Posts Tagged ‘music’

After Lawsuit Threat, LyricWiki Is With Wikia

September 23rd, 2009

Written by Nile Flores (@blondishnet on Twitter)

A recent article in The Register called US music publishers sue online lyrics sites. TechDirt also covered this in their article Music Publishers Now Suing Lyrics Sites And Their Execs. One of the sites included was LyricWiki. Basically this lawsuit would shove the site in with those who burn and sell music without a license.

Also, recently Wikia acquired LyricWiki. As explained in their LyricWiki:Wikia Migration FAQ:

The dream will live on – Yay! Wikia has arranged a licensing deal so that royalties can be paid to music publishers, which will avoid the nasty risk of the site being sued out of existence. It’s good to know that our years of hard work won’t be evaporating any time soon! This is a gigantic relief for me and I’m sure many of you as well.

It is unfortunate to hear such things have to happen to some sites. I am willing to bet it was more for the money to sue in these economic times, rather than to stick it to another for copyright infringement. With so many sites out there that involve lyrics.

No offense, but when I go to a lyrics site, I am usually thinking of a tune or maybe a friend asked and here I am searching to find the song. Not all artists print their lyrics within their albums. I know, I have quite a few CDs on my shelf to prove that. So – these lyrics sites are really useful. Some of these lyrics sites I have gone to for years have been open for over a decade. How is a .ORG site (which technically by definition means the site is not really for profit) actually profitting from this?

As Michael Masnick said in his Techdirt article about his opinion on these lyric sites being sued.

I’d really like to see them prove that. These sites aren’t profiting off the backs of songwriters, they’re helping more people find and understand the lyrics of songs they like. That gives fans a closer connection to the music and more reason to buy things which will actually bring songwriters money. It’s stunning how shortsighted and backwards the music publishers are being here.

Although it has been said years ago that it was indeed illegal to do such, these sites have been harmless. Anyway…

For me to LyricWiki, I guess it kind of was a forced move to go to Wikia. Myself, I probably would have done the same if faced with being sued and the licensing price alone was insanely expensive. Sorry to hear about it – may Wikia not kill your site.

Michael Jackson

June 27th, 2009

I was — I am – a child of the ’80s. It’s a label and designation I embrace with a certain pride and a lot of fondness for the arts and culture of the decade, no matter what later generations have to say about it and how much it may be looked at as “cheesy” and “superficial” today.

Even so, I was shocked by the extent to which Michael Jackson‘s passing this past week affected me. I cannot claim that I have considered myself a “fan” of his since the 80s, yet there is no denying that during my early teen years, he was legendary, and one of the primary entertainment figures of the time.

I was too young to appreciate “Off the Wall” when it came out (although that appreciation would come later in my adult years when it became the only MJ music I would regularly hear and listen to on our local radio stations, and still say, “Damn, that’s good.”) But I can distinctly remember the impact that “Thriller” had upon its release. I remember when Michael first did his moonwalk on U.S. television. I remember how myself and all my classmates tried to imitate it for weeks afterward. I remember how the premiere of any of his music videos was a major television event. I remember when it seemed no album could ever top “Thriller” and, in some ways, if one looks at the charts, no album ever has.

And yet, like many others, I became disillusioned with Michael in the years that followed. By the time “Bad” was released, he was already becoming a bit of a “joke” to some, a joke I laughed along with. I had passed into my later teen years and moved onto other music; in time, Michael’s music had become overshadowed to me by his weird behavior, the plastic surgeries, the accusations of child abuse and everything else. Michael was not someone who I thought had “relevance” any longer, but had become just a sad case of too much fame being gifted to someone who wasn’t equipped to deal with it, for whatever reason.

