13-year-old's vanity music video garners BLP, MUSICBIO trumps BLP1E and common sense Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

"The other song was about adult love – I haven't experienced that yet," racey 13 year old Rebecca Black is quoted as saying for the reason she chose the song "Friday", scoring a phenomenal 44 references, and a longer topic page than Alessandro Scarlatti (no references naturally), apparently being notable for the Youtube song with the most mocking comments or something. In fact, she score more highly than ALL the Scarlattis put together (... one reference).

And for the rest of time, Rebecca will be recorded by the ordure that is Jimmy Wales onanistic organ as being "worst song ever", "bizarre," "inept," "hilariously dreadful" and "YouTube laughing stock." Of course, its not a BLP laying the boot into a 13 year old girl ... it's a topic about a "notable" song, even though Black is reported as saying that "those hurtful comments really shocked her" and that she was brought to tears by comments such as "I hope you go cut [yourself] and die" or "'I hope you cut yourself, and I hope you'll get an eating disorder so you'll look pretty"; so the Wikipedia insists on telling me.

But never mind, the Wikipedia also considers it notable enough that she soon was able to ignore such comments and ask Justin Bieber (who I have no clue who he is) to do a duet ... except he has not replied yet, or perhaps he does not even know because he management team dont follow Facebook or something.

Amazingly, all this eternal notability happened in the last 10 days ... that is all it take these days to get your own Wiki-page these days ... created by someone's obvious sleeper sock "Captaincapitalism".

Surely not worthy of deletion? Boy, I just cannot wait until for the loss of virginity and ensuing decline into substance abuse happens, and are all added to the article ... shouldn't someone tell her parents where to send the lawyer's letter?

Delete I understand that I am likely in the minority here, but I think keeping an article that is a series of criticisms regarding a child simply because it can be sourced is completely unnecessary. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. I am pretty sure that WP:SNOW really applies here so I think it is best to close this now. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, or as we say these days "for the downloadable mp3" I think it is a wonderful take on perfect plastic pop that could not have been cynically created better and Becky deserves all the success in the world. Especially when the song is covered by Bob Dylan. See Youtube for other numerous perfectly acceptable parodies.

Keep I'm very supportive of avoiding BLP violations, especially when it's a 13-year-old, but I don't see any here. Negative unsourced additions have been repeatedly reverted, and what's left seems well sourced and accurately reflects the sources - in fact, every single statement is sourced. Sources include Time, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily Times, Forbes. (Please also note there is also a deletion review of a related article happening at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Rebecca Black) --

Oh, and I strongly disagree with "any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention" - it's the fact that she's such a bad singer that even auto-tune can't save it that has made it such a hit. --

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Tarc]

Welcome to the wonderful world of ARSehole rule, where "but it is reliably sourced!" is the battlecry that more often than not carries the day.

[Silver seren]

First off, I can't tell if you're being serious about Bob Dylan singing that song, but that's not Bob Dylan. It's a fake.

Second off, I love how you cherry-pick from the article so that it suits your point of view. For example, you completely ignore the paragraph that says:

"Despite the overwhelmingly negative reviews, some reviewers had positive things to say about the song and video. Entertainment Weekly writer Joseph Lynch noted that there was "something sickeningly catchy about this tune that keeps you coming back for more." Rolling Stone's Perpetua stated, "When you see this video, you immediately notice everything that it does 'wrong', but it actually gets a lot of things about pop music right, if just by accident." OK! Magazine also noted that "some are calling the 13-year-old signed singer the next Justin Bieber." Pop star Chris Brown also added his view: "Honest opinion? It was great. I'll be jammin' to it on Friday, Friday." Simon Cowell praised Black, saying: "I love her [and] the fact that she's gotten so much publicity. People are so upset about the song, but I think it's hysterical...Anyone who can create this much controversy within a week, I want to meet. I love people like that." He observed that "any song to do with the weekend annoys you. It reminds me of 'Saturday Night'...It’s what we call a 'hair-dryer song,' a song girls sing into their hair dryers as they’re getting ready to go out. But the fact that it’s making people so angry is brilliant.”"

