Forum:Coverage/validity: A Better World: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Coverage/validity: A Better World (view source)

Revision as of 20:31, 22 August 2023

13,083 bytes added , 22 August 2023

→‎Conclusion

Bongolium500

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators

12,450

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|Inclusion debates}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Inclusion debates]]
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
 == Opening post ==
@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 ::::I find it disingenuous<br>
 :::is assuming good faith on your part. You can't just insist "no [[T:FAITH]] breach intended" when you're clearly not assuming good faith here. You're explicitly saying Scrooge is lying in one of these quotes! Might it be understandable why everyone else is interpreting this as accusing Scrooge of acting in bad faith? Or, perhaps, why you might yourself be acting slightly in bad faith by trying to have it both ways? Accusing others of doing so, but as soon as they criticize you insisting that we should abide by [[T:FAITH]] and that they were the ones that started it? I'm not convinced this is bad faith, I think I've had enough experiences with you to know how they tend to proceed. But surely this is reasonable, no? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::: ''Again'', I do not think that intentionally taking steps to ensure your story is covered on this Wikia (seeking out a licensed character in order to piggy back off an event like the Fan Gallery to trojan horse the story into coverage) is done in bad faith whatsoever, so me stating that is what I believe Scrooge did this is in no way shape or form an accusation of bad faith against them. That covers the first four points, and in regards to my comment about Scrooge seeming to be dangling the hook about potential coverage - I stand by that comment, but it wasn't an accusation of bad faith against Scrooge either as they have the right to side with coverage for whatever story they want in my eyes. Finally, I stated that I *felt* Scrooge's comments were disingenuous but ''once again'' this wasn't an accusation of bad faith as I didn't outright accuse Scrooge of being disingenuous. I simply explained how I was feeling and opened the floor up to Scrooge to explain away my concerns, as an adult discussion should allow for.
+:::: The fact that these discussions resort into these childish accusations of bad faith is just pure gaslighting to distract from the issue at hand and an admin should really be stepping in. [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::::I thought gaslighting was trying to convince someone that something is something else in order to psychologically disturb them? And presumably saying that "It was intended to be covered on the wiki" would be an argument ''for'' validity, which means that you bringing this up ''and simultaeneously arguing against the coverage of this story'' is a little confusing. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">📢</span>]]  18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+Ah, you mean you merely ''felt'' Scrooge was lying, not that he actually was. Well that makes it all better. C'mon. At the very least you can see how other people would read these comments in this light, no? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+: I don't understand why you are sounding so patronising and sarcastic? I literally stated that I ''felt'' that Scrooge's comments were disingenuous and I offered them a chance to defend that before I made any firm conclusion. So, no I don't understand how anyone could read that comment as anything else when it was pretty blatant in its intent?
+:@Aquanafrahudy That's not a correct reading of that word. It feels like gaslighting to falsely accuse me of bad faith in an apparent end goal of silencing my opposition. [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+::According to Oxford Languages, gaslighting is:
+:::manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
+::I'm not quite sure how people's comments above come under this. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">📢</span>]]  19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::That's literally what has happened? I have been accused of accusing someone else of bad faith - which I never once did - and several times people have attempted to make me question my own stance. For example: "At the very least you can see how other people would read these comments in this light, no?" and "rather than taking it as a corrective, you interpreted it as them accusing ''you'' of bad faith? And then used that as an excuse to escalate?". [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::: To me, stating that an author only wrote something to get onto the Wiki is not a good faith reading of an author's works, as it undermines the other reasons for writing a story (e.g. they have a passion for the material); to me, the fact that the story was part of ''TFG'' was incidental. You're speculating as to the reasoning behind the author... when the author himself is telling you "no that is not correct". You can't just "nuh uh" that!
+:::: You say "specifically tailored to try and get coverage"... what ''evidence do you actually have?'' You say this as if it is fact, and yet without any evidence, that feels incredibly biased.
+:::: I doubt anyone is trying to "silence" you here, I am certainly not, I just completely disagree with your reading of the material.
+:::: Even the analogy of a "trojan horse" infers an insidious motive, considering the two main definitions of the concept is "a fake gift that hides an invading army" and "computer virus disguised as something benevolent".
+:::: You may not think something being "trojan horsed" onto the Wiki is necessarily a bad thing, but I think most people take the idea of "trojan horsing" something in of itself as a bad thing. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 19:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+There's fundamentally no distinction between a person saying "X" and "I feel / I believe X". Clearly if they say "X" they believe X. (You know, putting aside Moore's Paradox.) It's just a distinction people make to try to lessen the severity of the claim rhetorically. "Well I didn't actually say that the moon is made of cheese, I said I feel the moon is made of cheese, and I don't know why I have to defend my feelings from you." etc etc. It's just rhetoric, and I have no interest in indulging it.