And yet, since the shocking news of his passing a few days ago, I’ve been struck as has, I think, many out there who had dismissed him for so long as nothing but some kind of sad joke. It’s as if we’d collectively forgotten how important he was to the way the music industry had evolved and changed; how incredible a performer he’d been; how much skill and craft could be found in his music. It was an eerie experience living in a big city where, from that afternoon on Thursday through even now, days later, every car driving by on the street seemed to be blasting “Billie Jean”, “Beat It”, or “Don’t Stop ‘Till You Get Enough”. Storefronts all through my neighborhood put up makeshift tributes and posters; everyone sitting out on their porch or steps had some commentary to make about Michael. I started listening to the music again for the first time in decades and was struck by how timeless so much of it was; I rewatched performances and was immediately transported back to the first time I’d ever seen them and my awe for what he was able to do. I felt tremendously sad for what was now lost, while at the same time I felt guilty for being yet another “bandwagon” jumper instead of a so-called “true fan” who had been with Michael all of this time.

And yet, the debate rages on about how his personal life must or should be reconciled with his artistic one. Some feel that the two cannot be judged separately; that his artistic legacy is forever tarnished or ruined by the things he did and/or was accused of doing (with or without concrete proof). Yet in a time when issues of childhood abuse and trauma are on the forefront of fandom thought, can we honestly criticize Michael Jackson’s actions without considering how his own suffered abuse no doubt shaped his later life and reported actions? I’m not sure, yet I don’t want to free him from all blame for his actions, either. Can we negate the influence he had on generations for his music, when in fact many classical artists universally revered today in academic circles would be condemned by the public for their personal behavior if it were revealed in the tabloids the way MJ’s was?

These questions are not raised to negate the severity of issues of child and sexual abuse, should they ever be concretely proven in MJ’s case. I only mention them as this is a man who has left a very complex and not at all neat and clean legacy. The same could be said of another music legend whose passing several years ago left me seriously affected, Warren Zevon. Warren was a raging alcoholic; someone who was regularly abusive to his friends and lovers; someone who suffered from severe mental problems, who according to articles and a biography by an ex-lover was pretty far from an admirable person. And yet, I cannot not love his music; I cannot deny the positive influence it had on my life regardless of his personal behavior. I cannot deny the pleasure I had from seeing him perform live on numerous occasions and how much I still love him today for his work, even if for nothing else.

Perhaps only time will be the judge. Perhaps it will only be in decades or even centuries that we are able to state who were truly the legendary and influential artists and creators of our time. I just have a feeling that Michael is going to end up on that short list, and I feel it was tragic that it took such a turn of events for many of us to realize this.

Help:Fanzines

June 23rd, 2009

We’ve created a Help page for fanzines.  It really needs some additional work in terms of categories, titles, etc.  We wanted something up officially to address concerns have have appeared regarding preservation movements around media fanzines.  The following is our current version.


Purpose

The purpose of Fan History’s fanzine articles is to preserve the history of fanzines in the community. Fanzines have long been an important part of all areas of fandom: music, media, science fiction, sports, and punk, just to name a few. Fanzines provide a window into a specific time in fandom history; trends in writing, art and discussion; as well as many other aspects of fandom life and creativity which can be important in understanding the history of fandom.

That said, Fan History recognizes the issues that can exist in providing documentation of materials that may have been meant to be transient in nature, or may include information considered sensitive that creators and contributors may not wish to be publicly accessible today. Our policies regarding fanzine articles, artwork and content have been designed to provide both freedom of contributors to add information they consider valuable to fannish history, as well as avenues for creators to request removal of material they do not wish to have listed or archived electronically in any fashion.

Our promise

Fan History promises to never digitally provide the majority or entire contents of a fanzine on Fan History without consent of the fanzine publisher. If a publisher and individual contributors specifically wish for their materials to be archived for posterity, we can work with those individuals to provide hosting of such content. In general, however, our fanzine entries include a brief description of contents (including a table of contents when available), cover art (when available), publication history, a description of its relevance to fandom, and fan reactions.

Fanzine article deletion

See Help:Article deletion#Fanzine article deletion request.

Fanzine cover art deletion

See Help:Article deletion#Fan art and fanzine covers.

Template

A template for fanzine can be found at Template:Fanzine. To use this template, search for the fanzine title. If it does not exist, click on “Create this page.” In a different window/tab, click edit on Template:Fanzine. Copy and paste the contents of Template:Fanzine to your new blank article. Fill out as much information as possible.