Not to mention in the Response section "Rolling Stone's Perpetua again praised Black after the interview, stating that "she is actually a pretty decent singer...she is a total sweetheart...[and] Black comes off as a well-adjusted, happy and grateful kid.""


Lastly, it was kept for the vast amount of news it had created. If the song had ended up being just a flash in the pan, it would have eventually been sent to AfD again and subsequently deleted. However, this song that is being described as "the worst song ever" has charted in multiple countries. Regardless of if people think it's bad, everyone is paying money to have it on their iPods. Black had already made $40,000 off of all of this.

[gomi]

... it was kept for the vast amount of news it had created.

I thought you morons had a policy called WP:BLP1E (T-H-L-K-D): "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.". If you and the rest of the WP lot weren't such onanistic jerks, you would have deleted this article two seconds after it was created, even by the letter of your own policies. Yeesh. The poor girl has both a Bio and a distinct article about the song. A wiki-albatross.

Addendum:Silver Seren's comment on re-creating the teen's bio:

Recreate She meets WP:MUSICBIO, that's all we need. Notability established. SilverserenC 23:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the intense interest in this is that most Wikipidiots are either right around 13 years old themselves (physically or mentally), or lust after them. One can only wonder which category Silver falls into.

[Silver seren]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

Age has nothing to do with biography articles, otherwise you would be saying we shouldn't have one on Hollie Steel, Shaheen Jafargholi, or Jackie Evancho.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[gomi]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

[Silver seren]

Did you even read what I said? Like, the MUSICBIO part and having a charted song?

[anthony]

Reminded me of Robin Sparkles:



I dunno, we've all done dumb things in our youth. And as much as it sucks that these things are now broadcast across the globe and recorded for all eternity, that's hardly Wikipedia's fault.

[gomi]

I suspect the intense interest in this is that most Wikipidiots are either right around 13 years old themselves (physically or mentally), or lust after them. One can only wonder which category Silver falls into.

Age has nothing to do with biography articles, otherwise you would be saying we shouldn't have one on Hollie Steel, Shaheen Jafargholi, or Jackie Evancho.

My point exactly. Those people shouldn't have bios either. "Age has nothing to do with ..." is the first refuge of the pedophile.

Did you even read what I said? Like, the MUSICBIO part and having a charted song?

Did you even read what I said, which is "Who gives a shit, the song is a 'flash in the pan' and she's 13"? Write her bio when she turns into Lady Gaga or Brittany Spears, and turns 21. Oh, and did I say that you're a sack of shit?

[Silver seren]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

[gomi]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

And I think you confuse the general with the specific. Are there underage persons for whom there should be biographies? Perhaps. Is a biography well-advised and encyclopedic in the cases of minor and temporary internet celebrities, pop-musicians of the moment, and other forgettables? No. No serious reference work would include them, and by arguing that they should be included, you show you have no understand of the concept of an encylopedia, but you have been brainwashed by Jimbo into believing an encylcopedia is a Big Bag O'Trivia. Repeat after me: if everything is equally important, then nothing is important.

[anthony]

I suspect the intense interest in this is that most Wikipidiots are either right around 13 years old themselves (physically or mentally), or lust after them.

What would you say it is that causes the intense interest in this among Wikipedia Reviewers?

[gomi]

What would you say it is that causes the intense interest in this among Wikipedia Reviewers?

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

[anthony]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

And I think you confuse the general with the specific. Are there underage persons for whom there should be biographies? Perhaps. Is a biography well-advised and encyclopedic in the cases of minor and temporary internet celebrities, pop-musicians of the moment, and other forgettables? No. No serious reference work would include them, and by arguing that they should be included, you show you have no understand of the concept of an encylopedia, but you have been brainwashed by Jimbo into believing an encylcopedia is a Big Bag O'Trivia. Repeat after me: if everything is equally important, then nothing is important.

