Fandom is a website for fans’ communities to share their knowledge of fictional worlds with others and fans can find information about games, anime, movies and TV. Basically, fandom is similar to Wikipedia, but it also has a function like a news platform that shares videos associated with games, anime, movies and TV.
The commons are social systems in which resources are shared by a community of users/producers.
De Angelis and Harvie, The Commons
To a large extent, Fandom can be described as a commons-based media resource according to the above definition, which will be further explained in the following sections by answering several questions.
Q1: What is the Resource that is Being Developed and Shared?
It is easy to spot out that Fandom mainly relies on text and picture information that fans share about what they know about a cultural product (ie. games, anime, movies and TV). Anyone can create their new wiki page for a cultural product that has not been written, supplement information about a cultural product, or simply check the wiki page to get information about the cultural product they are interested in.
As Bollier and Helfrich emphasised, the concept of ‘the commons’ does not merely mean sharing but also producing and bringing something into the system, and these two actions happen together to create a sustainable and shareable social system. Following this definition, Fandom can be said as a commons-based platform because fans share and produce content on the platform, making it durable.
Q2: Who Decides How the Resource is Used and Managed?
Although Fandom’s wiki pages are revisable for everyone, there is still a leadership team to ‘ensure the company remains a place that celebrates individuality and passion’. They will make decisions about the company’s financial, technological, and marketing spheres, including how the resource is used and managed. According to Ostrom’s argument on governance conditions of the commons, there are two vital points that should be aware of: one is all individuals can have a say in the organisation’s running, and another is trustworthy monitors will be appointed by users. The Fandom leadership team corresponds with what Ostrom means by trustworthy monitors, who are dedicated to serving all kinds of fans.
Q3: Are There Any Indications that This Resource is Being ‘Enclosed’ or Commodified? If So, By Whom?
Actually, there is an indication showing this resource is being enclosed and commodified. When you open the Fandom website, you will see there is an advertisement on the top of the website like the screenshot photo below.
Referring back to an opinion about the chief commodity in cultural industries in my other post, it is noteworthy that the audience is the chief commodity. In this case, people who click on this Fandom website become a commodity that will be sold to advertisers. This reminds me of Lawrence and Laybourn-Langton’s opinion on the digital commonwealth that the enclosure of the commons (ie. information on the Fandom website and personal data) brought opportunities and wealth to private interests. The advertisements on the website would be strong proof of this opinion.
By answering these three questions, the analysis of the Fandom website as a web commons-based is well established. It is not difficult to understand that the Fandom website is a web commons-based resource that every person has the access to it and has the right to use and share information. A nominated leadership team due to the trust of the users is also a vital symbol of the commons-based system. Still, there is an indicator showing the resource possibly being enclosed and commodified. Thus, to a large extent, Fandom can be regarded as a web commons-based media resource platform.