Forum:CT:Revision to the Social Media Policy

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Revision to the Social Media Policy
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Imperators II(Talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As discussed in Forum:SH:Revisiting the social media policy, I think it's time we revised our social media policy to allow for Star Wars creators providing clarifications and further information on their works via social media while still preventing us from using opinions and theories expressed by Lucasfilm staff as new lore. It's also vitally important that we not pester or harass any creators or Lucasfilm staff for this kind of information.

There will still be some element of working out on a case by case basis what is appropriate to use and what isn't, including when a creator might say something as a joke or similar, but I believe this can be discussed when it comes up and resolved with common sense rather then needing any wording in the policy.

Here is the current text of the policy: 

Social media posts from Lucasfilm Story Group members or Star Wars authors are not valid independent sources of in-universe information. The only social media posts allowed as independent sources of in-universe information are from official Star Wars brand accounts, such as the official Star Wars Twitter and Facebook page. An additional permitted exception is Jason Fry's Jedi Council Forums comment on the "Planetnamia" reasoning, as presented in {{Planetnamia}}, which is assumed to also apply to the galactic map created for the book Star Wars: Timelines. Posts from Story Group members and authors may be used in out-of-universe pages and page sections as needed, such as to document authorial intent or background development.

And here is my new proposed text: 

Social media posts establishing authorial intent or clarification on their own work from creators of official Star Wars media can be used as a valid source of in-universe information. However, posts in which creators or Lucasfilm employees are simply sharing their opinion or personal theories on in-universe elements should not be used as valid sources within articles. If contacting creators with queries about their work, please ensure that you do so in moderation and treat them with respect. Repeatedly asking the same unanswered question of a creator or pinging them multiple times a day with different questions is inappropriate, and will result in a warning and potentially further action from the Administration.

Social media posts from official Star Wars brand accounts, such as the official Star Wars Twitter and Facebook page, are also allowed as independent sources of in-universe information. In addition, Jason Fry's Jedi Council Forums comment on the "Planetnamia" reasoning, as presented in {{Planetnamia}}, which is assumed to also apply to the galactic map created for the book Star Wars: Timelines. Posts from Story Group members and authors may be used in out-of-universe pages and page sections as needed, such as to document background development.

Support

  1. As proposer. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. ThrawnChiss7 ThrawnHS Alliances Assembly Cupola 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 22:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Nice work on this, Ayre! Imperators II(Talk) 22:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 22:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 00:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  9. Dentface (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. As long as the information used is from posts that are certainly, inarguably, incontestably, incontrovertibly, and irrevocably intended to specify and/or clear up canon and not just from writers' opinions and headcanon. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  13. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 02:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 08:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  15. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 08:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  16. Nice OOM 224 (he/him) 11:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  17. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they) RainbowRebellion2 (talk!) 12:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  18. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 12:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  19. 01miki10 Open comlink 19:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  20. Not a huge fan of author material, but ah well.—spookywillowwtalk 19:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  21. This has already been informal policy for sometime, see Matt Martin confirming Denal's presence in 501 Plus One on Denal's page Editoronthewiki (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  22. Herasoars(comms) 03:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  23. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 09:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  24. CT-1742 Clone Army patch (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  25. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 22:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  26. Assuming the typo is removed. :P Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 09:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • So I was discussing this with Lew, and how would we treat TwitterLogo Matt Martin (@missingwords) on Twitter (post): "For those who have been waiting patiently. This is essentially the reading order for the Journey to #RiseOfSkywalker:" (backup link)? Although it appears to be a timeline for the Journey to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, technically it's a reading order, which aren't always accurate (for example: the Del Rey Star Wars timeline). However the replies do seem to indicate the order is meant to be chronological. Could this be used as a source confirming the chronological order for these stories, or just a reading order made for promotional purposes? Rsand 30 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)