Talk:Something Awful

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Something Awful was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Comedy blog

The New York Times refers to it as a "comedy blog." Do not revert edits reflecting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.221.232 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite the source in the article then.--Drat (Talk) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not really relevant since it's more than just a "blog"- it's got some bloglike entries, but it's also known for user-generated content and for its forums.-Wafulz 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But you're making that determination on your own, which can be considered original research. I edited the page again, and put the source this time. If the way I cited was incorrect, please fix it, but do not revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.233.139 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the citation, since it looked hideous that way in the article's first sentence. I do have serious reservations about using a music blog as an authority to determine the nature of a website. If a couple of other sources can be provided which refer to SA as a website, it should probably be reverted back with citations for both. Cumulus Clouds 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it isn't original research. Within our other citations, we have SA described as a weblog, online community, comedy website, a humour site, etc. "Website" adequately covers all of this.-Wafulz 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to having my name used in that edit summary to justify your position. I've already stated that I believe SA meets the definition of a website, and I was merely fixing a citation, and I did not mean for this to give any credibility to the argument that SA is a blog. I mentioned earlier that I have serious reservations about using a music blog (the cited source in the blog quote) to determine the definition of a website on Wikipedia. I agree with Wafulz' logic that it doesn't meet the burdens of the definition of a blog, and is referred to more often as a website. It's my personal opinion that changing that sentence to read "comedy blog" from "website" is an attempt to marginalize the authors of that site and their material.Cumulus Clouds 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "cameo placement"

has earned him cameo placement in nerd culture: I guess that "nerd culture" means video games, but what does "cameo placement" mean? -- Hoary 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It means the same as "redundancy department of redundancy"-Wafulz 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My rewrite

I've commented out the tax section because it's the only part of the article that doesn't have secondary documentation (the court case itself is not secondary). Seeing as it wasn't noted in any media and someone had to approach Kyanka for an answer, I don't think this section can ever be neutrally presented. Some other things I did:

  • Merge "conflicts" into other sections. This is mainly for style reasons- it fits better to have historical events in the history section and forum-related events in the forum sections.
  • I rewrote the intro because it was a bit awkward.
  • Moved the EW prank as a subsection of "forums". I hope it's self-explanatory.-Wafulz 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Who cares if it has secondary documentation? That reference is a government source and I don't how you could get anything with greater verifiability than that. The fact that the media didn't comment on it isn't surprising and there isn't a precedent for removing material based on a lack of coverage alone. Lowtax's comments on it were presented to maintain NPOV, so I guess I don't understand why you think that section was POV. Cumulus Clouds 02:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's the notability of the event really- every other part of the article was included because some secondary source discussed it. I've always found that section really weird because it's a fairly minor court case. Without some sort of secondary documentation, I can't see this type of material being included in any other corporation's article.-Wafulz 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment unrelated to taxes: I'm not sure how organize the information in terms of the "forums" and "history" section. As you can see, the SPEWS/Katrina/Shooting stuff is under "history" right now, but they're clearly forum related.-Wafulz 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I imagine that if Wal-Mart or McDonald's were found in areers on their tax payments, that the subsequent court case would be commented on, provided only that it could be sourced. Lowtax's celebrity, however minor, should also be considered, since he is the sole proprietor of Something Awful, LLC and any legal actions taken against the company are directly connected to him. Since virtually every detail of Britney Spear's "personal struggles" are detailed in her entry, I don't see why we wouldn't use the same level of scrutiny on SA's article, given that Kyanka's article was merged. Since when did Wikipedia prefer less information over too much? Cumulus Clouds 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The difference between Wal-Mart's, McDonald's and Spears' articles are that all of their issues have been noted in secondary media (users aren't trawling through Spears' legal files to find out about her taxes). All that we have on it is a two sentence section saying "Kyanka did not pay taxes. He then paid them." It almost feels like someone is trying to dig up dirt on Kyanka.-Wafulz 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I disagree with that reasoning, but I won't reinsert the material or revert the edits. Cumulus Clouds 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too hell-bent on the issue, but I think searching through court records that other sources haven't picked up on is unethical, especially for something of this nature.-Wafulz 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the ethics of where a source came from is immaterial (as mine is). If you're going to argue that the event is nonnotable because it wasn't picked up by a secondary source, do so, if you're going to argue that the primary source is inappropriate, do that. You can't argue, however, that the primary source is inappropriate because it wasn't used by a secondary source.
Notability concerns over this topic have been addressed in the past, with the result being the retention of that section. You yourself have previously conceded to the logic that this event should remain in an article about Something Awful because it is relevant to the material presented in this article, namely the history of that site and the actions of its operators.
I actually never "conceded" to it. I just didn't feel like putting that big of an effort into it. If we're going to re-reference that discussion we had April, you did mention that there was too little information to verify anything or keep it neutral.-Wafulz 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't easily claim that a topic is nonnotable because of its lack of coverage, as there has been a relative paucity of news stories about Something Awful in the past 6 years (despite the number of users who traffic that site). It wouldn't make sense, therefore, to eliminate pieces of the article that were judged under this criteria, because it would create an unreasonable burden on the information currently present within it (and any future information that is to be added).
I use the external coverage criteria mainly to keep cruft out.-Wafulz
In addition, if you gauged the notability of the information in this article based solely on citations by secondary sources, you would lose most of the article. One could argue that the information about West's double homicide story is irrelevant because it is only cited in one (poor) source and, even then, is only tangentially related to the website itself. I would argue that the information presented by SA's default is more relevant than a section about an article about a thread where a guy said he knew some guy who killed some people. Cumulus Clouds 05:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And one last thing, to clarify: I no longer support the inclusion of the section about Something Awful's tax default. My only concern is that it is somewhat dangerous for us to conclude, unilaterally, that a source should be removed simply because we disagree with how it was found or whether it might makes the subject of an article uncomfortable. The source was valid, where it came from wasn't important, and (while it was there) it was used appropriately to cite a relevant topic within the article. Cumulus Clouds 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well we'll have to just disagree on this, I guess, although I don't entirely care if people are uncomfortable with material (unless there are WP:BLP concerns).-Wafulz 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of references to archived Something Awful posts by Lowtax?