As much as I disagree with most of your argument, I think you have hit on one of the problems with Wikiepdia. Yes, this story is most likely a flash-in-the-pan, minor, temporary thing. But Wikipedians aren't allowed to use their brains to draw such conclusions. As far as they're concerned, one "album that sells extremely well world-wide" is equivalent to any other "album that sells extremely well world-wide".

[Zoloft]

Well that was disgusting overall. I need to go eat a mint.

[anthony]

What would you say it is that causes the intense interest in this among Wikipedia Reviewers?

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

So don't push your daughter to be a teen pop music star. Don't refuse when the "record company" offers to take your daughter's music video down. Don't put your daughter on Jay Leno.

It's not like this girl is an unintentional public figure.

Anyway, my point is that you're being a hypocrite. If there's nothing interesting about this story, and/or if it's wrong to comment on it publicly, then this thread shouldn't, or wouldn't, exist. If it's wrong for Wikipedia to quote the assholes who made the "cut yourself" comments, then it's equally wrong to repeat that quote here.

Other than that, all you've got is the old boring argument that anything which calls itself an encyclopedia should limit itself to 100,000 articles or so.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Malleus]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

And I think you confuse the general with the specific. Are there underage persons for whom there should be biographies? Perhaps. Is a biography well-advised and encyclopedic in the cases of minor and temporary internet celebrities, pop-musicians of the moment, and other forgettables? No. No serious reference work would include them, and by arguing that they should be included, you show you have no understand of the concept of an encylopedia, but you have been brainwashed by Jimbo into believing an encylcopedia is a Big Bag O'Trivia. Repeat after me: if everything is equally important, then nothing is important.

As much as I disagree with most of your argument, I think you have hit on one of the problems with Wikiepdia. Yes, this story is most likely a flash-in-the-pan, minor, temporary thing. But Wikipedians aren't allowed to use their brains to draw such conclusions. As far as they're concerned, one "album that sells extremely well world-wide" is equivalent to any other "album that sells extremely well world-wide".

That's clearly absurd, but then if you'd taken a moment to think before posting you might have realised that yourself.

Sure, she's an averagely good-looking teenager with one of those annoyingly whiney American voices and can't sing. So what's new?

[anthony]

As much as I disagree with most of your argument, I think you have hit on one of the problems with Wikiepdia. Yes, this story is most likely a flash-in-the-pan, minor, temporary thing. But Wikipedians aren't allowed to use their brains to draw such conclusions. As far as they're concerned, one "album that sells extremely well world-wide" is equivalent to any other "album that sells extremely well world-wide".

That's clearly absurd, but then if you'd taken a moment to think before posting you might have realised that yourself.

The fact that it's absurd is the reason I brought it up. The fact that it's absurd is the reason I labelled it a "problem".

[Malleus]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

I really think that you need to consider whether you're either a competent or a capable moderator on this site asshole. I for one have had just about as much of you and Awbrey's manic idiocy as I'm prepared to tolerate. I'm sure you won't miss me though.

[Silver seren]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

I really think that you need to consider whether you're either a competent or a capable moderator on this site asshole. I for one have had just about as much of you and Awbrey's manic idiocy as I'm prepared to tolerate. I'm sure you won't miss me though.

Well, he's just as hypocritical of a leader (admin/moderator) as Jimbo is, so there's that comparison.

[Wikicrusher2]

...you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

This is the conduct that administrators on this site display to the public. Don't you think that would turn off visitors to the site, for a staff member to say this to another participant? Who, it must be noted, did not lie at all (unlike you).

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2:

[anthony]

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

As the original poster, I defend the title. It is precisely what is going on. It is a gang rape, typical to the Wikipedia, of some naive 13 year old but a mob of faceless, anonymous, insensitive morons. Some poor girl is on the ground and they are are all up there trying to gouge their "reliable source" in. The point I made regarding Dylan is that if he had released it, it would have been hailed as a classic come back.

