vid (song and visuals and/or multiple media sources) than an online archive, which tend to be solely text. So I'd be more likely to say a "multimedia vid" or "multimedia zine," but a "multifandom archive."
And I probably wouldn't use either term for a crossover; I'd just call it a crossover. :)
Here via metafandom
Date: 2008-11-15 04:23 am (UTC)However, the current set up on fanlore, with the multifandom & mulitmedia page, does not seem like an ideal solution. It is clunky and causes further confusion on the pages of individual multimedia/multifandom works as to which definition is being utilized.
P.S. I don't consider vids to be multimedia as video is a medium in its own right.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-15 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-15 10:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-15 03:29 pm (UTC)For me, a 'medium' is one thing. Since it's so hard to separate vid and audio (who wants a vid without music?), I think I'd separate the media into print, electronic, and art.
Fandom is the ideas and characters of a particular show (TV, movie, book and/or similar source, IE bandom.)
So, it doesn't matter how many fandom characters meet in a fanfic. It's multi-fandom, but not multi-media, because I'm reading printed words on the screen.
Fandom as a whole is multi-media, because fans celebrate it with fic, vids, and art. But for individual pieces, I think only podfic (story + audio) or illustrated fanfic can be considered 'multi' media*.
* There may be other types of multi media that I don't know about -- in which case I'd appreciate hearing about them -- but I think the principle holds; you need two different types (or more) of sources combined to be considered multi media.
.
can't answer the poll, unfortunately
Date: 2008-11-15 08:47 pm (UTC)So. Here I am in the comments, for what that's worth.
I keep seeing people here say, "but that's not what multimedia means!", and referring to the dictionary definition to prove it. But we're not talking about a dictionary definition. We're talking about a *fannish term*.
"Lemon" and "lime", to me, are fruits, plain and simple. I was completely befuddled the first time I heard someone use those words to describe fanfic. I had been in fandom for years at that point, and these brand-new-to-me terms were being used as though they were established fannish usage. But someone told me "yeah, they use that in anime fandoms", and that was enough for me -- someone who knew of the term explained it and how (and where) it was used.
I still don't understand exactly what they mean or what the difference is. I would never use them to describe a story; I mean, I think one means "explicit", but me, I would just say "explicit", as an existing English word that everyone (including me) would understand. I've never seen anyone in my extended circle use them to describe a story, either. (Although I have heard plenty of people use the words to refer to fruit. Because they're, you know -- fruit.) In SGA, someone talking about "lemon" is probably talking about Rodney and his citrus allergy.
The fact that I and my friends/social circle don't use the words in their fannish sense doesn't mean they're not fannish words.
How hard is that concept, seriously?
"Multimedia" is also a fannish term, with a long history. There have been multimedia zines since the late 1970s, and they're still being tribbed to and published today. There's a con out there that calls itself a "multimedia convention" (http://www.easternmediacon.southroad.com/) (and another that ended just a couple of years ago (http://www.geocities.com/eclecticon2006/eclecticon.htm)). People sell and swap multimedia zines on mailing (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zinelist) lists (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slashswap); they buy and sell them at cons. People make multimedia vids, and announce (http://klia.livejournal.com/2006/08/24/) them (http://community.livejournal.com/vidding/1177990.html) on mailing lists and LJ, or show them (http://www.severalunlimited.com/revelcon/vidshow.htm) at vidshows (http://www.derivativeart.org/viddb/cons/vividcon/2002/multimedia/). Some artists use the term for collections of art from different fandoms (http://calendars.ashtonpress.net/multimedia.htm).
I listed some cites here (http://iamsab.livejournal.com/420363.html?thread=2798859#t2798859) for some more recent uses of the term. For a more historical look, here are lists of gen (http://www.hermit.org/blakes7/Fanzines/MultiMedia/index.html), adult (het) or slash (http://www.hermit.org/blakes7/Fanzines/MultiMedia/Adult.html), and even nonfic (http://www.hermit.org/blakes7/Fanzines/MultiMedia/NonFiction.html) multimedia zines that contain at least some Blake's 7 content, gathered together to make finding B7 stories easier for folks in that fandom. Some of those zines go back literally 30 years, to 1978 and 1979, and I saw some dates as recent as the early '00s, as well (not bad for a show that went off the air 30 years ago and never developed much of an online presence -- it's tiny enough online to qualify for Yuletide every year).
I just. "Multimedia" is a fannish word. It means "multi-fandom" in a whole lotta fannish places, and to a whole lotta fans, and it's meant that for a really long time. Why do we need to *prove* that?
Re: can't answer the poll, unfortunately
Date: 2008-11-16 09:03 pm (UTC)That might be relevant, if some one was likely to be looking for an explanation of a lemon in the botanical sense on a fandom wiki. A google search for lemon fic results in over 4 million hits. Multimedia and fic gets just over 1 million, and every entry on the first page (even when related to fandom) does not use it to mean multifandom. Lemon is on the Urban Dictionary using the fandom explanation, multimedia is not (someone will now probably go and change that.) Lemon is also on the Wiki, under the disambiguation page. Multimedia is not. It's all about the level of relevancy. And while multifandom is not on there, it doesn't have to content with an already almost universally established meaning, both in and out of fandom.
No one is saying it can't be on the wiki, or that it is never used OMG!, just that it should be a subheading because it is far less popular, and also confusing because most fans use it to mean something else.
I might expect the Kataang ship to have its own page, because it is one of the main ships in the Avatar fandom and canon, but I wouldn't be surprised if Toph/cabbage man is not mentioned or is only a subheading to another page, because it's a rare (possibly non-existent) pairing.
Putting multimedia as a subheading decreases confusion (which is part of what a wiki is supposed to do). People who use multimedia probably know what multifandom means, it's pretty self explanatory. Where as the majority of fandom would have a WTF? reaction if they were looking up multimedia and were told it meant multifandom.
Also, you are being asked to prove it exactly because it is rarely used. Most people haven't heard of it, so of course they want proof.
Random trivia: This is the origin of the phrase lemon=explicit :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_Lemon
Anon, because I don't intend to take this any further.