Fan History is planning more growth and wants to help other sites…

May 18th, 2009

We’ve been hard at work on Fan History trying to improve content, create more stub content to make it easier for contributors to participate, to increase the number of people participating on the wiki, to become more comprehensive and to better serve the fan community. To this end, we’ve done three things in the past month or so:

  • Added 17,000 articles about music fandoms;
  • Added 1,600 articles about fanzines;
  • Added 13,000 articles about movies.

    These additions have largely been about providing a framework for the documenting of history that we’ve done so far. Pretty soon, hopefully in the next week or two, we’re planning to add between 50,000 and 75,000 articles. We’re going to be focusing on fan responses to episodes and using EpisodeBot as our base template. If you know of a search engine or an entertainment site that could use some link love, please get them in touch with me at laura[@]fanhistory[.]com. We’ll consider adding links on all those new pages to them.

  • 33,155 fandoms and growing…

    May 15th, 2009

    roflcopter flew in to Fan History again yesterday.  This time, the goal was to create music fandom stubs and it did that to the tune of 17,000 groups.  We’re really happy with this as we’ve wanted to expand that section for a long time.  There are just so many groups that it can be intimidating as to where to start exactly.  If you’re in music and there isn’t an article about a band you want to see mentioned, drop us a line and we’ll help you create one.  If you know people who could help improve our music section, we’d be extremely grateful.

    With this growth, Fan History now has an article about or references 33,155 plus fandoms…  Below is a breakdown of those fan communities by type.

    • Actors – 275 fandoms
    • Anime – 550 fandoms
    • Books – 450 fandoms
    • Cartoons – 200 fandoms
    • Comics – 100 fandoms
    • Movies – 13,000 fandoms
    • Music – 17,605 fandoms
    • Politics – 5 fandoms
    • Radio – 35 fandoms
    • Sports – 125 fandoms
    • Table top gaming – 5 fandoms
    • Television – 750 fandoms
    • Theater – 30 fandoms
    • Video games – 250 fandoms
    • unsorted fandoms – 500 fandoms [1]

    Total fandom estimate: 33,155

    Want to help FanHistory cover Bonnaroo? Send me there for free!

    May 1st, 2009

    OK, so this is sort of shameless self-promotion to get me a set of free passes with all travel/camping expenses paid, but if I make it to the Bonnaroo Music Festival this summer, I will happily take advantage of the opportunity to provide coverage of the event for FanHistory: the music, the fans, the scene, etc. It’s a great opportunity for us to help continue our coverage of bandom–not just who is popular now but who might be ready to make a breakthrough into wider popularity in the near future.

    So, want to help me out? It will only take you a moment. Local Philadelphia radio station 104.5 is having a concert photo contest, and my entry made the final round for voting. Now it’s just a matter of getting the most votes from the viewing and listening public.

    So if you have a minute to spare, go to the radio station website, then click on the link for the “Group 4″ gallery. I’m image #41 in the set, but you have to browse through to the last image, #42, for the link to vote.

    I am “Nicole P.”, the last choice on that ballot.

    After you vote, make sure you respond to the email they send you to verify the vote is coming from a real email account.

    Here is my pic for your enjoyment as well–Stewart Copeland in action at Madison Square Garden at the final Police concert.

    Voting ends May 10. Thanks in advance for your support!


    Update May 6:

    Hey folks!

    Thanks for helping to get the vote out for me, wow! At the moment I seem to be leading my group’s votes, but please keep them coming in.

    I’ve posted a little blog on my personal site about why I chose the image I did for the contest as my “Best Concert Moment”. You can read it over at policefans.org here.

    The problems of writing personal histories in a wiki…

    April 21st, 2009

    On Thursday morning, a friend of Fan History’s and one of our admins pointed me at another post about the issues with FanLore.  We were really interested in this post because it dealt with similar yet different issues than the ones brought up by nextian.  Like that post, we’ve gone through and commented in terms of how we’ve handled similar criticism, how we handle situations like the one mentioned in terms of FanLore, what advice we have, etc.  We haven’t addressed the whole post and the comments because of length.  (And because we got a bit distracted by other things going on.)  We hope to get back to it.