I posted it to demonstrate the ugly, asymmetric absurdity that is Jimmy Wales's Paedo-pedia ... in particular the regular ridiculousness of the speedy delete defend team ... (and, of course, to show off my knowledge of genuinely influential Baroque musicians). If you knew anything about music, anything about culture, anything about "knowledge", you would know just how wrong the whole thing was ... and this is another of the great failings of editorial-less Wiki-wank. All the Scarlattis together score just one reference.

The Wikipedia is just an sick joke, bordering on evil for its corruption of the idea of "knowledge" and writing, so much so that they, and you Silver, cannot see it.

Perhaps the more references a topic requires, the more of a rape it is? The rapists require their justification ... sure, the 13 year old girl was asking for it for dressing that way and doing a sexy dance; so we wp:cited her good and wp:catted her on "List of YouTube personalities".

So don't push your daughter to be a teen pop music star. Don't refuse when the "record company" offers to take your daughter's music video down. Don't put your daughter on Jay Leno. It's not like this girl is an unintentional public figure.

The point being, the perfectly normal kid is not a "wannabe starlet" driven by insane parents. On my scant reading of the subject, the company involved offers a kind of "stars in their eyes" "let's be a popstar for a day" service to, primarily to nice middle class families for $2,000. It's just a bit of fun the whole family gets into. A vanity record label ... link.

Does the Wikipedia publicize vanity book publish authors ... authors of "the worst book"?

It goes on in her biography. "Rebecca Black is an American pop singer who first rose to fame with her 2011 single "Friday."" Really? Really on both accounts, i.e. a) "singer" and b) "fame"? Andy Warhol come back from the dead. 3 minutes IS all it takes to get into the Wikipedia. In the real world, she wont even make it into the Guinness Book of Records. What reality do these people exist in? What reality are they making?

How old are you Silver? (This is another problem and why real Encyclopedias usually employ adults at editors, do you have any idea how many "the worst songs ever" they have been up to this date? It is utterly meaningless beyond a hurtful, personal comment just as "making $40,000" is.

And then there Ark Music Factory dressing one's pre-teen daughter up to do Robert Palmer parodies for Zachary Freiman's bar mitzvah video. As some sage said on another discussion board, "Funded by a peadophile ring ... preying on the idiocy of American pre-teen/teen girls who have little to no musical education" (and, rather cynically, it looks like they advertize in The Jewish Observer ... because we all know they are rich enough to afford this stuff for their Zacs and Beckies).

Ark Music Factory was launched last month by Patrice Wilson and Clarence Jey ... [they] work with girls as young as nine years old (link).

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[lilburne]

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

Perhaps you have all spent so long being pseudo nice to each other on WP that you've forgotten that when this sort of online mob activity takes place, most people would be in agreement that with the description of the participant as a collective waste of skin wrapped around of core of shit.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

So...you're saying that regardless of achievements, we should never have an article on an underage person? That if they record an album that sells extremely well world-wide, we still should not have an article on them?

I think you miss the purpose of an encyclopedia.

If you are not a deliberate wind up, you are insane.

At least wait a little more than week before deciding what is "fame", "notable" or the actually event is over.

I correlate this to the topic on the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami which, despite the death toll now rising above 25,000, Becky Black and the Twitters has now displaced from the news.

There's seems to a legion of cross posters sitting on their computers racing each other to be the first to make a Wiki page. Man bites dog, 3 minutes later it is on the Wikipedia.

A generation ago, they would have been the little kids jumping up and down behind the newscaster at the scene shouting, "Look at me mom, I am on the TV".

And this is Jimmy Wales idea of "all the world's knowledge which is going to save the world?

[gomi]

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

There has been absolutely no moderation of this topic. The title is as the OP made it. If I changed it, you would complain about that.

