[ SECRET POST #7025 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7025 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.




__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Multifandom fanwork exchanges on Dreamwidth]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1003.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

No. To be a complete pedant, in the large data sets we are so often talking about, it's not usually just one outlier, and a small group of points outside the 'norm' can be statistically significant. But also, even if it is just one, it still counts. That experience is valid. Some people like to talk as if fandom is a monolith and it isn't. And if someone says they can't think of one instance of some thing and I can, I will let them know. If they are being condescending or otherwise insulting, then, yeah, I probably do intend it as a bit of a gotcha. But I also just like to share my knowledge, in case I can let someone know about something they didn't before, so that's usually part of my motivation, and often the whole of it.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem is when people present *anecdotal evidence* as proof of a much larger problem when the overwhelming majority of cases do not support that. Nobody is saying your personal experience isn't valid. They're just saying not to present it by itself as some smoking gun.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

If somebody says 'never' or 'always' and there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, that would be a smoking gun to me because those words have concrete meanings. And, this is just my experience, but I have often come upon 'generalizations' that are just somebody presenting what they have observed as the way things are. So, anyone else's anecdotal evidence is just as valid as that. It isn't evidence of a wider incidence in and of itself, but it could be part of it.