    A lot of non-fic fandom is languishing at Fanlore. Gamer fandom, in particular, I notice, ‘cos I’ve been part of that for (eeep!) more than thirty years.

    This is a similar problem that Fan History has faced.  And it isn’t just non-fic fandoms.  It is fandoms where there is a community outside of and removed from the fan fiction community.  This was an area we were criticized for about two years.  We were too fan fiction-centric.  We weren’t multifannish enough.  We didn’t encourage the telling of fandom history outside of the fan fiction community.  And those criticisms were entirely valid back then. But now?  We’ve got a whole lot of fan fiction content but we’re a lot less fan fiction-centric in terms of our article scope.  Removing that has been a goal of ours and on our to-do list for a long time. It’s there as a reminder that when we see a timeline for a fandom that says “this fan fiction community,” we change it to “this fan community” or “this fandom.”  We’ve made this a priority.

    That doesn’t even begin to get into the issue of media fandom vs. anime and manga fandom vs. actor fandom vs. music fandoms vs. video game fandoms.  In this respect, I think Fan History was fortunate because we had anime and video game fandoms represented early thanks to Jae, one of our earliest contributors.  She had a lot of experience in the Digimon and Final Fantasy communities, and created a number of articles about them.  We are also fortunate to a degree as my own interests were pretty pan-fannish.  I had connections to the anime and  music fandoms because of my relationships with the folks at RockFic, the guy who runs FanWorks.Org, and the people who run MediaMiner.Org.

    FanLore isn’t as fortunate in that regards.  Their traditions, their interests have always been focused on media fandom and science fiction.  They don’t really have one or two core people who come from fannish experiences outside their own who, organizationally, are equal to other members of that community.  It is easy to have that problem because you tend to go with what you know, hang out with like-minded people, and stay in your comfort zone.

    If you want those other fan communities represented, you have give those fans an investment in it.  You bypass the traditional rules.  You find a BNF in one of those fandoms, offer them admin status, and encourage them to promote the project in their own community.  We did this with the Kim Possible fandom.  We made one their own a fandom administrator, talked to the guy on a regular basis and encouraged him to reach out to his community.  And, to a certain degree, it worked.  If we hadn’t done that outeach, we would not have seen the edits to the Kim Possible section that we have had.  None of our core contributors have ever really been in the Harry Potter or Rescue Rangers fandoms to any large degree.  We reached out on mailing lists, LiveJournal groups, fansites, and fan fiction archives.  We asked for their help.  These folks responded.  Why?  We built a framework which made it easy to contribute.  In most cases, we left them alone to make edits as they needed to so long as they didn’t violate the rules.  They responded more when those articles became useful for them in terms of regularly visiting and linking because people couldn’t get that content elsewhere.

    But I’m not sure what to do with the wiki. It’s… big. And mostly empty, in the areas of fandom that are most dear to me. And I’m not a historian; I don’t remember the details, the names & dates, of the fannish events & memes that I grew to love; I remember vague overview of concepts, and a few bright points of detail, which make for lousy wiki entries. I would like to start entries and allow others to fix them, but the few I tried that with, haven’t worked. I don’t think there’s anyone active at Fanlore who comes from “my branch(es)” of fandom.

    The thing is, you don’t NEED to be a historian to be able to write the history of a fan community.  You don’t need all the dates.   You can write a good history based on general feel.  People can come in later and improve it with citations.  Just describe what you see going on with your gut feeling and explain that as well as you can.  Describe the community and how it operates.  Heck, a lot of this is not citable; how can you cite things like trends in, say, the LiveJournal community?  There is no way to cite, without doing a lot of research and without having access to primary source documents.

    What we hope will happen is that by someone putting what they feel in there, what they intrinsically understand as a community history or how the community functions, someone else will be inspired by seeing that to do the additional research.  Or that someone else will disagree with that and edit it to include their own perspective, and the two different perspectives that can’t really be sourced can be merged.  Or that someone will know some good citations to support what is written.

    The models for doing this have to be different because you aren’t writing a traditional history.  This is not the same as writing a history of the US Civil War.  Much of this involves writing ethnographic-style history.  The methodologies are different than other forms of documenting history.  The practices are different.  Both types of history are different from writing meta.

