Talk:Fark/Archive 1

message: So, whats the origin of Buttsecks and the buttsecks owls?
: I believe the O Rly owl originated at Something Awful or 4chan, but I'm not sure. -68.202.20.75 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buttsecks? 

message: Someone    "users will be banned for reasons outside the Farq" is very inacurate.  Users MAY be banned for reasons outside the Farq if it is something which interrupts other users enjoyment of the website.  I posted the correct policies under "criticisms".  The policy is that if you do things which ruin the website for other people, even if it's not spelled out for you in the Farq, you may be subject to a timeout.  Some people need that spelled out.
As for the references, it's from an email I had with Drew Curtis.  He read the statement "users will be banned for reasons outside the Farq".  This statement is misleading, inacurate, and does not describe the whole "bannination" system.
:I have added language reflecting that.  By the way, new comments are usually added to the bottom of the talk page, not the top.  I have posted a comment concerning this issue at the bottom.  --W.marsh 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banninations and Timeouts 

message: Would it be better to refer to fark as a "meta-news" site rather then a web log? Anthropic42
:Thought so myself after seeing 'slashdot' being refered to as a blog as well. After looking up 'weblog' on Wikipedia, though, I'd be inclined to accept the term for sites like Fark.com, as well - Nils
:I'm not sure on the weblog label myself.  I think of a weblog as a single person, or small group posting personal type comments.  Fark.com is completely user-driven.  Users submit articles, write the headlines, and post comments.--Barry 17:00, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
::Agreed. Fark is far more community-driven than "blog" implies. Exo314 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web log? 

message: I assume that "a disembodied black baby head" is referring to Bat Boy.  I'll make the appropriate edit, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.  --DarkNight 21:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
*It really was a black baby's head with a smiling/goofy look. It wasn't disembodied in a violent way or anything, the body was just never shown. It was short-lived (thank god). I don't think it deserves a special mention.--jag123 00:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bat Boy 

message: A Fark clone (with Russian content and discussion) exists at fark.ru. However, I really know nothing about it beyond the fact that it exists.--Wasabe3543 06:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't suck any worse than Fark.  Though a Russian version of Fark? Does that include Drew? Or the moderators?  So instead of getting banned for complaining about your deleted posts, they hunt you down in the middle of the night, burn your house down, and shoot you in the head. --Fark Sucks 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, it is just a Russian copy of Fark. I see the site submission links, the ads to the various sex/love sites. I can read some Russian and try to get to see actual content, but I bet they most will have stuff making fun of Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: From the about Fark thread:
Q: What is the story behind Fark.ru?
A: The guys from Pravda in Russia asked Drew if they could start a Russian version of Fark. He said ok, we went over to meet them, and it's a fun thing for them to do. I'm not sure how much they have been growing, but I hope they get huge!
--Wasabe3543 04:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Fark 

message: Rather than revert waring I hope can explain the situation with the lengthy essay that keeps getting added to the Criticisms section lately.  The main problem is that it must cite sources, someone else saying this stuff, somewhere else (even if it's a blog), otherwise it is original research, which is very much not something that should be added to Wikipedia.  It is also not wikified, which is really a reason for reverting in and of itself.
To be blunt though, I don't really see how useful a long essay on the fine points of Fark policy is for an encyclopedia... trim it down to a brief summary, cite sources, and it will be fine with me.  If you want to host a comprehensive essay on the fine details of Fark moderation, Wikipedia really isn't the place.  --W.marsh 18:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: The inline tag images really need to go. They offer very little and make the paragraph impossible to read. Barring any objections, I'd like to take them out. --rebug (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the tags in the tag section 

