Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Errors Policy: Difference between revisions
m (fixing links) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Basically, I am in full agreement that Battlestar Wiki should avoid fanwanking -- which is just another manifestation of [[w:fanon|fanon]]'s ugly head anyway and Battlestar Wiki doesn't support fan fiction in its primary articles, other than our [[fan fiction|single entry pertaining to it]]. My primary concern is that while we should extend an assumption of good faith on the part of the cast and crew (which makes sense, since we do the same thing here to contributors), it is in '''how''' we would practice this. Does this mean ignoring errors that the crew create? If so, what kind of errors? Would the error be "small"? If so, how "small" ''is'' "small"? How "huge" is "huge"? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 12:20, 15 September 2006 (CDT) | Basically, I am in full agreement that Battlestar Wiki should avoid fanwanking -- which is just another manifestation of [[w:fanon|fanon]]'s ugly head anyway and Battlestar Wiki doesn't support fan fiction in its primary articles, other than our [[fan fiction|single entry pertaining to it]]. My primary concern is that while we should extend an assumption of good faith on the part of the cast and crew (which makes sense, since we do the same thing here to contributors), it is in '''how''' we would practice this. Does this mean ignoring errors that the crew create? If so, what kind of errors? Would the error be "small"? If so, how "small" ''is'' "small"? How "huge" is "huge"? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 12:20, 15 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
: Excellent point, and it is this "how" I was trying to start a discussion on the Continuity Error Talk page. What is the current how? One way maybe to define small and huge relative to each other. The timeline errors might be considered huge (the hugest) and the others ordered relative to each other. Or there could be a voting mechanism. Or people could be encouraged to offer other explainations (being aware of fanwanking). Or maybe there is some amount of "suspension of belief" that we can agree on. I would certainly welcome other ideas on the "how"s. | |||
Revision as of 18:01, 15 September 2006
Since the draft's not finished, I'll go by what I've see so far:
Basically, I am in full agreement that Battlestar Wiki should avoid fanwanking -- which is just another manifestation of fanon's ugly head anyway and Battlestar Wiki doesn't support fan fiction in its primary articles, other than our single entry pertaining to it. My primary concern is that while we should extend an assumption of good faith on the part of the cast and crew (which makes sense, since we do the same thing here to contributors), it is in how we would practice this. Does this mean ignoring errors that the crew create? If so, what kind of errors? Would the error be "small"? If so, how "small" is "small"? How "huge" is "huge"? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:20, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
- Excellent point, and it is this "how" I was trying to start a discussion on the Continuity Error Talk page. What is the current how? One way maybe to define small and huge relative to each other. The timeline errors might be considered huge (the hugest) and the others ordered relative to each other. Or there could be a voting mechanism. Or people could be encouraged to offer other explainations (being aware of fanwanking). Or maybe there is some amount of "suspension of belief" that we can agree on. I would certainly welcome other ideas on the "how"s.