I am so very remiss in letting you guys know where I've been and what I've been writing, but I do have a couple of quick updates for you:
The sources I used for this article came from three interviews (cited in the article) and the Fanlore talk page and revision history. The point of contention is over one sentence in which I described changes made to the Fanlore entry for the fic "This Never Happened." Paraka's original version of the entry links the fanfic as "based on" in the right sidebar, without identifying it as a fic. There is no description of the story itself in the main entry text, and the summary/review are both in reference to the podfic, not the fic.
AgentStarbucks' changes to the page rephrased the opening sentence from "This Never Happened is a Frank Iero/Gerard Way podfic by klb (3:05:31)" to "This Never Happened is a Frank Iero/Gerard Way fanfic originally written by bexless, of which klb made a podfic (3:05:31)." Paraka described this change on the Wiki Talk entry as "This is an entry about a *podfic* and the slight changes made, make this into an entry about a *fic*....they're still *separate* fanworks that should have separate entries on fanlore."
As a journalist attempting to sum all of this up, I had to combine both of these ideas--editing the entries to talk about fanfic and the issue of separate entries--into one sentence. Thus my one-sentence summary became:
- "Paraka took issue when another fan on Fanlore attempted to edit an entry she had made on a podfic to include (emphasis mine) the fanfiction that it was based on, combining both the podfic and the original story under the same URL."
I went on in my article to describe how Paraka's original request got taken out of context by the meme and others to be about whether podfic deserved its own entry. I also explicitly clarified that whether podfics should have their own entries was never up for debate among the Fanlore wiki committee. So I don't feel that I misrepresented the original argument.
Because of the unhappiness within podfic fandom, however, I did discuss this with my editor. After explaining to him the way the podfic was linked versus the way the changes were made, my editor felt that while both "include" and "emphasize" are technically accurate, include seems to be more precise and objective in this instance, and that no correction to the article itself is needed.
I very humbly ask that anyone who feels I have misrepresented podfic fandom please read the rest of the article. As a journalist first and as a longtime podficcer myself second, I have no possible vested interest in wanting to hurt or anger anyone in this debate. And I believe I have represented the issue and your feelings fairly.
You guys are always welcome to call me out on anything you're unhappy with, at any time. The comments to my articles are always open, and we recently updated our commenting system so now (thank god) you don't have to log in through Facebook!