message: If I had the time and energy I could prove beyond a doubt that Fark (which is functionally composed of moderators) is liberally biased. I would strongly suggest those those of you who seek to complete and accurate article test this assertion by creating an account and taking a conservative stance within the site. Although site officials claim they do not tolerate bullying and ad hominem attacks, I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have been banned for simply defending against personal attacks from leftist users; 99% of the time I have done this with pure logic, something the admins don't seem to be capable of recognizing. I must also note that in these situations I have been the only one banned; I attribute this to the fact that is has usually been myself trying to counter the fallacious remarks of half a dozen liberals. 
I recently told a Fark user that they had "no business posting" because they claimed that China could cash its debt and destroy the US economy. This fool failed to realize that China's own economy would be destroyed in the process, therefore it was an absurd and disruptive comment to make. I was perma-banned for this one ad hominem. 
A final suggestion would be to follow the posts of the user "Legless Marine," a rabbidly leftist user who (aside from the name) almost exclusively posts images/comments that degrade and slander the United States and the US military. In so many words this user has praised the mutilation and death of US military men and women with a disturbing level of glee, AND YET HE CONTINUES TO EXIST WITHOUT REPRIMAND FROM OTHER USERS OR ADMINISTRATORS.
Haizum 11:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The descriptions of the Farkisms "But Clinton" and "Morans" also display liberal bias within the article, eg the blanket "Republican" and the use of the condescending and somewhat racist word "redneck". Wikipedia is liberally biased so I don't expect these to be changed, but I just want you all to know that I've got my eye on this sort of subversive propaganda. Haizum 11:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia can't do anything about sites you think have a bias. Wikipedia only records facts. --BWD 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the Wikipedia article itself, which contains biased statements as mentioned above. Haizum 06:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have just as much power as everyone else to edit the article. --BWD 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, in theory. Haizum 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You've obviously never participated in one of their threads. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you Troll as a conservative, expect alot of liberal responses. --Lincoln F. Stern 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Wiki isn't the place to voice all your criticisms of Fark.  Wiki is a factual database.  I removed the two paragraphs talking about moderator's godlike powers and a personal claim of bias against the site, mainly because it violates the NPOV and because there was no linked information.
Wiki really isn't even a good place to talk about Fark's policies, perhaps we should remove everything regarding it.
147.31.4.43 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even know what a discussion page is for? Non-NPOV comments can be made on a discussion page for the sake of keeping the article NPOV. Also, you aren't allowed to delete comments from a discussion page unless you ask the user. Is an admin going to warn you for this, probably not. Haizum 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, what a joke. You don't have to link anything on a discussion page. Keyword: Discussion. Haizum 10:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it looks like you violated policy and deleted the comments of two different users. Nice. Haizum 10:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey anon, this is a talk page, not an article. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 10:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated claims 

message: Hey everyone, it seems that a small edit war has broken out about the criticism section.  I quote Wikipedia: Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement. While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.
The last sentence may refer to this case: 
[] []
However, let's call a cease-fire and discuss that section over here before we make any more changes.  
I was the one who added most of the info that seems to be in dispute.  One of the main complaints is that there are no sources cited (a problem with the entire article really).   Well, I don't know what would be acceptible as an unbiased source and I would be hardpressed to find a source biased or not for any part of this article.  I will say that I am a regular on the website, having been there for over four years and I'm currently a TotalFarker.  Despite the information that I added, I do very much like the site (I wouldn't be on TotalFark if I didn't) however anyone who spends a good deal of time in the Fark community and talks to the Farkers inside and outside of the site would agree that the unbalanced moderation especially in regards of what can and can not be said, is one of the chief problems on the site.
Anyways, before we let these edits get out of hand, let's see if we can come up with a consencus so that this article will be complete and accurate and stick to a NPOV.D'Iberville 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to remove "Fark policies" because they cannot be verified, yet you want to reference the FARQ, which is a summary of Fark policy. Think about how much sense that makes. Haizum 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The point of Wiki isn't to show a website has a particular bias, it's just to provide factual information." So by your logic the articles on the website Media Matters for America and the website Media Research Center shouldn't contain any information on their leanings? I'm afraid you can't pick and choose what articles can contain a criticism section. You should stop being an apologist for Fark.com and read up on WP:NPOV and WP:TPG. Haizum 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire issue could be solved if those that take issue with the article killed themselves. What's ironic is how my comment would actually be more productive than yours. Oh, and sign your comments next time per WP:TPG; I believe 1 warning is enough. Thanks. Haizum 07:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Addendum: I have added a disputed tag to this section that is currently in the middle of this conflict. I suggest leaving this content on the page, at least for the time being, so that others can have the opportunity to comment on this subject. --ZsinjTalk 17:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree in principle and for the sake of consensus. Protection of articles isn't what Wikipedia is about unless the vandalism outweighs common consensus editing. Haizum 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism reverting debate 