[anthony]

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

As the original poster, I defend the title. It is precisely what is going on. It is a gang rape, typical to the Wikipedia, of some naive 13 year old but a mob of faceless, anonymous, insensitive morons.

I hope the moderators will read this ridiculous "defense" and do the right thing. Maybe change the term from "rape" to "terrorism" or "holocaust"? I'm joking about that last sentence, of course.

I also hope (but doubt) that you'll think a little bit about what an actual rape is.

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

There has been absolutely no moderation of this topic. The title is as the OP made it. If I changed it, you would complain about that.

No, if you changed it, someone else would complain about that.

Welcome to being a moderator. You have to make decisions. And whichever way you decide, you won't ever be able to please everyone.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[anthony]

So don't push your daughter to be a teen pop music star. Don't refuse when the "record company" offers to take your daughter's music video down. Don't put your daughter on Jay Leno. It's not like this girl is an unintentional public figure.

The point being, the perfectly normal kid is not a "wannabe starlet" driven by insane parents. On my scant reading of the subject, the company involved offers a kind of "stars in their eyes" "let's be a popstar for a day" service to, primarily to nice middle class families for $2,000. It's just a bit of fun the whole family gets into. A vanity record label ... link.

She went on Jay Leno. She went on Good Morning America. She didn't want ARK to take the video down. Presumably she put it up on iTunes, or at least didn't object to it staying on iTunes (I don't think iTunes would continue to sell it without her permission). If she and/or her parents didn't want the attention, they wouldn't do that. (And note that I'm not the one who called her a "'wannabe starlet' driven by insane parents".)

Some people, especially on YouTube, made some really horrible comments. The girl repeated the comments in an interview with Good Morning America, and Wikipedia reported them as part of the story. And then you reported them (the same exact comments) as part of this thread. Had the girl not repeated the comments in an interview, they almost certainly would have never been kept in Wikipedia. The girl apparently *wants* people to know that those comments were made about her. If she didn't, why go on Good Morning America and tell the world about what people said and how it made you feel?

Again, if you want to get into an argument over whether Wikipedia should have 100,000 articles or 100,000,000 articles, I'm not interested. If you want to get into an argument over whether Wikipedia should or should not report on recent events, I'm not interested, at least not in this thread. These arguments have been beaten to death, and I don't see any new aspect to them here.

I'm not interested in getting into the nature of Wikipedia. I think it's obvious that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and that it never has been, so I don't think it's appropriate to try to compare it to encyclopedias. And I think once you accept that Wikipedia is going to report on recent events, this particular event is obviously fair game. And it seems to me that you can't disagree with that, since you yourself are reporting the events which took place. You're repeating the quotes. You're repeating her name. And you didn't even post this in a non-search-engine-archived discussion forum, so far as I can tell (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that).

It goes on in her biography. "Rebecca Black is an American pop singer who first rose to fame with her 2011 single "Friday."" Really? Really on both accounts, i.e. a) "singer" and b) "fame"? Andy Warhol come back from the dead. 3 minutes IS all it takes to get into the Wikipedia. In the real world, she wont even make it into the Guinness Book of Records. What reality do these people exist in? What reality are they making?

The biography is pretty bad. I've got no dispute with that.

Probably the main reason why it's so bad is that it's a compromise. No, it's not accurate to describe her as an "American pop singer", and "rose to fame" is hyperbole. But that phrasing got added in, I'd bet dollars-to-donuts, in order to lessen the chance that the article gets deleted completely.

If it were up to me, I'd make the "biography" a ~one-liner which links to the song.

How old are you Silver? (This is another problem and why real Encyclopedias usually employ adults at editors, do you have any idea how many "the worst songs ever" they have been up to this date? It is utterly meaningless beyond a hurtful, personal comment just as "making $40,000" is.

Again the hypocrisy. If Wikipedia is wrong for quoting others who called it "the worst song ever", why aren't you wrong for quoting Wikipedia?

