Forum:Tie-in website disclaimer pages & handling out of universe sections

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Tie-in website disclaimer pages & handling out of universe sections

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Look at this smug bastard, the very face of difficult-to-cover-disclaimers... (PROSE: Disclaimer)

On this site, tie-in websites have recently seen a great increase in coverage, especially with non-narratives being validated, so long as they comply with the updated rules (being fiction, etc.). However, with these sites, there's one big issue: the disclaimer pages.

Now, in some cases, such as the U.N.I.T. website's Privacy Policy, Disclaimer and Terms of Use, the disclaimer pages are presented almost entirely in-universe, with a clearly separated section for a behind-the-scenes disclaimer of the site's fictitiousness. Although this works perfectly well, other sites don't quite do this. One fairly average example is the Millingdale website's disclaimer page. This, for the most part, provides solely in-universe information about the Millingdale company, such as how their ice cream is made, and even provides an image of one of their workers handing ice cream to a customer. However, right at the end, just as all seems good for validity:

This is a fictional website for the new series of Doctor Who.Millingdale website

Right at the end, with no separation other than a line break (as had been used periodically throughout the source), it unapologetically breaks the fourth wall. Now, with this, you could probably argue "that's clearly not meant to be part of the source", and you'd probably be right - this is practically like the end credits of an episode, or the "JOHN HURT AS THE DOCTOR" text in The Name of the Doctor - or even the behind-the-scenes disclaimer on the U.N.I.T. site to some extent (although of course, as stated earlier, that was a bit more clearly separated), in that it's not meant to be "real", rather providing important behind-the-scenes context into the work's production. However, there is another, more extreme example on the GEOCOMTEX website, where after a paragraph of in-universe text, you're hit with:

Obviously we are completely fictional.

This is a fictional website created for the new series of Doctor Who by bbc.co.uk's official Doctor Who webteam. We apologise for any inconvenience caused if you thought this was a real website. If you would like to learn more about Doctor Who please click here.

GeoComTex website

...Oddly enough, the word "here" doesn't appear to actually link to anything in later versions of the site, but that's not the focus of this debate. Now, most of the text above is quite clearly out-of-universe, as any rational human (or, incidentally, mole) being could probably figure out without much thought. However, the beginning text, "Obviously we are completely fictional.", seems to present itself simultaneously as in-universe and out-of-universe, GeoComTex themselves commenting on their own fictionality.

My main proposal is this: We create pages for these sources as valid, and remove the clearly fourth wall-breaking content, leaving only some notes on the source page. In most cases, taking every part of the text in a source is fine, even if meta, but for these, I feel that "intent" is there for the start of these pages, but goes away as soon as they start rambling about how they're fictional, and how you should go check out Doctor Who. This will allow in-depth documentation of corporations such as GeoComTex and Millingdale, without too much yammering on about Doctor Who and the BBC. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 19:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I support this. I think the old idea that all OOU sections have to be clearly separated for valid coverage is simply outdated. As you said, this is no difference from John Hurt's name appearing on-screen, or the credits beginning to roll. We can and should separate these things and encourage coverage. OS25🤙☎️ 19:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, this makes sense. A little bit at the bottom of the page so that people don't confuse fiction with reality should not affect our coverage of these sources. Aquanafrahudy 📢 19:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The matter of the real world bleeding into unfiction (the fiction that tries to make you think it's real) is something that I feel this Wiki should have better precedent to cover. To me it is comparable to things like lost and found footage having end credits (like The Zygon Isolation having the cast credits appear onscreen without virtually any delineation from the "in-universe" fiction). It's not like we'd invalidate Summer Falls and Other Stories for having a copyright page that mentions "Doctor Who © BBC" despite it desperately trying to appear as if it was genuinely written by Amy Pond to the point she actually has a real writer's profile on the Penguin Books website.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

00:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Going to reference Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround here. Fourth wall breaks are not inherently disqualifying, but they're taken as strong evidence of authorial intent.

Given this I don't think a blanket policy like what you're proposing is even slightly viable. Especially given the full context of the GEOCOMTEX disclaimer, which is:

We make the best computers in the world and provide the best internet access. Our computers never break down, our internet access is swift. We never crash, lose an important document, or go "bing" 98% through downloading an important file.

Obviously we are completely fictional.GEOCOMTEX website

This page is clearly, imo, not intended to be taken as an actual source. It's a joke. Should this flavor our coverage of the rest of the website? I dunno. I don't think we've made any sorts of decisions related to isolating individual webpages like this or not. Maybe we should discuss it. I don't immediately think it disqualifies the rest of the site. But this page is clearly a joke.

