Forum:Behind the Scenes and Rule Application

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Behind the Scenes and Rule Application

There have been some misunderstandings and questions of late how our policies apply to this section. These appear to come from an over-literal reading of a specific rule, without reading the entirety of our policy and putting the selected part in context.

Applying the rules

In most cases, applying the rules is a simply binary affair, either a situation meets the trigger standard a rule gives, or not, and there is little, if any overlap. For example, linking porn in chat is uncontroversially against the rules.

Sometimes however, it might appear that there is a conflict in the rules, however in most cases these "conflicts" are caused by misunderstandings in how the rules interact with each other.

In all of our rules, there is some sort of heirachy. We have general rules, and in some cases these general rules are trumped by the more specific. Example: In chat, the general rule is you can talk about whatever you like, but there are specific topics/behaviour that are not permitted (eg - Porn) and certain things that may depending on the context not be permitted (eg- Rule 9). The general rules give way to the more specific.

In the case of Articles, we have one of these apparent conflicts.

The More general rule reads:

“All content needs to be accurate. Fallout Wiki aims to provide reliable information. In particular, adding speculation and own inventions (fan fiction, fan art etc.) to articles should be avoided.”— Our policy

and

“All content needs to be verifiable. Other editors need to be able to check and verify it.”— Our policy

Whilst the more specific rule when it comes to the behind the scene section reads:

“"Behind the scenes" information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are direct visual or textual correlations.”— Our policy

If we read the rules as being equal or even with the more general rule taking precedence, we have an irresolvable conflict, one rule renders the other meaningless; this is an obvious absurdity to have a more specific rule rendered null (it would also mean that references without visual/textual correlation but confirmed by the developer would be ruled out, another obvious absurdity).

The Golden Rule of legislative interpretation instructs us to read rules in a way that takes out the absurdity. As such, the only way to read the rule is with the most specific rule trumping less specific rules where there is a conflict.

The Behind the Scenes section does not, nor has it ever, needed developer confirmation or citation. Occasionally mistakes are made, but we cannot rely upon asking a developer for every obvious reference - they are very busy people and do not exist at our beck and call.

Do we need to refence this?

Yes and no.

We do not need developer confirmation. If we have it, through the bibles or a statement, great, use it.

In the recent case that brought this to light we have a character (Vice President Bird), who is a parody of former Vice President Dan Quayle. A user, who seems to be unfamiliar with Quayle's gaffes didn't see the link between the two.

We can however, even without developer confirmation meet both standards. We are drawing a link between a character statement/mannerism and real world behaviour, and we can reference that.

For example, when we say that Vice President Bird is a parody of Quayle, we can point to his dialogue files (eg - his lines about how to spell Potato) and video clips/news reports of him making the relevant gaffe (telling a child it should be spelt potatoe). (Just for clarity this is not the only link between the two).

In this case, we are applying a level of analysis, but still showing the proof of the working for anyone to confirm/challenge it later.

Comments/Questions?

Post away. Agent c (talk) 22:45, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

This seems so blatantly obvious to me that I'm dumbfounded it even needs to be discussed. The Gunny   23:04, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

I actually have a forum I am writing out (as I already know that you know of), which I hope will help address the issues at hand with community consensus. There are a lot of precedents being set lately, which needs to be discussed, but what is relevant to this forum, that you have created, is that we have contradicting policies. Policies, which inherently, means that every editor has to follow them, or else they are susceptible to administrative action. So when one policy, causes an editor to be unable to follow another policy, that means that there is something seriously wrong with part of the system, and opens up channels for abuse.

And what has been seen, is that the problem that has been created due to this contradiction in our policies, has opened up a loophole of sorts, where certain editors can now shut down all discussion, and claim an objective truth without evidence to prove that their claim is nothing more than circular logic, to push through edits which should be considered either controversial, or worthy of proper, community discussion.

Instead, with this loophole, what we have seen are informal votes which violates the nature of how this wiki works in collaboration with its community, and users laying claim that certain policies are superior to others, which leads to favouritism in the form of picking and choosing which policies to follow. When the administration is picking and choosing which rules to follow, then there is nothing a regular editor can really do about it, except for create a forum as I am about to do, in hopes to gain awareness. Otherwise, what I have already seen, are editors abandoning their obligated burden of proof, failing to gather references, even when there are references that can be found in less than 5 minutes (such as with the Quayle reference being discussed on this forum), and administrators which refuse to cooperate with anything that does not 100% satisfy their personal speculation, or the speculation of others that they support.

And that is where the problem lies. Speculation is an idea in which someone believes, vehemently, that they are right. But who gets to decide what constitutes obvious references? What is separating you guys, from the other editors that add in what they call obvious references, without sources? Nothing, except your positions on this wiki. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:34, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Lex specialis derogat legi generali is a pretty widespread legal tradition, so I wouldn't consider it to be just "users laying claims". -- ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:55, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

We are not a body of any government. We are an encyclopedia, that incidentally grew a community around it. When it comes to laws, it ultimately becomes necessary to choose between vague and more specific laws, or otherwise nothing would get done. Sometimes nothing gets done anyways. On a simple wiki, which has a small list of policies, beginning such a doctrine will only succeed in further convoluting the editing process, and only drives a divide into the standard editing community's worth, and the administration's worth in final deliberations. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:08, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, this isn't some new magical precedent, this is long established practice from before either of us were prominent editors. The fact that our pages have reflected this since before the split is proof to that.

There is no loophole, except those invented in the minds of people whom refuse to read a rule in perspective of its place in the greater rules. We cannot have a general rule that makes more specific rules invalid. If we did, then all rules are invalid. There is no Picking and choosing what rules to follow except by yourself - you are making arguments to ignore the specific rule in favour of the general despite the absurdity that results.

There is no contradiction if you read all the rules, and put them in the right perspective. There is only a contradiction if you try to apply them in the incorrect order.

Eg: Animals are not permitted. Guide Dogs are allowed. There is no contradiction, the rule "No Animals are permitted" obviously gives way to the "Guide Dogs are permitted" rule.

Like Gunny, and many others who have witnessed certain events happening here, I really think this is so obvious we never should have needed a forum in the first place. Agent c (talk) 00:04, December 21, 2014 (UTC)