    This all has an impact on how people contribute.  Administrators need to keep that in mind. The admin team needs to understand the fundamental methodologies involved in writing history.  At Fan History, our admins have spent a lot of time getting a crash course on exactly this.   There have been discussions on our mailing list about the methodologies of writing women’s histories, and how historians use oral histories in their research.  We’ve talked about multiple perspectives and issues of bias in the telling of fandom history.  We’ve discussed research done in fandom by academics like Henry Jenkins and Camille Bacon-Smith, identified areas of bias and how we can learn from that.  We’ve discussed primary sources, secondary sources, historian bias, reporter bias, the role of collaboration in history writing, quantitative versus qualitative approaches and merging the two approaches to get a cohesive history.  The more familiar the admin staff is with these issues, the better they are at analyzing, guiding and teaching others in terms of writing those histories in fandoms where those admins are not involved.

    Knowing all this methodology also helps admins because they can learn when to leave alone historical information where someone doesn’t know the exact dates and might be a little off but are well-intentioned, and when they should step in to correct things that are obviously wrong or intentionally inflammatory.  For example, they can learn to correct when some one thinks they recall something about LiveJournal before LiveJournal actually existed or says something like: “There was never a good mpreg story published in the CSI fandom”.  The grounding in methodology helps to identify when you don’t need sources and when you do.

    We’ve done an excellent job in  a few sections without many sources.  http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/CSI does that; no citations but tells history with charity work, with fan fiction archives like FanLib, and with how the LiveJournal community works.  We’ve also done a fairly good job with that on the mpreg article.  http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Mpreg talks about how mpreg is received in particular fan communities.  No citations.  Are we going to remove them?  No.  If there are issues, we can use the talk page to discuss that.  If people have problems with that, they can toss in {{fact}} or {{POV}}.

    And if you still have issues where you can’t integrate that information, you do outreach.

    I’m a sci-fi fan; I love reading, not watching, my sci-fi input. I love conventions, even though I’ve gone to very very few in the last decade. (So all of my con-based fanlore is decades old. Sigh.) And I want to fill in the blanks for the fandoms I love, but I can’t even get a grip on where and how to start.

    I can totally understand that.   When I started writing the history of fandom, I had similar problems…  though more so the case of I had a lot of historical information that I could cite but all that information was really absent context. I didn’t know how to integrate it in to a historical context where these bits and pieces made sense.  I had lists of Doctor Who, Blake’s 7, Star Trek, and Starsky and Hutch fanzines from the 1980s, but no information about how of those zines were received by the readers, what were common tropes, who was writing them, or who the audience was.  How the heck do you put that information into an article about the fandom those zines come from and have it fit in any sort of meaningful way?  A lot of the culture probably changed when things went online.  There might not have been a continuity in that culture when it went online, so totally different cultural practices were created.   And sometimes, you really are left wondering who will care about that Blake’s 7 femslash zine that was written in 1992 other than someone into trivia.  Also, a lot of this might be duplicate historical research that someone already put out in a fanzine list done in 1995 and if only you had access… It is just a mess.

    But at least that information is easy to cite or know.  It might be hard to get a grip on when you’re trying to put it into a big picture and you don’t have a starting place.  The personal, well, I can totally understand that in a different context.   I don’t know when some things happened.  I know I was on staff at FanFiction.Net.  I know I wrote the site’s first Terms of Service.  I know I got into a big fight with Steven Savage over policies.  I don’t know the exact dates.  I don’t have copies of the original text.  I know I founded the b5teens.  I know I got into a giant kerfluffle with some people on another mailing list when I was 16.  Many of the others involved in the group with me back then have left fandom.  I don’t know the dates. I don’t have the texts.  I’m sure as heck hoping that the fan fiction I wrote has disappeared.  Even assuming I knew some of that information, it was still weird to find a starting point.  What seems really big and important to you when you’re in the thick of it is difficult to put into any sort of proper historical context.

