Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators
12,450
edits
Forum:Coverage/validity: A Better World: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Coverage/validity: A Better World (view source)
Revision as of 20:18, 22 August 2023
, 22 August 2023no edit summary
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: closing post pending |
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: thread closure |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive}}[[Category:Inclusion debates]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
== Opening post == | == Opening post == | ||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
:::::: "Trojan horse is a fitting comment for the circumstances." | :::::: "Trojan horse is a fitting comment for the circumstances." | ||
::::: Okay then. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | ::::: 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 [[w:c:lockdown:A Better World (short story)]] 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> | |||
