People most often want works to be anonymous. They do not want to orphan them. But AO3 actively promotes the idea that in order for a creator to be anonymous, they must orphan their works -- even in this very post.
But when you've added a fanwork as a gift, and possibly received a fanwork as a gift in return, we think it's fair to say that the other participants should continue to enjoy the benefit of your contribution. In those cases, orphaning allows you to sever your connection with the fanwork while not removing it from the collection. [emphasis mine]
Whereas by using an anonymous collection, a creator can keep a work in a collection, the work can be kept perpetually anonymous, and the creator can retain full and complete control of the work (ability to edit, ability to delete) for perpetuity.
The FAQ could direct users to the tutorial on how to set up their own Anonymous Collections (a perfectly legitimate use of AO3), if you're too worried about even the mere suggestion that such things exist. But as it stands now, you only promote the most drastic of all options -- amputation instead of bone-setting -- and have apparently distressed users who took that drastic option on your advice, wished to reverse it, and were told no, hence the need for the wording change.
Stronger FAQ wording is pointless if you still suggest that orphaning is the only option.
Thank you for this helpful post, busaikko. As you say, a lot of people do not want to orphan works, myself included and you have brought something to mind which I think is worthy of mention in the context of the promotion of orphaning and the confused wording of the proposed new ToS. I had no idea that anonymous collections was even an option on this site?
There was the issue a few months ago of works being taken directly from the AO3 servers and posted for profit on ebooks-tree. At the time I was concerned that works that had been previously orphaned could have been taken and sold for-profit by ebooks-tree. Without being able to prove who wrote a work it was difficult to assert or prove rights with regard to orphaned works. At the time AO3's position was that orphaning a work does not sever the creator's rights in their work. Yet they state the process is 'irreversible in most cases' and provides no way of the writer proving the work is theirs if they later have need to do so, in a situation such as arose in the e-books tree scenario.
It seems to me that what you suggest would provide a satisfactory solution to prevent this situation recurring in the future. What's more, I am unclear why AO3 would have a non-interventionist policy with regard to maintainers of collections and challenges having power over other people's works even where it harms people (including content creators), but would refuse to endorse an anonymous option that would give creators power over their own works...on the grounds that it could harm people. I doubt I am either the first or the last to run into issues with orphaning after the fact. Other options that allow an author to maintain a connection with their work would certainly be preferable.
(Full disclosure: I'm an OTW staff member speaking only for myself about my own experiences, not for the OTW. I am not a member of the Abuse or Legal teams.)
I've used Anonymous collections myself, so I appreciate that some people prefer those as an option. However, I use them knowing full well that they're not actually anonymous. The collection maintainer can see the names of everyone who has submitted works, and the maintainer can reveal the collection at any time, accidentally or deliberately. Some of the other anonymity-breaking issues have been resolved by coders - yay coders! - but I don't think these two ever can be, because they're part of normal functioning for collections that intend to be revealed.
Anonymous collections tend to have disclaimers stuck on them by the maintainers that explain these issues. I use these collections knowing the risks, but I don't think the ToS can advocate using something that's outside official OTW control as a permanent solution to the anonymity issue. As was said higher up in this post re: another topic, that's an issue between users (that is, between me and the maintainer of the collection I use). If I don't trust that person, I won't use their collection.
In order for a work to be truly anonymous, orphaning is the only option at this time. If a user wants partial, conditional, and possibly-breakable anonymity, then they can pick an anonymous collection run by someone they trust. Maybe, if you're feeling enthusiastic about it, you can open an anonymous collection yourself (with disclaimers attached) and offer that opportunity to others, while explaining your commitment to anonymity. People know and trust you, so I think that'd be pretty awesome. If that happened, I might even switch some of my own works over. ^_^
Any AO3 user can create their own Anonymous collection. Many people have both a main account and a sock or dentist account (a proud Yuletide tradition!). As easy as it would be for me to open my own collection... it would be equally easy for absolutely any user to create their own collection -- about which I see absolutely no problem with AO3 suggesting, as it wouldn't be endorsing existing collections. "Users who want to retain control over works and not orphan them may create an Anonymous collection using a sock account that is not associated with your main username, and post works there."
