event spurred the wranglers to discuss how to handle works that exist solely within other works, the users in the event were capable of breaking their own rules and nominating a work such as known through another work but The Gospel of Eve—one understood to have an existence beyond it. In making this argument, Nica supported the second implication—that a case such as Gospel of Eve” might occur in the “The advised her peers to recognize such cases as out of scope. The reaction to the problem case of Gospel of Eve” went beyond the cliché “The of exception that proves the rule.” Nica did not just dismiss Jess’s problem case as “the being too unique to be addressed by the guidelines. Rather, this example served as a reminder that—regardless of how completely and correctly the wranglers defined and arranged the terminology of the system—users were always capable of misusing it. One of the major limitations of TFR’s curated folksonomy design was that wranglers could not alter users’ tags, only change how those tags relate to each other. This limitation provided opportunities for users to introduce unresolvable contradictions to an otherwise coherent system. Pat provided a similar comment in response to the case of The Princess claiming apprehension that a mistaken user was going to see the fandom tag that Bride, listed Simon Morgenstern as the author and submit a Support ticket to correct it to William Goldman. Pat and Nica, as experienced TFR wranglers, shared the expectation that users could always misunderstand and misuse the classification system. Pat and Nica’s claims redirected the conversation away from impossible problem cases by taking the stance that user error was inevitable and not grounds for rejecting otherwise sound guidelines. While the wranglers’ use of and resulted in The Gospel of Eve The Princess Bride wranglers agreeing on which works were beyond the scope of the Fiction-within-Fiction
event spurred the wranglers to discuss how to handle works that exist solely within other works, the users in the event were capable of breaking their own rules and nominating a work such as The Gospel of Eve—one known through another work but understood to have an existence beyond it. In making this argument, Nica supported the second implication—that a case such as “The Gospel of Eve” might occur in the advised her peers to recognize such cases as out of scope. The reaction to the problem case of “The Gospel of Eve” went beyond the cliché of “the exception that proves the rule.” Nica did not just dismiss Jess’s problem case as being too unique to be addressed by the guidelines. Rather, this example served as a reminder that—regardless of how completely and correctly the wranglers defined and arranged the terminology of the system—users were always capable of misusing it. One of the major limitations of TFR’s curated folksonomy design was that wranglers could not alter users’ tags, only change how those tags relate to each other. This limitation provided opportunities for users to introduce unresolvable contradictions to an otherwise coherent system. Pat provided a similar comment in response to the case of The Princess Bride, claiming apprehension that a mistaken user was going to see the fandom tag that listed Simon Morgenstern as the author and submit a Support ticket to correct it to William Goldman. Pat and Nica, as experienced TFR wranglers, shared the expectation that users could always misunderstand and misuse the classification system. Pat and Nica’s claims redirected the conversation away from impossible problem cases by taking the stance that user error was inevitable and not grounds for rejecting otherwise sound guidelines. While the wranglers’ use of The Gospel of Eve and The Princess Bride resulted in wranglers agreeing on which works were beyond the scope of the Fiction-within-Fiction