Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20200517150418/@comment-6032121-20200607194320

…I could take issue at you saying we're "twisting" Cooke's word, and I could point out how we pointed out that your interpretation of the quote relies on "mentioning" and "posting" being synonymous, which they, uh, aren't, and I could do any number of things.

But instead I'm going to say this: please, have mercy on this thread and keep all that talk to the Monk thread. User:Shambala108 told us to stop throwing our points back at each other on that thread; I doubt she meant that this should drive us to continue the unproductive back-and-forth here.

But here's something that's on-topic for this thread: even if Cook had said this of the produced short story rather than the unproduced TV outline… again, why should we take her word over Peter Harness's? This thread is the policy for establishing how we define the boundaries of "Lockdown! stories" we cover. We can decide that it's Cook's word/involvement which is the deciding factor, or we can decide that it's whether it was posted by one of the official Lockdown! hosts with intent to be part of Lockdown! which is the deciding factor.

Neither one is objectively superior to the other — it's an arbitrary choice we have to make as a Wiki, and we're making it here. As I said, if you keep the "posted" constraint as opposed to "retweeted", my version doesn't actually force us to include any fanworks. Monk is the only thing whose coverage would change depending on which policy we go with, and either policy is viable.

So, again, why do you want to exclude Monk? Neither potential policy could do the Wiki any harm in the long term; Lockdown! was a one-type, one-of-a-kind event, and now it's over. Whatever we decide here today will affect Monk, and Monk only. (Okay, maybe also whether we put Incoming Message on one list rather than another, but y'know.) In these rare circumstances, we, as a Wiki, do sometimes get to be arbitrary and choose, of two viable policies, the one which rules in the stories we want it to rule in. See Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2. So why not choose the one that allows us to cover one more story to the full extent it deserves?