The risk is much greater with orphaned works that the AO3 will not allow to be deleted. It leaves creators vulnerable, exposed, and helpless -- it's an internet presence that cannot be deleted.
*cocks head sideways* At that point, would it not be easier to just post the works under the sock in the first place? I mean, the reason I didn't personally do what you suggest is that if my works are the only one in an anonymous collection, that quickly becomes fairly obvious. The first anon collection I added any work to had less than a dozen works on it when I first added one, which meant that, practically speaking, my work there wasn't terribly anonymous either until a reasonable usage had been built up.
I think maybe we're operating under different expectations? I know of no other fannish context where someone can both retain control of a work and make that work truly anonymous, without any pseud attached. All the archives I'm familiar with require an account to post, as do LJ/DW/Tumblr/deviantArt/etc. Posting anon to a kink meme means leaving a comment that I can no longer control or edit. Posting via a mod somewhere means giving them control of my work. That's been true across my entire fannish experience, from mailing lists until now. Orphaning is a new ability I've never seen elsewhere, where I can turn something anonymous after the fact instead of deleting it; the process is plastered with warnings about it being irreversible. True anonymity without orphaning would probably take a large amount of coder effort, and Abuse and Legal have no power to make promises on behalf of coders in terms of what features they will try to implement or when approved features will be implemented.
To clarify, since I don't think most folks are aware: anon collections are not only revealable and visible to the creator, but they're also visible to anyone with an admin account on the site. That means I and other staff of specific AO3 committees have the ability (though not the interest) to see the author information. While we have strict rules about what information can or can't be shared, that's an important and pretty permanent barrier to full anonymity. I trust the members of my team and the other AO3 working teams, but if a user is extremely concerned about anonymity, I wouldn't expect them to give that trust to all future staff on these teams. Users may not know my fellow volunteers as well as I do.
I mean, I get why you're asking for an option where it'd be possible to post truly anonymously while retaining control over a work; that'd be a really cool feature that no other fannish site I know of offers. It's simply not something that exists at this time here, and having the ToS offer a workaround that doesn't genuinely work isn't something I think we can fairly request of Legal and Abuse. Instead, it'd probably be good to document how anonymity works (or doesn't work) in a FAQ, like the Orphaning FAQ does for orphaning works.
At the end of the day, orphaning isn't really an alternative to anonymity with control. It's an alternative to deletion, which is what it was created to address, because that's the only option people have on other sites.
Honestly, the only problem I have is that it could be easier to search for the Anonymous collections, to see if there are any set up by somebody I trust. Also, having set up and run collections/challenges, I'd actually like to have the option of having being able to have revealing left in the participants' hands after a given date.
I think that'd be a cool and useful feature! If you're interested, you could submit it to the Support team at the link at the bottom of this page (labelled "Technical Support and Feedback") and ask them to add it to the list of suggestions for coders to consider. I mean, obviously it wouldn't happen right away if it did get approved, since there are about a million things on the coders lists, but at least that way someone will know there's interest.
Comment on Proposed Changes to the Archive of Our Own's Terms of Service and Frequently Asked Questions
busaikko (Guest) Wed 27 Jan 2016 10:29AM UTC
Comment Actions
FaerieChild Wed 27 Jan 2016 08:29PM UTC
Comment Actions
briar_pipe Wed 27 Jan 2016 10:33PM UTC
Comment Actions
busaikko (Guest) Thu 28 Jan 2016 11:14AM UTC
Comment Actions
briar_pipe Mon 08 Feb 2016 11:20PM UTC
Last Edited Mon 08 Feb 2016 11:22PM UTC
Comment Actions
Ryo Hoshi (Hoshi_Ryo) Fri 29 Jan 2016 02:06AM UTC
Comment Actions
briar_pipe Fri 29 Jan 2016 03:20AM UTC
Comment Actions