    How can you make your own history as unbiased as possible?  People do a lot of stupid things -myself included - and really, who wants to deliberately make themselves look bad?   After dealing with that, how do you cite information when the source is yourself?  Or when you’re documenting history that includes your own involvement?  What event do you start with?  Do you start on the stuff you’re most passionate about, or the place where you can most easily slot your history in? Do you write the history where you can most easily put information into context, or the history where you can best cite your sources?

    And you know, there are no easy answers to where to start when you’re talking about random bits of fandom historical knowledge or your own history. The best suggestion, in personal terms, is to think of your own goals for involvement for writing a history.  Is there a particular fandom where you have a lot of experience and knowledge but no one has really written up a history yet?  Is there an event that you think matters where you feel like you have a unique perspective?  Has someone written information that can provide a framework for your own history?

    Those might be a places to start if you’re stumped. Try to write biographies or histories of the key players that you know.  Timeline specific events in the context of the convention, mailing list, fanzine, IRC chat room, fanclub, social network or kerfluffle.  Create an outline. This information doesn’t need to be ready for “prime time.”  You’re not writing an academic text.  You’re providing information from within the fan community to help members of the fan community and those on the outside better understand it.  Tenure isn’t at risk.  (Though if you’re writing biased material with the intent of making yourself and your friends look better, your reputation in the fan community might be at risk.)   In the early stages, the information that you’re writing or collecting doesn’t even necessarily need to go on the main article about a fandom.  You can keep it on subpages until you understand all the moving pieces and how they fit into the larger fandom picture.  Then, later, you can integrate it into the main article or just create a “see also” in the main article.

    If that doesn’t work for you, there are other places to start.  Find the talk page for an article relevant to the history you want to tell.  Introduce yourself on the talk page, talk about your experiences, cite sources where some of that information can be verified and ask the contributors to the article to integrate that information into the article.  Follow up when people ask questions or explanations.   Using talk pages this way can be helpful in terms of learning the feel of a wiki community and how people expect you to contribute.  They can also help you find someone who is more comfortable in terms of finding a starting place, who can help you focus what you want to do.  Starting on talking pages can also be similar to drafting on subpages like I mentioned above: there is less pressure because things aren’t on the main article and you don’t need to make a judgement call on the merits of what you’re contributing.  Others can do that by chosing to integrate your knowledge and experience into the article.

    Total fandoms represented on Fan History? Lots and lots.

    March 30th, 2009

    If you haven’t been watching Fan History’s recent changes page, you might not have noticed it but we’ve steadily been working on clearing out our wanted categories. In the past 10 days or so, we’ve taken that from over 4,500 categories being wanted to what amounts to zero. Along the way, we’ve probably created a bit of a monster in that we’ve found several capitalization issues, several issues with articles appearing or not appearing in categories, etc. Those problems will get resolved over time and will be much easier to address now because we know those categories actually exist and have articles in them. All this category creation has given us reason to reflect on our category organization methods. We’ve subsequently updated our category help page.

    Getting to the main point, all this category structure means we have a much better idea of how many fan communities are represented on Fan History. We don’t have a firm count because there is some crossover for things like Star Trek which is both a television show, movie and cartoon. These are estimates based on fandom categories.

  • Actors – 275 fandoms
  • Anime – 550 fandoms
  • Books – 450 fandoms
  • Cartoons – 200 fandoms
  • Comics – 100 fandoms
  • Movies – 1000 fandoms
  • Music – 475 fandoms
  • Politics – 5 fandoms
  • Radio – 35 fandoms
  • Sports – 125 fandoms
  • Table top gamining – 5 fandoms
  • Television – 750 fandoms
  • Theater – 30 fandoms
  • Video games – 250 fandoms
  • unsorted fandoms – 500 fandoms

    Total fandoms: 4,025

  • How many fandoms are represented on Fan History?

    January 18th, 2009

    About a week ago, I was asked by some one how many fandoms were represented on Fan History and I had problems coming up with a number. Why? Because Fan History is a work in progress. For some fandoms, we have articles but they aren’t found in a category that makes them easily countable. Some articles don’t have categories because we just have one article in that subcategory so we don’t bother. Some of our articles were created by bots. While we’ve been hard at work trying to make categories, subcategories and build the framework for them, we’re talking over 5,000 categories and that takes a lot of work.

