Iwiki and 'joke' articles

[Stark]

At the moment, a fair slice of Iwiki activity is on 'in-joke' articles that are either irrelevant to the debate, offensive, stupid, or all three. I'd like some input here about how people feel about this. For what it's worth, I'd prefer to excise that sort of thing immediately - not only does it fill the wiki with noise and allow anyone who goes there instant reminders that SDN are idiots, but it's sucking contribution-time from other articles. The transphasic article, for instance, is terrible.

I guess it's yay or nay on the 'stupid in-joke rubbish', then.

[MKSheppard]

What do you define as "in joke"?

The EBC Page?

[Bounty]

If the content can't be properly understood without context (like slang and the various conspiracies), it should either be deleted or flagged as being part of "board culture" or somesuch. Leaving it out in the open will only confuse people who come in from the main page and don't know about the boards.

[Havok]

Are you talking explanations of the in-jokes? Because that would seem to make them less "in".

[Stark]

What do you define as "in joke"?

The EBC Page?

The EBC is an in-joke, but neither offensive, juvenile or stupid. Not like, say, the Jews article.

Flagging as 'board culture' might be enough for some, but some articles in question are both offensive and really low quality. What's the point in cleaning up the 'lol chatfag' article?

[Bounty]

Are you talking explanations of the in-jokes? Because that would seem to make them less "in".

I think he's talking about pages like this one.

[Bounty]

Flagging as 'board culture' might be enough for some, but some articles in question are both offensive and really low quality. What's the point in cleaning up the 'lol chatfag' article?

If you're going to clamp down on Testing and Chat crap creeping in, now's the time. If I were a mod, I'd limit articles to being either useful information about the board (history, structure) or relevant info on the debate and delete everything else; no-one's going to come to an SDN wiki for this and the only people who honestly give a flying fuck about nonsense like this are the people who already know all about it..

[Stark]

That's basically my attitude. I'm just looking for a sign people might disagree, which isn't forthcoming yet. It's a shame that so many people are adding useless shit like that to the wiki instead of actual content, though.

[Havok]

I think testing and the things that result from it, in-jokes and such, are definitely part of the board culture, but I agree with Bounty that it is just going to cluster up the wiki page. And if you don't like it Administrator Stark, then get that shit the fuck off there yo.

[Stark]

Believe me, this is all a part of the thin veneer of legitimacy I'm trying to establish over wiki policies. Once I can let Shep off the leash... well.

Is there a way to flag articles as 'need to be re-done'? For instance, the 'evil' article is stupid but not offensive - but it's REALLY poor quality. Add it to category :fix this ship up now?

I'm hoping to create a more detailed policy soon that will encourage useful contributions and allow useless or counter-productive contributions (to be defined later ) to be removed.

[Lord Relvenous]

I personally say kill this and kill it now. I think most of us want it to be a serious wiki, and a serious wiki shouldn't include in-jokes and random shit, especially if it can be found offensive.

[Stark]

I want people who voted 'keep it' to actually post something. If you don't say anything, I'm likely to discount your votes. I want a dialogue about this issue, but if only one side posts anything all this shit will end up being removed.

[Teleros]

Don't have a problem with 'joke' articles, but I'd rather see more serious articles put up there.

[Aaron]

I think the "offensive" content should be limited to the troll entries. I voted for the first option but this is what I really mean. If we want to have a section that contains unprofessional comments, this is a good place to do it as their dipshit behaviour will be referenced for all to see with links to the board. But for the rest of it I think we should be as professional as possible. We don't have to have the neutral point of view crap that Wikipedia does but lets keep the tomfoolery to a minimum.

[Stark]

Thanks, guys. My attitude is similar: I'd rather see actual content added, but I don't want to have a 'sterile' wiki. There is a place for that kind of tone, but the 'user soapbox' articles contribute nothing but individual user's poorly-worded, offensive attitudes.

[Darth Wong]

I think "colourful" articles should be marked with some kind of disclaimer. And the "Jews" article should be deleted.

[Stark]

A category for 'board culture' is a definite catchall for the SOS/BOTM/etc stuff. The Jews article is dead.

[Bounty]

Is there a way to flag articles as 'need to be re-done'? For instance, the 'evil' article is stupid but not offensive - but it's REALLY poor quality. Add it to category :fix this ship up now?

Wikipedia has all sorts of fancy tags for articles that need rewriting or are too short. Aren't there plugins to add those? I think it was Mad who suggested the citation code, maybe he has more.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Right now we would be best to wait until we've covered most of the STvW 'Debates' and have a major lull in said section. Having said that, I feel SDN is an important part of the Versus Debates, and SDN Culture certainly plays a part in our debating tactics and how we process information, and thus our conclusions.

Naturally STvW Trolls should be exempted from the first part since pointing out their idiocy is an important part of the debate at large, however, mockery and pointing out stupidity is what SDN is about and should be allowed within reason (IE no libel or just making up shit).

[Tribun]

I say: Terminate them.

[Dooey Jo]

Kill it with fire. Before it turns into some kind of extreme circle jerk ala Encyclopedia Dramatica, which has gone so far in its use of in-jokes that it has basically become another language.

[Lord Poe]

I voted to clear the in-jokes. I think we've all had major complaints about wikis before, so we should lead by example. A simple link to daltonator.net's FUQ would be enough for those curious about in-jokes.

Is there a way to flag articles as 'need to be re-done'? For instance, the 'evil' article is stupid but not offensive - but it's REALLY poor quality. Add it to category :fix this ship up now?

Articles should have a professional tone, IMO. But most importantly, we should make sure that every fact, and every claim, is fully sourced. Don't simply assume everyone knows who "Dr. Saxton" is, for instance, or "light turbolaser".

[Stark]

Articles should have a professional tone, IMO. But most importantly, we should make sure that every fact, and every claim, is fully sourced. Don't simply assume everyone knows who "Dr. Saxton" is, for instance, or "light turbolaser".

Mad has said that much wiki-standard functionality is plugins, including their reference format. I think I'll make a thread to get him to fill Mike in on the where/how of plugins.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I think that "in-joke" articles should be accepted, provided there's actually notation that it is such. Anything having to do with SW/ST canon or the capabilities of different forces should be professional, of course. But as far as board culture related articles are concerned, why not have tongue in cheek humor and some articles to laugh over?


IMO, if everything has to remain completely serious and straight forward, the IWiki would basically become the heart-disease friendly Wookiepedia. A big part of why I enjoy SD.net is because of the sarcasm, dry wit, and the amount of fun people have here while still being able to make an intelligent point.


Humorous articles would make the IWiki more enjoyable, I think. Requiring a disclaimer or the like for such articles would be better than banning them outright. Do as you will, but humor is a big part of board culture.

[Stark]

Slapping down frothing idiots is ALSO a part of board culture. My opinion is simple - you want board culture go to the fucking board. A wiki is by definition a reference work, and 'hilarious' articles about jews or lol chatlog action have no place outside a 'board culture' area.

As I think Bounty was hinting at, if we let this go now, the Iwiki will quickly become less about debates, or references, or arguments (ie, an easier-access, quicker-searching version of the forum/mainsite that's up-to-date) and instead become Facebook.

If someone wants to have 'sarcasm, dry with, and fun', the least they can do is construct sentences properly, write articles like they finished highschool, and not capitalise every second word. I'm far more likely to adjust and allow an article about some element of the board that's written properly than the current standard of 'lol chatlog rar rar rar hilarious wheee' nonsense.