Call me cold or callous if you will, but honestly when I GM I couldn't care less (from a fairness standpoint) about someone's vision of their character or their personal aversion to failure when it comes to what their PCs know vs what they know. I know some players are averse to being told what their PCs know, whether or not it fits into their views of what they want, or whether or not not being successful is fun. The fact remains that as a GM of scenes (or a game) including multiple players, those particular whims are far less important than maintaining a fair, GM-corruption free environment.
Some gamers often like to throw fits about poor dice rolls, not being successful, or not getting want from the GM, and it can be very spoiled angry child behavior. They do it to pressure the GM into giving into their Aisle5 temper tantrum over a candy bar, or else they'll make the experience negative or exhausting. Like children, if you reward it, you legitimize the behavior.
Of course, as a GM I'm sympathetic! Losing doesn't give that addictive brain chemical response, but if the rules of the game are "Your OOC knowledge of the setting or what's in the book do not equate to your character knowing it" or "Failure and success both happen and each should be approached maturely", then PPFFFT people who pull that stuff can walk. If they can prove why their character knows said information without referencing RL googling or their own personal experiences, I may allow it. Regardless, what a player wants for their character" or vision of it, can often mean that they win where others fail. So...nah, don't like that one bit.
But then again, I like to run tabletop games and not "writing clubs with some dice included".