Consider me strongly against this policy, because one of the representative examples you're using shows exactly why it's a problem. Najawin ☎ 00:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and for context, remember that this was written in 2005. Over half of people were still using dialup. Windows Vista hadn't even come out yet. Look at the picture on the page I linked. It's a joke. It's 100% a joke. Najawin ☎ 01:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I am not sure I agree with you're take on authorial intent. Ordinarily, fourth wall breaks may be strong evidence that they're not meant to be set in the DWU... but we're dealing with tie-in websites here, a genre of web fiction that actively subverts fourth wall conventions; unfiction is designed to specifically make the reader believe what they're reading is real, and tie-in websites often directly involve the reader by pulling them into the DWU. Readers of whoisdoctorwho.co.uk, ostensibly us, are often sent on missions for Mickey Smith (which is even mentioned indirectly in the Rose novelisation!). My point is, given this is not conventional fiction, it is not fair to treat it as such in regards to fourth wall breaks; while fourth wall breaks may be strong evidence of breaking rule four, the scales are tipped in the opposite direction given that we're dealing with something that actively pushes the boundaries of fourth wall leanings.

And to be honest, unfiction blatantly breaking the fourth wall is not unheard of. We're not gonna invalidate Sleep No More because it breaks the illusion of being in-universe footage because it has a title card and end credits, are we?

And also, the tone of these websites is very tongue in cheek, so I feel one disclaimer being a joke is not evidence of anything when we've got Computer Virus File Sharing Alert not-so-subtly being about the leaking of Rose.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

02:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Epsilon. I'm not saying that these disclaimers breaking the fourth wall should automatically disqualify these disclaimers or the websites. I'm merely saying that the blanket approach discussed in the OP is untenable. You can't just remove the disclaimer at the bottom, ignore the fourth wall-ness of it all, and treat the disclaimer page as a legitimate description of the in-universe entity in some situations. We have to take it on a case by case basis, the proposal that we have a rule saying the opposite must be rejected. You cannot evaluate intent for these class of website pages as a whole, which is what the OP suggests we do. You have to do it on a case by case basis. Najawin ☎ 02:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, I've checked through every tie-in site disclaimer I could find (using another user's as-of-yet-unpublished page), and these are my findings & thoughts:

• Who is Doctor Who?/Defending the Earth!: The first three headers are purely in-universe, but the fourth header reads "The most important thing is", and goes on to explain that it is a fictional website. Could possibly be valid if the final paragraph is ignored. (see here; and here)
• U.N.I.T.: Purely in-universe other than a clearly separated real disclaimer, as stated before. Should absolutely be valid. (see here)
• GEOCOMTEX: Begins properly in-universe, but proceeds to declare itself as a fictional website in the third paragraph(?) - could possibly be valid if we ignore the part we're clearly not meant to think is real. (see here)
• British Rocket Group: Totally out-of-universe, the closest thing to in-universe information is an image of Harriet Jones. Probably not even covered as fiction. (see here)
• Leamington Spa Lifeboat Museum: Again, totally out-of-universe, so probably not even covered as fiction. (see here)
• Millingdale: This one's almost entirely in-universe, save for the final line, "This is a fictional website for the new series of Doctor Who.". This feels like it could provide some genuinely good information for Millingdale, and I'd say that all but the final sentence are intended to have "really happened". Could probably be valid if we ignore the out-of-universe bit at the end. (see here)
• Torchwood House: Very clearly out-of-universe, with the closest thing to in-universe information being an image of Queen Victoria. Probably not even covered. (see here)
• Deffry Vale High School: This one starts with 2 paragraphs of reasonably in-universe information, but the third paragraph declared that the school isn't real and suggests that the reader watches Doctor Who; the fourth paragraph states that the experience was built by Sequence, but the fifth arguably returns to in-universe-ness by suggesting that they try the chips. It may be possible to validate this, but it would require some discussion. (see here)
• Cybus: Very clearly out-of-universe, with the closest thing to in-universe information being an image of some piece of machinery. Probably not even covered. (see here)
• Henrik & Son: Again, very clearly out-of-universe, so probably not even covered. (see here)
• Ghostwatch: Seems out of universe, probably not even fiction, thus non-covered. (see here)
• Vote Saxon: Clearly out-of-universe, thus probably non-covered. (see here)

So, overall, they're fairly mixed. Some could reasonably be valid, some are more difficult, and some are clearly not meant to be in-universe; but for the most part, the ones that present themselves as in-universe could have a decent shot as validity (in my opinion). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 10:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

GEOCOMTEX is entirely a joke, you can't just say "oh, we should discount it after this one bit where it says it's not real". The entire point of the joke is that they're describing a scenario in 2005 that's so ridiculous that it's obviously fictional. - 'Our computers never break down, our internet access is swift. We never crash, lose an important document, or go "bing" 98% through downloading an important file.'