To better substantiate this entry's claims w.r.t. copyrighted file sharing in Something Awful's former subforums NMP3s, BTB, and DPPH, I added a reference to the entry. This was reverted, understandably, because the reference I'd chosen was relatively anonymous.

I wanted to maintain the level of sourcing, though, so I took two new sources — posted by Kyanka with his Something Awful account "Lowtax" on the SA forums — and added those to the entry in the appropriate place. These two references were also removed, this time by User:Ohnoitsjamie, on the grounds that the references linked to forum posts hidden behind a pay wall.

I find this curious. There are many entries that reference LexisNexis or other proprietary online sources hidden behind a paywall. Is there an actual Wikipedia policy that prohibits using online references that point to sources behind paywalls? I haven't been able to find one myself, and the use of proprietary online repositories suggests that there is no such policy, but I know I'm not always up-to-date on the latest Wikipedia Policy RFCs. --Jacj 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:EL recommends not linking to pay sites, but it doesn't really have anything against citing them, as far as I can tell. Aren't the archives free now anyway?-Wafulz 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Some months ago Lowtax claimed that he was opening the archives to anyone with a normal (non-archives) Something Awful account, but he reneged on that promise a little while (a few weeks?) later. --Jacj 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see the goldmine while logged out, though I think the goldmined threads have always been free.-Wafulz 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That's my understanding too. --Jacj 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the main point: I don't think there's anything wrong with pay-sources if they're in citations. I imagine it's similar to linking to any other online article, or even a printed source.-Wafulz 03:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. --Jacj 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The official forums history project, the newly coined "Awfulpedia," mentions now that the file-forums did exist in its "important events" section for 2005:

January 1, 2005: the files forums (Bit Torrent Barnyard, Don't Post Porn Here, and I think no mp3's here?) were deleted and any discussion of illegal file sharing resulted in a ban. This was caused by the legal issue of file sharing, and also people registering just for the files. The deletion caused a flood of threads, mostly consisting of "where the files at" and the :filez: emoticon was born.