    So that aside, let’s try to get a picture of how many fandoms are represented on Fan History by seeing how big some of our important categories are.

    Misc

  • Fan fiction community size – 2,111 fandoms
  • LiveJournal community size by fandom – 999 fandoms
  • Actors

  • Actor fandoms – 322 fandoms
  • Actor fans – 41 fandoms
    A lot of these articles were created because LiveJournal communities were based on them or in an effort to create articles for people who visit our site through FanPop and Chickipedia. A lot of these fandoms are smaller so high possibility that there are another 100 actor fandoms on Fan History that aren’t picked up because of LiveJournal related bots.Anime
  • Anime fandoms -304 fandoms
  • Anime fandom categories – 374 fandoms
  • Anime fans – 299 fans
  • Anime LiveJournal communities – 20 fandoms
    A lot of anime fandoms are really, really small. FanFiction.Net related bots picked them up. We just haven’t built categories for them because we haven’t always spotted them. And when we do spot them, we’re not always creating articles for them. We found an anime fandom recently where there were over 2000 articles in subcategories but no actual article about the show itself. I’d guess that’s the high number? Add another 200 and you’ll get a feel for the number of anime fandoms.Books
  • Book fandoms – 220 fandoms
  • Book fandom categories – 287 fandoms
  • Book fans – 181 fans
  • Book LiveJournal communities – 13 fandoms
    We’re planning on adding a number of new book fandoms to Fan Fiction Stat Bot, to the tune over over 100 fandoms. That should ratchet up the number of fandoms represented by another 100. There are probably another 100 not showing up because of FanFiction.Net connected bots.Cartoons
  • Cartoon fandoms – 63 fandoms
  • Cartoons fandom categories – 120 fandoms
  • Cartoons fans – 125 fandoms
    I’d hazard a guess of another 25 fandoms floating around the site. This category just doesn’t feel like it has the sheer number of fandoms to draw from to begin with to have a lot of hidden categories and articles.Comics
  • Comics fandoms – 48 fandoms
  • Comics fandoms categories – 59 fandoms
  • Comics fans – 41 fandoms
    Like cartoons, this is a pretty small type of fandom that is compounded in its difficulty to count and create articles for because of all the crossovers canon-wise, with new comics spun off based on characters, etc. There are probably another 25 fandoms not yet categorized in those groups yet.Movies
  • Movie fandoms – 221 fandoms
  • Movie fandom categories – 338 fandoms
  • Movie fans – 265 fandoms
    Movie fandoms might have some additional fan categories to the tune of another 100 or so. Like actor fandoms, unless there is more than 1 article in a category, categories generally aren’t created for it. FanFiction.Net related articles weren’t picked up by Fan Fiction Stat Bot because we wanted to get the bot done faster and generally assumed those fandoms weren’t as active. There are probably 100 to 250 wanted articles for movies on actor-related articles where we’ve listed what fandoms actors appeared in.Music
  • Music fandoms – 377 fandoms
  • Music fandom categories – 383 fandoms
  • Music fans – 67 fandoms
  • Music LiveJournal communities – 33 fandoms
  • Music images – 44 fandoms
    This broad subcategory has had a few stewards and hasn’t had the articles added by bots that the other ones have had. Where it did, most of the categories already existed. I’d guess at most that another 50 fandoms are represented.Politics
  • Politics fandom categories – 1 fandom
  • Politics fandoms – 6 fandoms
    This is one of those main categories that is a mess. There probably aren’t more than 4 additional fandoms. No one has really put the time and effort into organizing and fixing this category so it just isn’t represented. (That should really change.)Radio
  • Radio fans – 2 fandoms
  • Radio fandoms – 33 fandoms
  • Radio fandom categories – 31 fandoms
    This is another neglected category like politicians. It should have more but doesn’t. It might have another 10 fandoms, mostly ones that are part of other mediums.Science fiction
  • Science fiction fandoms – 38 fandoms
  • Science fiction fans – 2 fandoms
    These categories mostly are pulled from other categories like books, television and movies. There are probably another 300 categories but they overlap everything else ,so take that with a grain of salt. We really need someone to sort through and better categorize those shows. Our emphasis on this category so far has been conventions, culture and terminology when building here.Sports
  • Baseball – 10 fandoms
  • Basketball – 4 fandoms
  • Figure skating – 2 fandoms
  • Football – 8 fandoms
  • Football fans – 3 fandoms
  • Hockey teams – 5 fandoms
  • Soccer fans – 3 fandoms
  • Sports fandom categories – 17 fandoms
    Sports fandom is a total mess because you’re not dealing with a major broad category but a category per sport. No one has spent much time improving the organization or working on articles in this area. We have a number of fandoms based on my and Sidewinder’s sports team interests. A few were picked up by LiveJournal bot. It looks like 50 total but better counting and sorting things out from uncategorized categories and uncategorized articles, I think we’d have another 50 fandoms.Television
  • Television fandoms – 457
  • Television fandom categories – 545 fandoms
  • Television fans – 414 fandoms
    As Fan history came out of media fandom with some music and television fans, I’m not surprised this is really large. I’d hazard a guess we have another 150 categories and articles from various television fandoms floating around the site.
    Theater
  • Theater fandoms – 7 fandoms
  • Theater fandom categories – 14 fandoms
  • Theater fans – 13 fandoms
    This is just one of those other neglected fandom categories. Not much there and no one has spent a lot of time updating those articles. I’d estimate another 10 fandoms just because there hasn’t been a goal of adding categories and articles.
    Video games
  • Video game fandoms – 84 fandoms
  • Video game fandom categories – 187 fandoms
  • Video game fans – 159 fandoms
    This category is one of those that has a lot of categories because people helped complete wanted categories based on articles the bots created. Lots of articles missing but categories created. The category was better maintained a year ago when one of major contributors was more active. I’d guess another 50 fandoms here because not the biggest category ever.
    Based on the biggest number of fandoms (besides sports where we just added them up and misc which duplicated a lot of things in our existing categories) for each subheading, we have a total of 2,761 fandoms represented on Fan History. If you add up our total estimates for fandoms that aren’t counted where they are supposed to be, we probably have 3,635 fandoms represented on Fan History.