No, it's not at all the worst song ever. Though the lyrics are pretty damn bad. And that's not even the girl's fault. The singing - whatever - she's 13.

How old are you, Mr. up-over-conspiracy?

This post has been edited by anthony:

[thekohser]

I'm 42, but sometimes I forget -- however, in my mind, I'm never off by more than a year.

[Tarc]

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

Truth hurts, eh?

The thing is, the Wikipedia's hyper-inclusionists are a bunch of tabloid-obsessed little twats. They don't give two shits about who or what they're writing about, all that matters is that every tabloid story must...must must must must...become a Wikipedia article. "One event" guidelines become increasingly ineffective when they just gang up and bloc-vote Afds.

The project will not suffer or be damaged by the absence of coverage of flash-in-the-pan pop culture drivel like this. If you go to the Wikipedia looking for information about a teenaged auto-tuned one hit wonder, you are, seriously, a fucking moron.

[anthony]

EDIT: Oh, and hinting at Silver seren being harmful to children, with no evidence, isn't really polite behavior, so to speak.

While we're complaining about the moderators, let me add that the current title of this thread is completely inappropriate.

Truth hurts, eh?

No, comparing the writing of a Wikipedia article to rape trivializes rape.

[Silver seren]

20 in a month.


Anyways, I agree with you that articles should not be made on subjects until about a week has passed. The only exception to such would actually be the earthquake you mentioned. Major events like that should have an article immediately, since that's really the only way to have the article be comprehensive. We've all seen how, after the fact, most articles on major events never get to any point of being good because editors have to sort through the thousands of sources. Putting them in as they happen may leave the article open to wrong information that is redacted by news sources later, but at least it gets most of the general information on there that can then, if necessary, be corrected at a later point in time.

Thus, I would have agreed with you about the Friday song article up until the moment it charted. When that happened, it met the standards that are already in place, so the topic was notable enough to have an article on. And an article on a song is a lot easier to make than an article about a current historical event.

[lilburne]

When that happened, it met the standards that are already in place, so the topic was notable enough to have an article on.

You say 'standard' as if it has the same meaning that someone in the normal world would give it.

[Silver seren]

Every different system has different standards. Even the "normal world" has different standards in different places. Clearly, I meant the standards that have been established on Wikipedia.

[lilburne]

Every different system has different standards. Even the "normal world" has different standards in different places. Clearly, I meant the standards that have been established on Wikipedia.

So no standard at all.

[Sxeptomaniac]

Every different system has different standards. Even the "normal world" has different standards in different places. Clearly, I meant the standards that have been established on Wikipedia.

So no standard at all.

It's the difference between "de facto" and "de jure".

De jure, there are standards on WP. De facto, not so much, as gangs of idiots easily game them by showing up together at any important votes, especially if the only people who know about the article/votes tend to be the same idiots. Supposedly, closing admins look at arguments, but again, they rarely look at much more than the numbers in practice.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

OK, just play this to put yourself in the right mood for this post ... the Cat's Fugue.

I hope the moderators will read this ridiculous "defense" and do the right thing. Maybe change the term from "rape" to "terrorism" or "holocaust"? I'm joking about that last sentence, of course.

I also hope (but doubt) that you'll think a little bit about what an actual rape is.

Yes, of course, I am reasonably well educated. Rape, rapacious has more than one mean. What the Wikipedia is, is a rapacious horde on all levels from legal (copyright etc) to that of personal privacy.

The word also means an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; a despoliation, violation or the act of seizing and carrying off by force which is how I used it. Therefore, if you are a geezer, forget playing the politically correct card with me until you have read a dictionary or two. And you're right, the backlash is so anti-semitic ! It's a wonder the JDL hasn't unleashed its defense dogs on the topic yet.


That's another problem with the Wikipedia, because there are not entrance requirements, there is no telling who is going to walk in the door and expect a right to enter, forcibly or not, a conversation.

