Talk:MSTing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is part of WikiProject Fan Fiction, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Fan Fiction. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

As the "Infamous MSTed Authors" section grows, we all need to be careful to keep it NPOV; some of the author entries look like an attack on the authors themselves; if a piece is considered "the worst (blank) ever", or "the most blatant (blank) ever" by the community, cite your source, please. Also, fandom does not refer to a professional piece of work. Viewer 00:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 References needed 2 MSTed authors 3 MSTers 4 Merge 5 Rewrite 6 Possible sources

[edit] References needed

I am a devoted fan of MST3K, but I have to say that this article is so far below Wikipedia standards that I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. It desperately needs reliable sources, since discussion boards, fan websites, and USENET groups simply aren't acceptable sources for any Wikipedia material. Anything that we can't find such sources for (which I suspect is true for the vast majority of this material) will have to be deleted. If all we have left is a stub based on a few entertainment-industry magazine articles, that will have to suffice. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a fanzine. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being a little harsh, Jeff--the MSTing concept began on discussion boards and USENET groups, and all of the terms, as well as the Infamous Authors, are well known among the MSTing community at large. It isn't a fair reason to discount the community just because it isn't as "established" as one may like--all this data may be checked and confirmed. Viewer 16:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

...although I will admit the quality of the article isn't up to Wikipedia standards yet. Viewer 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia has standards that must be met, regardless of the origin of the subject. If MSTing has never been discussed or even mentioned in the mainstream press, any books or magazines, by any reviewers, or even by MST3K fans quoted in print, news programs, or commercial videos/DVDs, then it is by Wikipedia's definition unsourceable and likely insufficiently notable for an article. I doubt this is the case here, although I suspect the entire "Infamous MSTed authors" section is delete-bait for this reason. (As well it should be, as this section seems to serve primarily as promotion for Internet-savvy fans.) To quote from the policy article Wikipedia:Verifiability:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. […] Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Wikipedia accepts and even insists on the limitation of discussing only those things which have already been fact-checked or peer-reviewed by professionals. Discussion boards and USENET posts cannot meet this criteria, so they are specifically not allowed as sources. Despite its origin, however, I'm sure that MSTing has been discussed in reliable publications. It just means we have to do some legwork to back up our prose with citations, and weed out anything that can't be properly sourced. If we can't do this, the article should be deleted, even though it talks about a real phenomenon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSTed authors

I have removed the "Infamous MSTed authors" section because not only has no one provided any reliable sources for this material (as requested above), it seems likely that no one will be able to do so. MSTing is a phenomenon known primarily only to us MST3K fans, and probably has only minimal mention in the regular media. Even if we can find such mention, it's a sure bet that none of the fancruftian material expounded upon in this section is included in such mention. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Shuchs, ratliff will never become notible. :< [1] --Rayc 04:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A person becomes wiki-notable because of their published exploits, not because of their presence in Wikipedia. The path is still open to MSTed authors, Grasshopper. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why, Master, have notables such as Stephen Ratliff (author of over 23 stories which transformed a one-episode character into an infamous Mary Sue) and Dr. Thinker (whose writing is often bafflingly incomprehensible, yet whose good humor over the treatment of his works has gained him an amount of noteriety) been purged along with the rest of the Infamous Authors? If you hold out hope like this, please follow through with a suggestion on how to include it again. Viewer 06:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The path has already been laid before you, Grasshopper. Must I move your feet as well? ☺ Reliable sources, reliable sources, reliable sources! The hope I hold out is that this interesting subject be properly sourced. It sounds like at least two authors might be notable, in the Wikimedia sense, but all you offer is testimony, not sources. I note that the article Mary Sue itself currently has some serious source deficiencies, relying on a single (malformed) source citation, a bunch of anecdotal pop-culture mentions, and an unexplained link to an intriguing OED-related site that looks like it could be used for a lot more proper sourcing. Try reading Wikipedia:Citing sources if the path remains unclear. The introductory paragraph should be memorized by any serious Wikipedia editor. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But MSTing is making fun of unreliable sources! If they did there job right, a MSTed author is of quality that they shall never be quoted in a reliable source. Though, I did find this:[2]--Rayc 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rayc, here is where you must ask yourself if you are truly interested in writing for Wikipedia. MSTing is indeed a cultural phenomemon, but a very small one by global, historical, well-documented standards. As Wikipedia:Verifiability states quite clearly and emphatically:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Anything that is not discussed in reliable sources is not something we should have an article on. You are also mistaking the documentation for the phenomenon. It doesn't matter if a MSTing covers a blockbuster film or the most obscure webcomic. What matters is who documents it. This is the question of notability, and goes hand-in-hand with reliable sourcing. If a subject is so obscure that no resepectable publisher in any medium (news, literature, radio, television, or web) can be bothered to talk about it, it isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion, because without such a source, we can't distinguish between information well-checked and information made up by self-promoters or pranksters. But I don't believe there are no reliable sources for the phenomenon of MSTing. I think we're just not willing to make the effort to find such sources. (Frankly, I'm disappointed that, after nearly 2 years, no one seems to have risen to this challenge.) If so, we will have no one but ourselves to blame if this article is eventually nominated for deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSTers

I suggest that this article be completley rewriten, preferably by an actual MSTer. Luthien Minyatur 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This article could indeed use a complete rewrite, but I would caution anyone tackling this that it's not the domain expertise of the authors that is important, it is the factual information verifiable from explicitly cited reliable sources that we need, for this as for any other article. The problem with fans or other editors involved in a subject is that they tend to ignore these basic requirements. Were he alive, Albert Einstein himself would have to cite published references if he contributed to our "relativity" articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

As the policy of WP:V has shifted from verify that this exist to verify that it is notible, I'm afraid that this will be deleted and the information lost. As it is an effect of MST3K, maybe it should go back into that article or renamed "effects of MST3K on popular culture". What do people think.--Rayc 04:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the primary point of WP:V has not changed since August 2005: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Inclusion isn't restricted to notability issues, but is a matter of what goes into an article. Content inclusion anywhere, not just in its own article, is based on verifiability. We shouldn't hide unsourced information in another article just because it's too visible in a separate article. The real question is, why have we found no reliably sourced documentation on this phenomenon? Is it that much under the radar of established popular culture? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are enough examples under the "External links" section that if this was a hoax, the hoaxer probably would warrant his or her own article on wikipedia. That takes care of WP:V in my book, but I see the people wanting to delete it basing there reasoning on notability. As for under the radar of established popular culture, it's internet culture, which unfortunately doesn't get much documentation in non-internet media.--Rayc 22:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If this should be merged with the main MST3K page, it would certainly not warrant this much text. At most, I think MSTing deserves a one-liner. It's a common enough internet phenomenon, but barely a footnote in the MST story.MArcane 08:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The MSTing phenomenon spread far from its roots in MST3K, and should not be shoved into the article just because that's where it came from. --Orange Mike 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (who finds MSTing annoying; but that's his POV)

[edit] Rewrite

Despite my love of MST3K, I've never been a fan of MSTing, so I haven't really cared whether this article remains, only that editors be aware of what it takes to keep it here. But with the impending deletion of the article, I decided to put a little time into it to demonstrate how folks might make this a decent encyclopedia article.

As a first pass, I deleted all the unsourced (and possibly unsourceable) discussions of MSTing techniques and practices, collected a bunch of live sources for information, and rewrote the history section to give it a broader context based on what I found. (I didn't even look at the "External links" section; I just Googled around to see what was still prominent on the web.) I also {{fact}}-tagged material in the new "Style" section wherever I felt there should be specific citations for references. The result is far closer to a proper Wikipedia article, in my humble opinion, with one significant exception — many of the sources would not be considered reliable by any reasonable WP editor. I don't offer an immediate solution to this problem, but that's where we need to work to ensure this article survives. If it doesn't, there remain at least two cited sources (both from The Satellite News) for the concept of "MSTing" that would allow a few sentences from this article to be merged into Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Okay, so I've put (some of) my money where my mouth is. I recommend other editors of this article work to improve the sourcing, if possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources

If anyone has access to a copy of the following book:

• Herrington, Jack D. (2005). "Hack #25: Make a Mystery Science Theater Podcast", Podcasting Hacks. O'Reilly, pp. 148-153. ISBN 0596100663. 

they might take a look at the cited section for references to MSTing. This "hack" is essentially MSTing in the MP3 medium. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From the book:

"The show was a cult hit, and a feature film was produced. But today it's rarely shown in reruns, even though fans, known as mysties (subcategorized into Joel or Mike fans), are hardcore in their love of the show." Their are no references and no mention of MSTing, since "As part of my research for this hack, I had a chance to talk with Mary Jo Pehl, who played Pearl Forrester and was a writer for the show." --Rayc 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rayc, please do not insert posts into other posts without using proper indentation to make visually clear that you are doing so, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. I have indented your post above to fix this breach with as little violence to the principle as possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another potential source for a discussion of MSTing:

• (2006) in Karen Hellekson, Kristina Busse, eds.: Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. ISBN 0786426403. 

I can't tell from the table of contents (courtesy of the Library of Congress) if MST3K pops up anywhere in here, but it's a possibility. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's another one that mentions personal MST3K-like commentary, only adding it to videos:

• Rankin, Kyle (2005). "Hack #52: Add Custom Subtitles to Video", Linux Multimedia Hacks. O'Reilly, p. 151. ISBN 0596100760. “Think Mystery Science Theater 3000, but with text.” 