    That’s a lot of fandoms. And we haven’t even begun to really document many of those are touch all the fan communities that are out there.

  • Yay! The RIAA isn’t going to sue John Doe!

    December 19th, 2008

    I sort of follow the RIAA news in terms of their rabid desire to sue anyone who downloads content a certain way, be the content legal or illegal. So I was pretty happy to read this Mashable post which said that the RIAA was going to stop their stupid and costly John Doe lawsuits. About time.

    Sadly, it doesn’t look like fandom and the entertainment community will be safe from continued wrath of the RIAA because the RIAA has a new tactic: Get your ISP to shut you down. Ick. That’s worse because it denies people of due process and you’re probably not going to be aware that it is going on.

    Guns N Roses

    August 28th, 2008

    Are you following the Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy leaked music situation?  If so, please help improve the article on Fan History about Guns N Roses and fill in the details or link to your own post about the topic.  Was the response called for?  Are the actions overkill?  Are “fans” like this killing the music industry or are actions like this killing the music industry?

    50 Cent’s own social networking site: Trend for fandom?

    March 30th, 2008

    These days, it seems like I’m getting half my fandom news from Mashable. It has so many news items that have fandom related impact. There was an article about 50 Cent creating an official social networking site for his fans today. Totally fantastic. I bet that catches on. One of the reasons that I think official sites don’t get more traffic is they offer limited interaction and limited new content. Fansites are generally better at providing a certain type of content and allowing increased increased interactivity between like minded fans and the musicians. Major pluses. Major incentive to use a site: Better product for fans. In terms of fan interaction on a pan fannish level though, if it catches on, it might likely spell a step back in interaction between various fan groups from different fandoms and less let me get to know you and everything about you. That could be seen as a minus. Or it could be seen as sort of a major plus: We’re getting back to the heart of monofannish behavior that some people loved. Long term, I predict that this will be seen as a positive thing for fan communities and that more musicians and intellectual property holders try to get on board with similar concepts.

    Canonical URL by SEO No Duplicate WordPress Plugin