Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-188432-20130129081336/@comment-188432-20130331213239

Mewiet wrote: TenCents wrote: I'm curious as to why BBC isn't counted as a valid source: they are, after all, the ones who own Doctor Who. There would be no Doctor Who without the BBC.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. Like I said earlier, "P.S." was relegated to non-canon (which I agree with) because of Chibnall's statement and I think there's even another thread about Vienna Audios or something going on right now where they were labeled non-canon because of an official statement as well. So I don't understand why the BBC's statement in this case can't be used for clarification. :-/ Please read our four little rules. You will see there that rule #1 is that a valid source must be a story. A statement on the BBC's website is not a story. It's … a statement on the BBC's website.

There is no inconsistency in using out-of-universe statements for declaring a story valid, because story pages are out-of-universe. That's why they all start with. It's absolutely vital to use out-of-universe statements to determine the validity of stories because if we evaluated stories based on their in-universe content we'd be throwing things out left, right and centre. John and Gillian: gone. The Death of Ace in COMIC: Ground Zero: gone. There are simply too many contradictions in the narratives of DW for us to base our decisions upon the narrative quality of a piece.

Basically, we let all stories in, unless the production team tells us they didn't mean for a piece to be set in the DWU.