Yes, PCs and internet have progressed to the point where this joke doesn't really make sense. But understood in the context of the time it's clearly a joke and you cannot separate the paragraph quoted from that fact. All of you need to stop making me feel old. I'm still younger than Ncuti dammit. Najawin ☎ 11:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I do feel obliged to point out that the piece of tech on the GEOCOMTEX disclaimer is a floppy disk...

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

12:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the GEOCOMTEX website is fine. Again, disclaimers should not be disqualifying, nor eccentric humor in the writing. OS25🤙☎️ 14:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm Epsilon? I'm talking about the early version of the site, where it has a relatively old model of a computer in a picture. (Like a PC you'd see in the late 90s, early 00s.)

Disclaimers are not disqualifying. Neither is eccentric humor. But the issue is this. Fourth Wall Breaks are strong evidence of authorial intent as not being DWU. This is policy. Someone is proposing a new policy to blanketly ignore them on a certain type of webpage, cutting off text when they come up. One of the examples used cannot do this because it is an inherent part of this webpage that it's a joke premised on breaking the fourth wall and the prior paragraphs only make sense when read from this perspective. They are not supposed to be taken as actual factual DWU references, they're a fourth wall breaking joke. (Ostensibly one could argue that even if the subject at hand is a joke and also breaks the fourth wall that doesn't disqualify it, but under current policy this is strong evidence of R4 authorial intent. You'd have to find explicit statements from the author of the site saying otherwise.) So the proposed policy must fail, we can't simply cut off text when fourth wall issues emerge, we have to consider the whole page as one unit. (Notably this does not extend to other parts of the site, nor does it say that this consideration makes every disclaimer page automatically invalid. Just that we can't ignore later fourth wall breaking context in how we evaluate statements prior to the obvious textual fourth wall break. It might be that the entire thing is a giant fourth wall break.) Najawin ☎ 22:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

But I disagree that current policy about fourth wall breaks was remotely written with unfiction in mind. A regular, third person narrative short story having real world bleeding is very different from a work of fiction that builds the illusion that it actually exists breaking character for Pressing Legal Reasons; some of these early sites were so good at their job they fooled both the United Nations and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Currently policy does say "x" applies to "y", but we're trying to apply "x" to "z".

The websites go to such effort to try to make their readers believe they're real even on the disclaimer pages they continue the act up until the very last second where they have to give up.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

01:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fourth Wall Breaks are strong evidence of authorial intent as not being DWU. This is policy." I don't recall this being the agreed upon policy at all - rather it was more along the lines of "Fourth Wall Breaks can heavily indicate towards authorial intent as not being DWU." But more importantly, this forum is obviously discussing something totally different from the former "fourth wall" forum - as the question is essentially if these disclaimers and "breaks" should become non-covered. "This website is a piece of fiction" is not written into the page to be quirky and funny, it's not a Paul Margs masterstroke in subversion. It's merely something thrown on because someone wanted to make sure there would be no legal issues.

I'll remind everyone here that, around this time, an in-universe page for UNIT - referencing the group as the "United Nations Intelligence Taskforce" - lead to a legal notice from the actual United Nations for impersonation. That story is likely the reason these little clarifications exist - because legal threats had been an issue with these websites. Thus "We are obviously fictional" is not a joke or a punchline as Najawin has been indicating. OS25🤙☎️ 01:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The GEOCOMTEX disclaimer page is not unfiction as you have defined it Epsilon. The rest of the site may be. That page is not. It is very explicitly trying to tell you that it's fictional, unlike some of the other disclaimers that are half and half. The page is not continuing the act, it's explaining that it's fictional by making a joke about how it's too good to be true.

Thus "We are obviously fictional" is not a joke or a punchline as Najawin has been indicating.