message: The tag images in the text of the paragraph describing them are non-standard and violate the manual of style. I am going to remove them soon unless there's an objection (and a good reason). --W.marsh 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And they simply look horrible like that. --BWD (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline tag images 

message: I'll support Protection on this article if Tarrant84 or other sock/meat puppets keep vandalizing the page, as was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fark.com&diff=42091768&oldid=42091719 Just a thought. Haizum 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: If you aren't familiar with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiablity, you should read them, to be fully informed in this debate.  They are all closely related to eachother, the gist being that articles on Wikipedia should be tertiary sources:
:A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.
To summarize what all of this means in terms of criticism, Wikipedia articles should summarize published criticism (secondary sources), which are in turn based on threads, e-mails, policies, etc. (primary sources).  The Wired article is a good example of this in action.
It's fine to make claims in articles without citing sources for every one. We assume good faith, so we assume your claims have a good source.  But that only goes so far - when there's a dispute, sources need to be cited.  If reliable sources can't be cited for, in this case, a criticism of Fark, then those claims should not be included in the article.  Primary sources (like the Fark FAQ, Fark threads, etc.) may possibly be cited, but no "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative" claims can be made from them (which wasn't the case with the stuff I removed). In other words, a Wikipedia article shouldn't be writing original criticism (or original claims in general). This is policy.
So, uncited criticisms shouldn't be in this article. Cited criticisms are fine. That's what this is all about. --W.marsh 20:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said that, I meant that all unsourced criticisms need to be removed from the article. This article shouldn't be hijacked by people with an axe to grind. --BWD (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that was my point.  I suppose I did not articulate it.  I'm not here to represent Fark, I'm just trying to keep all the information acurate, fair, and verifiable.  However, it seems the new additions are relatively fair.  Again, I still don't Wiki is the most appropriate place to voice "Fark criticisms", but when you omit them someone always comes here and adds them.
tarrant84 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and original research 

message: The previous example -- "it's a bitchilly out" getting changed to "it's a biatchilly out" -- wasn't a very typical case of getting caught by the filters. Many people would expect the filter to kick in if you leave out the space between the two words like that. What catches people is that the filters ignore spaces -- so "bit chilly" gets nailed for including "bitch", "I worked on that pic until my fingers bled" would get filtered to "picoontil", etc.
Also, I added "first comment -> Weeners" to the 'Filters' list. If the entry is going to cover specific filters at all, it has to cover 'Boobies' and 'Weeners', since those are the two famous ones ("Sorry about that. Moderators, please delete my Weeners.") Kickaha Ota 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight tweaks to 'Filters' section 

message: THe article doesn't explain why "Got Nothing." is used in conjunction with Melissa Theuriau. Can someone tell me what it's a reference to?
:I always assumed it was a sort of textual shrug, as in "I have nothing of note to contribute to the discussion, so here's a picture of a beautiful woman". Maybe another Farker has more info? Exo314 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right, Exo. It could be any other picture... for example, a cute kitten or a pizza or something. It's all good. Mchmike 06:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got Nothing. 

message: The mention of the "Get a brain! Morans!" cliche originally cited the photograph as taken in St. Charles (which is correct), then at some point it was added that St. Charles is a suburb of St. Louis (which is incorrect). An anonymous editor added a snide remark about this inaccuracy and later somebody changed the part that was right, saying that the photo was taken in Hazelwood (which is incorrect), and that Hazelwood was a suburb of St. Louis (which is correct). While most of Boeing's buildings are located in Hazelwood, the missile plant in question is indeed located in St. Charles and I edited the article to say this (forgetting, as usual, to log in). To avoid further confusion, I removed the note of St. Charles' location. --deckard 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morans