+And, as to the accusation of gaslighting, no, I'm not suggesting that you're acting in bad faith. I have pointedly denied this. I believe this is simply how you are in conversations generally. I asked whether ''you can understand why other people might have interpreted your comments as being in bad faith''. That's not gaslighting. That's asking whether you can step outside your own head, read your own comments as a neutral observer, and ask if how other people are interpreting them is ''reasonable''. Not ''correct'' - I don't think you intended them in bad faith. But ''reasonable''. I understand this might be hard. It's hard for me. But this is all I'm suggesting. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:@Epsilon I didn't say that it was ''only'' written to get on the Wikia. I stated that I ''believe'' it was intentionally written to be vague so that it could receive coverage. Completely different, and regardless neither would be done in bad faith so me suggesting it isn't an accusation of bad faith either. [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:@Najawin You're being completely exhausting. The comment I made was more akin to "I feel like the moon could be made of cheese but I will listen to an expert if they care to explain to the contrary" than "I feel like the moon is made of cheese and I refuse to hear any different". Accusing some of accusing someone else of bad faith is an accusation of bad faith itself, this is so pathetic I'm cringing typing it.
+:Can people ''stop'' trying to throw petty accusations around and stick to the discussion? [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+::That argument would be more analogous if it wasn't literally saying that Scrooge's earlier comment in the thread was wrong. You already heard from the expert and refused to listen, in said analogy. But you missed the important part of my comment there. Can you understand how others interpreted your comments as they did? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+::: @[[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]]... can you not even see how the metaphor of a "trojan horse" has very negative connotations?! {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+::::Nope. Trojan horse is a fitting comment for the circumstances.
+::::I do think purposefully derailing these discussions should be punishable. People shouldn't be afraid to share their true feelings in them in fear of having their every word manipulated and picked apart. It is despicable behaviour actually. [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|DrWHOCorrieFan]] [[User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::::Arguably bringing up something unrelated to the discussion ("this was just a fanfiction story trojan horsed onto the wiki") is also derailing the conversation, but I do agree with you in that let's get back on topic. [[User:Aquanafrahudy|<span style="font-family: serif; color: pink" title="Hallo." > Aquanafrahudy</span>]] [[User talk: Aquanafrahudy|<span title="Talk to me">📢</span>]]  20:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+::::: From Google: 1. a person or thing intended to undermine or secretly overthrow an enemy or opponent. 2. a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.
+:::::: "Trojan horse is a fitting comment for the circumstances."
+::::: Okay then. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+This one got rather heated, hence my pre-emptive closure. I will first discuss the actual subject of the thread and then say a few words on the [[T:FAITH]] situation that came out of it.
+Looking at the 4 little rules, this story clearly passes rules 1 and 3. 4 is more arguable but, ultimately, irrelevant due to the complications surrounding rule 2. While this story was written with the understanding of it being licensed, it ultimately is not. Hence, we must examine whether the unlicensed elements are insignificant enough to pass rule 2. My ruling here is going to be no. There is a potential case to be made based on [[Ceol]]/[[Kelsey Hooper]] precedent and the [[Talk:Legacies (short story)/Archive 1|''Legacies'' precedent]]. While, as [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] implies, there are some superficial similarities here between the Ceol situation and Donna's use in this story, there are a few key differences. Firstly, Ceol is transformative. She is a markedly different character from the Kelsey Hooper who appeared in ''[[Invasion of the Bane (TV story)|Invasion of the Bane]]''. This is not the case here. Donna is Donna. Secondly, Ceol went through a much tighter approval process than Donna did here and, ultimatelty, [[Obverse Books]] made the judgement call that it would be ok to include the unlicesned references in a book sold for profit. That is not the case here. Scrooge was working under the presumption that the Fan Gallery was licensed while [[Emily Cook]] knew that it was fanfiction anyway so wasn't concerned about licenses. No comparable judgement call was made. Now we must consider the ''Legacies'' precedent. The references made in this story, while ambiguous, aren't necessarily irrelevant to the plot. They're not just name drops but main characters and concepts who contribute important roles to the plot. As was recently established at [[Forum:Validity: Do You Have a Licence to Save this Planet?]], this is not acceptable in terms of passing rule 2. Hence, this story does not pass rule 2 and so is not worthy of full coverage. However, it does still feature licensed use of [[Auteur]] and so can be used on [[Auteur/Non-valid sources]]. To facilitate this, [[User:NateBumber|Nate]]'s suggestion of creating [[A Better World (short story)|A Better World]] as a redirect to [[Doctor Who: Lockdown!#The Fan Gallery]] should be enacted.
+Now on to the [[T:FAITH]] situation. The first thing that I want to make clear is that accusing someone else of being dishonest can definetly be an example of accusing bad faith and I'd say that this has occured here. In his first message, [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge]] makes a point of saying how they believed the Fan Gallery to be licensed at the time. However, [[User:DrWHOCorrieFan|Corrie]] then goes on to claim that Scrooge knew that ''A Better World'' was fanfiction. This ''does'' appear to me to be quite an assumption of bad faith, not to mention that it doesn't line up with the historic record. I'd also like to point out that both Scrooge and Corrie agree here: neither want the story to be covered properly as a valid source on this wiki. This means that there shouldn't really be a disagreement here and the fact that there is comes across as somewhat petty. To me, this serves as strong evidence that an assumption of good faith was not always being upheld here.
+Thanks to all those who participated, even if it did get a little heated. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
+</div>