Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/Errors Policy

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. Eghm 13:01, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

I just want to point out before this (well written and worthy) proposal is promulgated that your example concerning the Cylon detector is a poor one - although it's true that Baltar lies frequently, he had no conceivable reason to do so while bemoaning the hurculean task of testing the fleet's blood samples - he was talking to himself, and nobody but his hallucinatory six was listening.

A better example might be Kat's statement that there are no more recruits coming in "Final Cut", which was demonstrated to be false in "Scar" - she was speaking in emotional tones about a topic of which she had incomplete knowledge. --Peter Farago 20:23, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Needs further discussion

I think this proposal needs much more love than we're giving it... Since it's champion is otherwise AWOL, let's pick up where he left off. Let's renew discussion, since this issue is still present with us. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 09:36, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

I believe this is really implemented already, we already categorize continuity errors the way the proposal says. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 11:18, 7 June 2007 (CDT)