The difference is, she 'chose' to go on Jay Leno, probably after adult counselling (formal or not) ... and with adult consent. The fuck-o-pedia does give that right to 13 year olds.

If they want to fuck her over they will ... with 44 "reliable citations" and inches of inane commentary copy and paste from the blogosphere. No, in an "encyclopedia" she wont even get a footnote, unless she becomes notable at some point in her adult life.

And that's another problem with the dishonesty that is the Wank-o-pedia, e.g. The New York Times or Telegraph might well in itself be a "reliable source" ... but that does not mean ALL OF IT is a reliable source. Newspapers, and especially newspapers' websites, publish all sort of sub-tabloid "lifestyle" crap to compete with the blogosphere, written by blogosphere types ... but will the Wikipaedians? admit that? No. If it comes to grinding their axe or pushing their agenda down the throat of a 13 year old, they will justify it on the basis of the same level of argument as you are using.

Dismissing your moot point, please just explain why Becky Black and the Blogger Blokes carry so much more gravity, importance and require that much effort in comparison to the Scarlattis. At this pint, your type usually just retreat saying, "oh, well, you can go and edit that topic you want to ...". Why would I want to?

"Friday" is no "worst" than 10,000 other songs and a lot better than many ... including some of Bob Dylan's.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[gomi]

Major events like that should have an article immediately, since that's really the only way to have the article be comprehensive.

Again you prove yourself to be a Wikipidiot moron. You confuse Wikipedia with Wikinews, and both of them with actual news and actual encyclopedias. Encyclopedias cover settled fact, history, science, etc, not breaking news. Wikipedia is at its weakest (which is saying quite a lot) when it is most current. Oh, and did I mention that you're a sack of shit?

[EricBarbour]

Well that was disgusting overall. I need to go eat a mint.

Not feeling the Wiki-Joy? Welcome to reality.....

There's seems to a legion of cross posters sitting on their computers racing each other to be the first to make a Wiki page. Man bites dog, 3 minutes later it is on the Wikipedia.

A generation ago, they would have been the little kids jumping up and down behind the newscaster at the scene shouting, "Look at me mom, I am on the TV".

And this is Jimmy Wales idea of "all the world's knowledge which is going to save the world?

I could not put it better myself.

Miss Black is not a "celebrity" or a "singer", she is an Internet meme.
And there's already an article where she belongs, if at all. Right next
to "All Your Base", "2 girls 1 cup" and Gary Brolsma.

But then Seren doesn't seem to understand the difference between
reality and Internet memes. Typical Wikipedian?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[anthony]

Encyclopedias cover settled fact, history, science, etc, not breaking news. Wikipedia is at its weakest (which is saying quite a lot) when it is most current.

You seem to agree that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but then you go on judging it as though it is one.

Wikipedia is at its strongest when it is most current. Wikis are best at producing mediocre articles quickly, not producing masterpieces over long periods of time.

[gomi]

Wikipedia is at its strongest when it is most current. Wikis are best at producing mediocre articles quickly, not producing masterpieces over long periods of time.

Wiki technology is perhaps at its best when covering quickly-changing topics. Wikipedia is, more or less, always at its worst.

[melloden]

"Friday" is such a wonderful song. Other than being incredibly addicting prolefeed, the song features a shallow message and pedophilic faux-rapper, and showcases an utter lack of respect for English grammar.

Other than the "We so excited" and banal "Which sea can I take?" parts, my favorite lines have to be "Tomorrow is Saturday / And Sunday comes afterwards".

What an absolute smash; the official music video has nearly 46 million views on YouTube, with 74,877 likes and 634,581 dislikes as of when I'm writing this. That means 89.44% of voters disliked that video. Amazing!

This post has been edited by melloden:

[anthony]

Wikipedia is at its strongest when it is most current. Wikis are best at producing mediocre articles quickly, not producing masterpieces over long periods of time.