This does not bear the slightest resemblance to what I said. It's the stuff prior to the "we are obviously fictional" that's the joke. The very stuff that people here want to treat as valid IU information! This disclaimer page can't be a valid source because it's one giant joke, the authors don't seriously mean to tell us that this is true about geocomtex in the DWU. Najawin ☎ 04:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's important to point out that Dalek is set, from the show's perspective, nearly a decade into the future. It is not outside of the bounds of likelihood that geocomtex is able to accomplish things that someone in 2005 would consider "too good to be true." OS25🤙☎️ 15:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, not really; this is GEOCOMTEX in 2005, still more advanced than our 2005, but still 2005. This website is advertised on Who is Doctor Who? by Mickey Smith, who had actually interviewed Henry van Statten while he still had a full head of hair.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Either way, this seems like a random thing to cover. Honestly, it sounds like Najawin wants to start an inclusion debate when we're discussing a wider policy change which would not effect the inclusion of this website. OS25🤙☎️ 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If a policy allows blanket validity for a class of pages and there is one page that clearly should be invalid because the analysis the policy is premised upon fails for that page the policy must fail. This isn't an inclusion debate, it's saying that the policy must be wrong. It's literally:

1. We should treat all Ds like P. (Proposed policy.)
2. If we should treat all Ds like P, we should treat a specific D, D1, like P. (This is universal elimination, I'm just stating it very clearly so there's no confusion. Technically I could reduce this step and the next into a single step.)
3. We should treat D1 like P. (Modus Ponens, 1, 2.)
4. We should not treat D1 like P. (My premise, backed up by the analysis of the disclaimer page.)
5. Contradiction.

Since it honestly is mind boggling to me that someone would try to pretend that the GEOCOMTEX page isn't a joke, when it so clearly is, this contradiction means that we have to reject the proposed policy. I don't see what's difficult about this. Najawin ☎ 20:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So let me be clear, yes, it would effect the inclusion of the disclaimer page. It would instantly entail that it's valid. When as it stands it doesn't meet our standards for validity. You're creating an exception for this disclaimer page when there shouldn't be one, it's just a clear fourth wall breaking joke. Najawin ☎ 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

(I will comment that I do see where you're coming from in terms of some sites, such as GEOCOMTEX, although others such as Millingdale, I know I'm certain it should be valid (in my mind)) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with Millingdale. I have issue with a general policy because it lets in pages that it shouldn't. Looking at things on a case by case basis is appropriate, rather than having a blanket policy, that's all! Millingdale looks perfectly fine to me, as do many of the others. But we have to consider them on a case by case basis, rather than inventing an overall policy that brings in things it shouldn't. Najawin ☎ 22:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I wouldn't object to this rule being applied on a case by case basis. While I am not convinced about your take on the GEOCOMTEX disclaimer, I would compromise about that one remaining invalid if it came to it. It's not like there's much on that page anyway, we wouldn't be losing much.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

11:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have a blanket policy for this, but attack them case by case. I too am not entirely convinced by Najawin's argument against the Geocomtex disclaimer, though if other people think it's an issue, I wouldn't be too bothered about it being invalid. Aquanafrahudy 📢 14:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

This thread seems to have reached a consensus. Namely, that it is possible in theory to disregard a final, flow-breaking line that breaks the fourth wall for reasons of a legal disclaimer; but that this is not always the right way to look at these webpages, and so a blanket policy that enshrines that we must always do this would be inadvisable.

We are fortunate that User:Cookieboy 2005 has gone through the list, allowing us to go through them on a case-by-case basis to a first approximation. I think we are looking at uncontroversial validity for the Who is Doctor Who?, U.N.I.T. and Millingdale webpages. Deffry Vale is more complicated; it definitely warrants coverage as a piece of fiction, but should probably be created as invalid and discussed individually at greater length if anybody wants to validate it.

Finally this leaves us with the Geocomtex one. It's definitely a fictional piece, and should get a page, but I do think Najawin has the right of it that the whole thing is angled around a fourth-wall-breaking joke, and, crucially, one which breaks from the fiction of the rest of the website (where the company is not depicted as supernaturally competent to anything like that extent). Are there other ways you could interpret the "our downloads never fail" pie-in-the-sky marketing if you snip away the final "we're fictional, duh"? Sure. Maybe the joke is that Geocomtex are engaged in bald-faced false advertising, or that Van Statten is very conceited, or a mix of both. But if we do reintroduce the sentence it comes clear that "we don't exist" is the punchline to the escalation of how perfect their purported service is. The disclaimer belongs with the fiction here just as clearly and intuitively as it should be separated from the fiction in e.g. the Millingdale website.

As always, thanks to everyone who participated. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)