This discussion is a follow-up to a completed discussion from 2018. I recommend reading that discussion before participating here.
Today on the Discord server, a conversation occurred regarding whether it is or isn't permissible to create a fanon article about a creation made by a YouTuber. As part of the discussion, a screenshot of The Sims Wiki's Fanon Policy Rule 5 was pasted into chat. The rule (at that time) was written:
5. Fanon for 3rd party creations is limited: The creation of fanon pages about Sims, families, locations, or features created by a third party is limited, and must adhere to the following conditions:
- The fanon author(s) must exceed the source material, expanding the original content with their own personal additions. Fanon articles that merely document third party creations in an encyclopedic fashion are not permitted.
- The original creator(s) of the source material must not prohibit its adaptation or use by others. For instance, fanon works about trademarked characters are generally prohibited unless the trademark holder permits fan fiction based on their work.
- Fanon on subjects created by Electronic Arts are permitted, provided that all the other wiki policies are followed.
I incorrectly interpreted this rule to mean that creations about third-party works were allowed as long as the original creator didn't prohibit their creation. I then took this interpretation—my best, good-faith understanding of the rule as it was written—and boldly updated the Fanon Policy to clarify the meaning that I erroneously believed the policy was trying to convey. I changed Rule 5 to say:
5. Fanon for 3rd party creations is limited: The creation of fanon pages about Sims, families, locations, or features created by a third party (such as a YouTube creator, game streamer, online blogger, etc.) is limited, and must adhere to the following conditions:
- The fanon author(s) must exceed the source material, expanding the original content with their own personal additions. Fanon articles that merely document third-party creations in an encyclopedic fashion are not permitted.
- The original creator(s) of the source material must not prohibit its adaptation or use by others. For instance, fanon works about trademarked characters are generally prohibited unless the trademark holder permits fan fiction based on their work.
- Fanon about subjects created for The Sims series by Maxis/Electronic Arts is permitted; editors may take canon subjects and expand upon them or reinterpret them as works of fanon.
After delving into the original discussion that led to the creation of Rule 5 and looking at the original language of the rule, I realized that I was mistaken in my initial interpretation of the rule, and revised Fanon Policy yet again to reflect the original precedent as establshed in 2018.
The reason I am starting this discussion is because I believe that the policy should allow fanon works about third-party creations unless the creators prohibit them. Essentially, I am suggesting that we change the policy/precedent so that fanon articles about a third-party's non-trademarked creations can be written unless the third party requests otherwise. The prohibition on fanon about non-Maxis trademarked works would remain as written (for instance, a fanon article about Harry Potter would be prohibited).
To me, this makes some sense. If we allow derivative fanon works about Maxis-made characters, locations, etc., such as fanon articles about canon Sims, then it seems logical to apply the same rationales to other non-trademarked creations. Fanon articles about those creations would still be beholden to the same standards we currently apply to canon-as-fanon works; the articles need to make some substantive changes or additions to the original work, and not merely restate the same facts encyclopedically.
To this end, I am proposing that we adopt a new Rule 5, written similar to this:
5. Fanon about non-original content: Authors may create fanon about Maxis/Electronic Arts creations, or about a third-party's creations (such as a YouTuber, game streamer, online blogger, etc.) as long as:
- A. The fanon exceeds the source material. The author(s) must expand upon or reinterpret the original content with their own personal changes or additions. Fanon articles that merely document non-original creations in an encyclopedic fashion are not permitted.
- B. The original creator(s) do not prohibit its adaptation. For instance, fanon works about trademarked characters are generally prohibited unless the trademark holder permits fan fiction based on their work. Fanon works about or based on Maxis/EA-made creations are presumed to be allowed, as long as those fanon works follow Rule 5.A above.
Thoughts?
-- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
That, for me, seems much clearer than before. It provides proper clarity on stuff like custom neighborhoods, which I was a little confused about before. I'm SorryClimate69, toss me a message if you need any help! 18:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment from K6ka (talk) from the Discord Server:
| “ | I meant leave my 2¢ sooner but kept forgetting about this thread. The original thread from 2018 was started to clarify whether or not users could use the Fanon namespace to document verbatim other people's works; the consensus was that they couldn't, unless they had original content of their own expanding on it. I've always thought this was the intention, and I actually missed the fact that you had edited the wording of the policy. This would therefore simply be reinforcing the consensus established in 2018. -- Posted 22:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) | ” |
Comment from LostInRiverview (talk) from the Discord Server:
| “ | The thing is, the original wording that I put up on the 2018 thread was even more black-and-white restrictive than the text that existed on the policy for the last couple years. The original text was:
5. Fanon for 3rd party creations is prohibited: Users may create fanon pages only for their own creations, or their interpretations of Maxis/EA-made creations. Fanon authors may not write fanon pages about Sims, families, neighborhoods, or features created by other players. I don't know how I came to that conclusion in 2018 when I wrote that, but reading over the discussion again it's clear that the intent of the group at that time was very close to what I've proposed now. Therefore, this discussion isn't strictly necessary except, perhaps, to clarify the initial consensus and/or re-establish the rule as intended. -- Posted 22:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
” |
I have (again, boldly) re-edited fanon policy to reflect the original consensus, which is: 1. pages about third-party creations are allowed as long as they aren't simply verbatim copies, and 2. fanon creators do not need explicit permission from the original creator to make fanon about these creations. As I mentioned just above this, we can still consider and possibly re-evaluate the rule, if there is some concern that the consensus of 2018 or the new 2023 version of the rule doesn't or shouldn't apply. I think that the rule as it's written now should stay the way it is, but I am open to hearing other opinions and us having a discussion on it if some people want it to be different. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 22:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)