According to their descriptions, Category:New Media is for "works that can be found originally on the internet", and Category:Web Original is for "work that originated on the web".
Is there value to having these as separate things?
Topic on Forum:Trope Talk
I we have to choose one I would vote for "Web Original" since it is clear what it is. I hope I don't sound too out of the loop when I say I have not heard of New Media" before, but according to wikipedia "New media most commonly refers to content available on-demand through the Internet, accessible on any digital device, usually containing interactive user feedback and creative participation. Common examples of new media include websites such as online newspapers, blogs, or wikis, video games, and social media. A defining characteristic of new media is dialogue." We could have new media as a subset of web original where a video would not be considered new media, but a blog is. A good example where new media exists in a single art style is with web comics where many are interactive, but many are not.
Mm. Yes. RWBY would be "Web Original" but since it doesn't involve any kind of viewer feedback (at least no more than more traditionally distributed series would) it wouldn't be "New Media". Unless we want to roll web animation series like RWBY into "Western Animation", "Web Original" is the way to go.
Okay, there's some value to having both, in that one can be used for interactive works. Is something like Fenspace (which invites new authors to take part) sufficiently interactive to be "New Media", or is it "Web Original"?
Oooh, good question. "Interactive" usually means back-and-forth between viewers and creators; when the work offers the chance for "viewers" to become the "creators"... hell, your guess is as good as mine.