1) We are an anti-oppression group of activist archivists. We aim to be comprehensive in our linkspams but not impartial. We do not subscribe to the belief that there is is an objective perspective on any oppression, nor will we try to present "two" sides equally. We are biased in favour of oppressed voices.
2) We understand that intersectional practices are vital in anti-oppression work. We will try to focus on imbroglios relating to power imbalances and conflicts between minority and majority group members. Such imbroglios include but are not limited to the interlocking systems of oppression relating to ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, class, gender identities and presentations, size or weight, age, sexual identities, and disability. This list is not meant to be exhaustive and we are open to connecting to imbroglios relating to other aspects of power and identity as they arise.
3) We are positioned primarily in LiveJournal and Dreamwidth. Our main concern is anti-oppression issues as they impact SFF and transformative works fan communities. We define fan communities broadly in regard to media and fannish activities and believe that anti-oppression work will, at times, connect with online areas beyond fan spaces.
4) We are currently run by a team of eight co-moderators. We are considering a proposal to set up an an Advisory Board that would oversee Linkspam and welcome feedback on that proposal. Collecting links
1) We aim to cover issues that prompt substantive discussion and debate. Between six and ten links is enough for an initial linkspam post. As such this is the minimum threshold for a linkspam topic to register on our radar.
2) We collect links through: word of mouth, our flists, other people's flists, our delicious network, links from other posts, use of search engines and recommendations from our alert readers. Links can be recommended by: commenting on a recent post, sending a PM to a mod or to linkspam_mod
, tagging a post on delicious with "for:linkspam", or sending an email to the linkspam_mod address. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
3) We will link to posts on LJ, DW, LJ clones and other blogs. We do not generally link to articles on mainstream news sites.
4) We link to posts that offer substantive content. We only link to "signal boost" posts if they already contain a significant discussion in comments. We are particularly cautious when linking to "signal boost" posts that are not overtly anti-oppression, as we do not wish to drown out productive discussion.
5) We will publicize relevant festivals/carnivals because we consider them to be substantive anti-oppression discussions.
6) We will be compiling links using the Linkspam account on Delicious (http://delicious.com/linkspam
). Different volunteers will be posting links at Delicious, tagging and sorting links, compiling and editing linkspams in GoogleDocs.
7) We use a single linkspam_mod
account to post links and comments. As a result, the person posting may not necessarily be the person who compiled the linkspam. We believe having a single account provides a mechanism for collective responsibility in that persistent failings by one member are the responsibility of the team as a whole if nothing is done to remedy the situation. At the same time, we recognize that this practice may present problems in terms of transparency and accountability. We are willing to reconsider it if significant issues arise, and welcome suggestions or critiques.Posting links
1) For most significant imbroglios, we will aim to post one linkspam per day. Very active discussions may require two posts per day.
2) In general we post links without comment or categorization. We indicate the title of the post (when it is titled) and either the username of the poster or the blog where it was posted.
3) Warnings will be made based on toxicity of post and/or comments. We will warn for content of post and comments at the time the link is added. If, at a later time, readers see that the warning or lack thereof is no longer accurate, we would appreciate a comment. While we cannot guarantee that an unwarned link will be safe, we will attempt to warn to the best extent that we can. Since we are imperfect, we welcome information regarding incomplete or incorrect warnings. Our priority for link-colllecting is oppressed groups and allies which will affect how our warnings are presented.
4) If posts are mainly signal boosts, we will mark them as such.
5) When we link to a post, we (where practicable) leave a comment stating that we have done so. If a post is particularly offensive, the linkspammer may at hir discretion decide not to leave such a comment.
6) As we exist in order to provide an archive and record of discussion, we do not remove links to posts, except in exceptional circumstances. While we discourage requests to take down a link, we will consider them on a case-by-case basis. We are very unlikely to remove links to posts that were made from a position of privilege.
7) We do not link to posts that were locked from the start. However we do not remove links to posts that have since been locked. (Except in exceptional circumstances, see above.) Where practicable we will add a note saying that the post has been locked.Moderating comments
1) All comments will be screened by default.
2) Comments will be unscreened if they are new links or if they represent a critique of Linkspam which the poster has requested to be made public. Comments, anonymous or named, that try to engage in discussion of the content of links will not be unscreened.
3) We allow anonymous commenting but we only unscreen such comments if they are signed in some way.
4) We do not unscreen abusive or threatening comments.Suggestions, feedback and concerns
1) While ideally linkspam moderators would always be on the side of the less privileged, we realise that in practice this will not always be the case and that intersectional issues lead to a great deal of complexity. Although the linkspam team is dedicated to anti-oppression work, each member of the team will have their own individual views and biases. What we ask of moderators is that they be proactive in identifying their own biases, pay attention to the voices of those who are less privileged, and remain aware of the existence of intersectionality. In cases where an individual moderator's outlook is in conflict with the linkspam ethos regarding a particular issue, they may choose or be asked to recuse themselves from dealing with that issue.
2) Because we recognise that we may fall short when dealing with complex issues, we welcome privilege checks, suggestions and critiques from our readers. Such feedback is an important part of our work.
3) We accept feedback via: comments on a recent posts, PM to one or more of the moderators or to the linkspam_mod
account, e-mail to the linkspam account, and by comment on a dedicated suggestions post
. We also pay attention to feedback that is not addressed to us directly (critiques of linkspam found in blog posts, for instance).
4) All critiques offered privately will be kept confidential to the linkspam moderation team unless their originator requests otherwise. (For example, a request to unscreen a comment, etc.)
5) When we receive a critique, we will acknowledge it as soon as practicable. We will let its originator know that it will be discussed by the linkspam moderator team and give them an idea how long they will have to wait for a response. We will ask them in what form they would like a response and whether we may address their concerns publicly.
6) We will post in the moderators' community, linkspam_jaotr
, in order to discuss critiques. While we will aim to reach consensus on how to deal with them, we will place significant weight on the opinions of those moderators and advisors who have personal, direct knowledge of the type(s) of oppression concerned.