These folks don't seem to be familiar with the term "MSTing", but that's what they're talking about in various media. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And a similar sentiment mentioned in passing by another digital video book:

• Paul, Joshua (2005). "Hack #35: Make a Movie Without a Camcorder", Digital Video Hacks. O'Reilly, pp. 116. ISBN 0596009461. “Depending on your approach, you can mix and match footage from many movies, reedit a movie, or dream up something like Mystery Science Theater 3000.” 

These are just a few I found through Google Books. None of these give the actual history of "MSTing", but they support the idea that the act itself is known and performed in the popular culture. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Apparently MSTing has spread to wrestling, too:

• Sammond, Nicholas (2005). "Female Wrestling Fans Online", Steel Chair To The Head: The Pleasure and Pain of Professional Wrestling. Duke University Press. ISBN 0822334380. “Other uses of frame grabs include caption contests or ongoing commentary, along the lines of cable television program Mystery Science Theater 3000…” 

And here's a scholarly use of the same technique, done for a serious purpose, discussed in some detail:

• Michael, et al., Burgoon (2002). "Chapter 4: Using Interactive Media Tools to Test Substance Abuse Prevention Messages", in William D. Crano, eds.: Mass Media and Drug Prevention: Classic and Contemporary Theories and Research (The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 76ff. ISBN. “A narrative device fashioned after the program Mystery Science Theater 3000 was used to provide a general theme and context for the experimental messages. The core of each message involves a teen brother and sister couple providing a running critical commentary on programming that they are watching on the family television set.” 

Another substantive discussion of fan commentaries a la MST3K:

• Barlow, Aaron (2004). "Chapter 3: DVD Dan Culture", The Dvd Revolution: Movies, Culture, and Technology. Praeger/Greenwood, p. 67. ISBN 0275983870. 

This best-selling book mentions among its revolutionary ideas the use of viewer-created commentary as a growing means of social interaction:

• Christopher, et al., Locke (2001). "Chapter 1: Internet Apocalypso", The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual. Da Capo Press, p. 7. ISBN 0738204315. “What was once The Show, the hypnotic focus and tee-vee advertising carrier wave, becomes in the context of the Internet a sort of reverse new-media McGuffin — an excuse to get together rather than an excuse not to. Think of Joel and the 'bots on Mystery Science Theater 3000.” 

Here's a source for something I was trying to add to this article, but couldn't find a reference to — the old late-night trashing of films by local station personalities that preceded MST3K:

• Kompare, Derek (2005). "Chapter 3: (R) Film on Early Television", Rerun Nation: How Repeats Invented American Television. Routledge (UK), p. 48. ISBN 0415970547. “Moreover, most of the remaining live productions on television were actually frames for the presentation of recycled films. […] [Programs] would occasionally feature guests, studio audiences, and even ironic commentary (well before Mystery Science Theater 3000).” 

As an inadequate substitute, I'd mentioned in the intro something about movie watchers making cracks during films, which I'm not surprised to see someone has since removed. But this is the first documentation I've seen for local programs like The Ghoul's show and The Hoolihan and Big Chuck Show in Cleveland, Ohio.

Well, that's what I found in the first 70 Google Books hits (out of 108) just looking for "Mystery Science Theater 3000". I'm too tired to try other options, other search terms suggested by the above quotes, or other means to find more information. But I think there's enough sourced material out there to write about this cultural phenomenon, although it won't satisfy the MSTies who want to see "famous" names, quotes, and techniques listed. We just need to grab some books and do a little reading. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has access to the University of Minnesota Library (or to free interlibrary loan, if they loan their theses) they hold a thesis:

• McGee, Jennifer Jean (1998). Net of a million lies: Rhetoric and community on three Usenet newsgroups. University of Minnesota. 

which has a chapter about conversation styles on arts.tv.mst3k.misc. It seems to me that stands a fair chance of mentioning MSTing, but living overseas as I do the cost for me to interloan it is prohibitive. Someone else may be in a better position to check. --Zeborah 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Have heard back from someone who skimmed this chapter for me and reports that it doesn't discuss MSTings. However he did find another reference from the Toronto Sun which does; I've just replaced one of the less authoritative cites in the article with this one. --Zeborah 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look to see if I have any of these books in my library--Rayc 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, after some searching, I learned that fanfiction.net purged MSTings from there site due to a code of conduct issue. [3] If anyone could source that it would look good in the history section. The current sourcing is from yet another wiki. Also, urban dictionary defines it, but that is not so reliable.--Rayc 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I found yet another site like urban defining the term, *and* a bunch of other terms used in MSTing. So while not a reliable source, it gives more names to be searched for. That source is here. Also, I found that google scholar quote. It was on MST3K, however.--Rayc 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)