The section should be editted to remove the ambiguity that looks like disgruntled SA users trying to justify something the website doesn't want to talk about exists, since now even the official history for the site admits they once existed.--Jadams2484 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think that people sharing files on an internet forum is all that notable. Dedicated sites that make news for being sued or rebuffing the MPAA or RIAA can claim that, but I think we can all agree that file sharing on run of the mill forums isn't worth mentioning. --William Graham talk 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We're not denying its existence- we're just pointing out that the FAQ denies its existence, which is probably tongue-in-cheek since the SAclopedia has had information on them since 2004.-Wafulz 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If this is the basis for your addition that the denial is tongue in cheek, then it is mere speculation and is thus inappropriate for inclusion in this article. It does not meet encyclopedic standards. Perhaps you could locate some other article or source that more clearly illustrates your point? Addisonstrack (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing the article

Right now the article is basically split into "History" and "Site content", which has the "forums" subsection. I'm not sure how to best organize this information, namely because the history and forum content tend to overlap. Any thoughts?-Wafulz 03:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the summary of the article in the intro paragraph needs to mention the illegal file sharing, but the dumbass bot keeps reverting my edit. --75.68.239.243 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version was better organized and better written. There was no need to rewrite it in a less organized way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandow (talk • contribs)

I agree. Why is it that as soon as something potentially incriminating is added to the article, Wafulz goes ahead and reorganizes the entire article to bury the info he doesn't like? --75.68.239.243 03:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you guys are from SASS (anti-SA forum, for those not in the know) and probably won't listen to me, but bear with me. From an outside perspective, the file-sharing was not the be-all and end-all of the website. Material in the lead should summarize the article and give appropriate weight. Admittedly, SPEWS probably shouldn't be in the lead, the Uwe Boll section needs expansion, and since the site is very forum-driven, the forums' impact (through photoshop and the perpetuation of online fads) should be mentioned.

With regards to the rest of the organization: ideally an article should be chronologically written, because this is easiest to follow. So for example, the shooting deaths, as the most recent events, should go to the bottom. Other sections that have received significant attention (such as the Katrina charity and ensuing Paypal bitchfest) can have their own subsections. In terms of organization, the article is still in a very fluid state, and as I've stated above, I don't know the best way to arrange it.

I also ask you to keep in mind that you have a bias, just as I do. I've made compromises, even when I'm clearly dealing with a pedantic troll. I'd like for you to do the same.-Wafulz 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You admitted that you don't know how to organize it, then reorganized it anyway to downplay the file forums which is where a large portion of the userbase came from, removing any semblance of organization the article had. You then made small edits to your revised version which were not issues in the previous version that I reverted it to and claimed the revert was taking out important editing. The article was more readable and coherent before you messed with it. Conflict is a part of what makes SA notable, and was relevant to the article. It should also be noted that the article still doesn't mention things in chronological order so even were that the reason you did it wrong. Moving supported facts around so they are less visible is not "compromising" by allowing them to stay. They should be allowed to stay because they are supported and an important piece of information regarding the topic. My bias doesn't show as I was using a reasonable organization scheme. Yours does as you are messing with it simply because you want to bury facts. As an administrator you should be more responsible.Fandow 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sass is not anti-SA, it was created by SA members as a place where the administration could be questioned without fear of retribution. Many of the administrators read it as well and if the conflict section returns it would be a good thing to mention. Fandow 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
While SASS may have at one time been a place where SA members could criticize the administration, it is clear that it is now primarily an anti-SA site, consisting mostly of people who have never been SA members or refuse to join SA 71.188.11.75 05:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? --Jacj 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This is segwaying from the issue at hand, but I read the forums and applied the duck test.-Wafulz 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As did I, and I'm really not seeing anything that backs up Anonymous' claim that most of SASS' 4600+ users are non-SA users. --Jacj 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were disputing something else. Nevermind.-Wafulz 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Content within the "history" and "forums" sections is chronological, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. The article had a bloated "conflicts" section which was basically a bunch of loosely connected events. I tried to make it more cohesive by merging that content into relevant sections. There is overlap between "history" and "forums", and I came to the talk page to gather more input- that's what I meant by not knowing how to best organize it.-Wafulz 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"SPEWS" and "shooting deaths" belong in the forum section, not history. --Beyonce fiance 06:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Really, he forums section belongs as its own article again. 71.188.11.75 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way of reporting a wikipedia admin for abuse of power? It's pretty obvious that Wafulz is trying to downplay all of the sketchy things SA has done in the past. I tried to title the file sharing section "illegal file sharing" and he deleted it for being unobjective. wtf? How is that unobjective? In fact I think what Wafulz is doing could be considered vandalism because reading this discussion page, it looks like nobody is agreeing with the way he is running this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyonce fiance (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. I'm not abusing administrator tools. I haven't used administrator tools once.
  2. I'm dealing with several people on a forum with the aim of smearing Something Awful or removing reference to it from other articles.
  3. "Illegal file sharing" is not objective for several reasons. "File sharing" is objective. However, single paragraphs shouldn't be given their own headers (which is why I'm asking for help in organization). Judging from your contributions (such as labeling the EW poll as "fraud"), you've come here to push your own agenda.-Wafulz 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Waffuls, in keeping with your removal of the word "Illegal" for lack of objectivity, I am removing your subjective comment that the declaration in the faq that the file forums never existed was "tongue in cheek." Even by an objective standard, the evidence substantially supports that the denial of the existence of these forums in the faq is due to legal trouble and not just to be "funny" or tongue in cheek. I've seen you engage in revert wars regarding this specific phrase in the history of this page; can you tell me why it is so important? Am I missing something? Are we all missing something here? Perhaps if you clarify why you feel that this phrase is so important, we can find some middle ground to more perfectly reflect the truth. Let's settle this here on the discussion page rather than having an edit war. Addisonstrack (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal. As long as the "thoroughly retarded" part remains to specify the tone of the message.-Wafulz (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALOD

"ALOD" redirects to this article, but isn't mentioned in the text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think redirects from acronyms have to be in the article as long as they're likely search terms.-Wafulz 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Torrent Tracker

The section on the forums, where it's referenced that SA hosted a BitTorrent tracker, is wrong. While SA did host file forums, it never had its own tracker; trackers were run off-site by individual forum members.

I'd change it, but the page is protected, and I don't want to register a Wikipedia account. 69.204.199.161 14:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blue Ball Machine

Why does "Blue Ball Machine" redirect to this page? There's nothing here about "blue ball machine". 192.91.147.34 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed it from YTMND about a month ago because SA made it.-Wafulz 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young, white male website

I think the type of humour on Something Awful speaks specifically to young, white males. It's not to say the forums is absent of non-young white males though. I'd like a section that analyses the kinds of humour propagated on SA forums.

Unless it's sourced to reliable, independent sources, it's original research, and not permitted.--Drat (Talk) 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible secret of space redirect

It redirects to this page, but there is no mention of it in the article. Why? Pgrote 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably related, or a product of the website. It doesn't have to be mentioned- it just has to be a likely search term.-Wafulz 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This is likely due to a thread from "Let's Play" forum (a subforum of Games) called "The Terrible Secret of Animal Crossing." The archived version, if anyone really cares: http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/Animal%20Crossing/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.232.159 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is a reference to this ICQ prank: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/icq-pranks/icq-transcript-space.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.182.149 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] GOONS

Why isn't there anything on here about the GOONS? They're one of the largest online game groups in existence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.111.135 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about the CN GOONS, not anymore they aren't :V Atheist Haircut (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a sizeable GOONS presence in dozens of games, ranging from Eve to Uranme. Full disclosure, I'm in GOONS government in Lunar Wars Lamuella (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm....

As terrible as it may seem to consider that such a thing even exists, the pervert named Metis and his whole, hideous SWAP.avi have a WHOLE lot to do with SomethingAwful.... as does the concept of >.> Furries (furry fandom, etc)... and anti-furries.... (SomethingAwful, Goons etc...)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.153.217 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just yesterday heard from other goons that furries don't get banned on SA anymore. Any truth to this? :effort: tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.63.170 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elimination of redirects

I don't understand why people put redirects to this page if the item being redirected is not mentioned in the article itself. If you do not feel that the activity in question is worth mentioning on this page, then the redirect should not exist. 76.102.100.52 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous

Quit putting the Anonymous template on this site. It is completely irrelevant to the article. This is also NOT abuse so quit being biased assholes and reporting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.175.8 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 7 June 2008

Please discuss the matter at Template_talk:Anonymous_and_the_Internet#I_removed_something_awful --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)