Talk:MSTing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fan Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fan Fiction articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
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. Feel free to add your name to the participants 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

[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)
First: writing a good encylopedia article? I think you mean Wikipedia article. I'm sure there are plenty of encylopedias that have the resources to do their own research or that use first-hand knowledge and materials (such as interviewing people on a subject); it's just that Wikipedia itself discourages relying solely on first-hand knowledge.
Also: you are only half-right on "discussion boards and USENET posts cannot [meet the criteria of being fact-checked or peer-reviewed]... specifically not allowed as sources". In the vast majority of cases (and I'm not arguing for or against it here, just saying) this is true, but there are always exceptions. For instance, Whedonesque is VERY frequently used as a source for Wikipedia articles on things relating to Joss Whedon's work, even though it's a community blog, because Whedon himself (and apparently other producers and the like from his shows) posts updates and addresses rumors on it.
Please do not speak in absolutes on something like this; it's the kind of thing that propogates miunderstandings of policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, the reason no doubt that I keep seeing people say "no autobiographies are allowed on here" (even though it's only "strongly discouraged", not forbidden, a guideline and not a "policy" as is usually claimed), or people going on link-removing sprees because the links in question have "commercial content" or "seem non-notable", even if they're being used as a source for the article in question (one should always cite one's sources, it makes the article-writing process more transparent and more efficient), or if they turn out to be notable, reliable and/or truly relevant and useful and the person removing the link just wasn't aware it was notable or as relevant as it was. I know it sounds like I'm scare-mongering, but I'm seeing this kind of thing more and more often, and it worries me. There are exceptions to many a rule or guideline here, so let's not pretend they're absolutes, please? "Not fact-checked/peer reviewed" is a valid criticism of these sources, possibly - but it's not why this imaginary total ban (that's what "discussion boards... specifically not allowed" directly implies) is in place. Please keep that in mind. ^_^
Also: I disagree on a very significant point, here. You said 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. I disagree entirely. A simple Googling shows it's a real phenomenon, which means NOT covering it is FAR worse than having an article without Wikipedia's preferred type of sourcing (and I must once against stress that a source cited is better than none, as we therefore know where the editor is getting their information, and make corrections accordingly). I mean, I get why you say that - you want articles on here to be sourced and reliable and all that and that's good! It is! But deleting it because it doesn't have good sourcing yet is silly, especially when you're "sure" it's been covered somewhere. Wikipedia articles online (as opposed to those accepted for that project where it goes on CD-Rom) are always going to be a work in progress. Instead, the best strategy would be to tag it openly as needing more and better sources, until such sources have been found and used. This makes it much, much more likely that other editors who might not have found it otherwise will eventually come along and fix it, bringing it up more towards Wikipedia's high standards for a "Good" or better article. Runa27 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I never said nor implied that Wikipedians should be collecting first-hand information like interviews. That is a straw-man argument. What we are expected to collect, as I said above, are "reliable sources" (as Wikipedia defines the term; please read the guideline). To this end, I have researched and found quite a few potential sources that would pass the WP:RS test. (See "Possible sources" below.) This is the kind of research that we are supposed to do, not the original research of interviews or other first-hand data collection. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"I never said nor implied that Wikipedians should be collecting first-hand information like interviews. That is a straw-man argument. " Uh, if you read closely, you'll see I never said nor implied that you had. I'm saying, some encyclopedias in general, as opposed to the Wikipedia project, might be able to use first-hand sources or even rely on them, and that what you were talking about wasn't "encyclopedia articles" it was only Wikipedia articles, specifically. I was calling for a little, you know, accuracy in what we say here. Your bringing up the "straw man" thing itself seems like a bit of a straw man, considering that first comment was numbered first only because, well, it was the first (I've found that sometimes if I don't number like that a little, my multi-paragraph comments sometimes seem like comments from multiple users). Doesn't mean it was meant to directly relate to the second one, or part of the same argument (although it really isn't good to generalize like that, as Wikipedia is a different, specific kind of project compared to just "encyclopedias"). I also take a bit of offense at the idea that I supposedly didn't read your post enough to realize what you were saying - considering that it's not true.
"What we are expected to collect, as I said above, are "reliable sources" (as Wikipedia defines the term; please read the guideline)." Did I mention I also take a bit of offense at the idea I haven't read any of WP's guidelines? Or that I am completely unfamiliar with WP's guidelines, policies or practices after months of editing?
"To this end, I have researched and found quite a few potential sources that would pass the WP:RS test. (See "Possible sources" below.) This is the kind of research that we are supposed to do, not the original research of interviews or other first-hand data collection." Oh, for God's sake. Seriously. I never once said we should use interviews! NEVER EVER EVER. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I also never said we should rely only on discussion boards - I only pointed out that in rare cases, a blog or similarly otherwise seen as "unreliable" source might be appropriate for an article and that noting where you're getting your information from is better than not noting where you got it from, for the sake of other editors who might try to source it better in the future. Neither of these is untrue, and I absolutely never said you were for including interviews or crap like that, so why are you suddenly crying "Straw man! Straw man!" when there is none? :\
ALSO, I never said you hadn't dug up good potential sources. My comments were about the generalizations you were making, the absolutes you were talking in - NOT the sources for this given article. I feel it is unhealthy to talk in absolutes when it comes to WP's guidelines in particular - which are much more fluid than its policies - owing to the fact that time and again I have seen it lead to people in general on here misconstruing said guidelines. I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending as if I am miscontruing WP's policies and guidelines, and I'd especially appreciate it if you stopped for a moment, reread my post, thought about it, and realized I actually did, in fact, read your post before posting. Not talking down to me about what we're "supposed" to be doing that I'm supposedly (but in truth not) saying we shouldn't... would also be much appreciated. Last I checked, we're supposed to be civil to each other, so why don't we try to do just that, starting with not using the old "that's a straw man argument" argument when it's not appropriate? I apologize if the numbering of my post's first pargraph confused you, but honestly... I have no idea where you got the idea I was suggesting, well, what you thought I was suggesting. :\ Runa27 23:24, 22 April 2007 (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)
Since it's an ancient proposal with no real discussion in favor of it, I'm going to remove the merge tags. Rob T Firefly 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[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)