Wiki technology is perhaps at its best when covering quickly-changing topics. Wikipedia is, more or less, always at its worst.

I thought you said it was at its worst when it was most current?

Dismissing your moot point, please just explain why Becky Black and the Blogger Blokes carry so much more gravity, importance and require that much effort in comparison to the Scarlattis. At this pint, your type usually just retreat saying, "oh, well, you can go and edit that topic you want to ...". Why would I want to?

[Zoloft]

Might I say that video is hideously done, with many misspelled words?

For it is, it truly is.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Keeping on topic, I find this pretty amazing but Little Ran is not notable at all.

It's the difference between "de facto" and "de jure".

De jure, there are standards on WP. De facto, not so much, as gangs of idiots easily game them by showing up together at any important votes, especially if the only people who know about the article/votes tend to be the same idiots. Supposedly, closing admins look at arguments, but again, they rarely look at much more than the numbers in practice.

And it is a pretence they know what they are doing at all. Let's face it, 'Speedy Delete' is one of those dogsbody janitor jobs for less confident players.

At least it would make the game more interesting if the speedy delete function was entirely randomized rather than left to the whim of individuals.

please just explain why Becky Black and the Blogger Blokes carry so much more gravity, importance and require that much effort in comparison to the Scarlattis. At this pint, your type usually just retreat saying, "oh, well, you can go and edit that topic you want to ..."

Oh, for God's sake, just concede the point and stop flapping about in the water.

No, there is no way in an "encyclopedia" Rebecca Black would outclass any one of the Scarlattis. I just noticed one of the "reliable sources" is from somewhere called "The Daily Beast". I mean, why not change the rules and call citations "Just Anywhere Else on the Internet".

After if the entire notoriety of the piece is on the basis of it being "the worst song" that is plainly not true. I'll spare you potential alternatives but meanwhile, Rebecca proves she can sing pop ...

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Tarc]

Wikipedia is at its strongest when it is most current.

Indeed, you are a moron.

[anthony]

After if the entire notoriety of the piece is on the basis of it being "the worst song" that is plainly not true. I'll spare you potential alternatives but meanwhile, Rebecca proves she can sing pop ...

The worst part of the song is by far the lyrics. However, after listening to the Bob Dylan version, I've come to the conclusion that it's not *just* the lyrics. The Bob Dylan version is almost good.

In any case, once again you come out with a strawman. The notoriety of the piece is *not* based on it being "the worst song".

[anthony]

Indeed, you are a moron.

[Tarc]

Indeed, you are a moron.

I can play the "here's a link to express my opinion" game too, fuckwit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/grammar-nazi.jpg)

[Silver seren]

After if the entire notoriety of the piece is on the basis of it being "the worst song" that is plainly not true. I'll spare you potential alternatives but meanwhile, Rebecca proves she can sing pop ...

The worst part of the song is by far the lyrics. However, after listening to the Bob Dylan version, I've come to the conclusion that it's not *just* the lyrics. The Bob Dylan version is almost good.

In any case, once again you come out with a strawman. The notoriety of the piece is *not* based on it being "the worst song".

It's not a Bob Dylan version, that's a hoax. Bob Dylan has never sung the song! Gah!

[Detective]

It's not a Bob Dylan version, that's a hoax. Bob Dylan has never sung the song! Gah!

How do you know, argentiferous one? Maybe he sings it in the shower every morning.

[Peter Damian]

The worst part of the song is by far the lyrics.

Did she get these from Wikipedia?

Friday (pronounced /ˈfraɪdeɪ, ˈfraɪdi/ ( listen)) is the day between Thursday and Saturday, and is the last day of the school or work week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday

Note the 'citation needed' tag.

[anthony]

Indeed, you are a moron.

I can play the "here's a link to express my opinion" game too, fuckwit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Actually I meant that as a nonsequitur. Otherwise I would have used an age-appropriate retort to your erudite argument like

[anthony]

The Bob Dylan version is almost good.

It's not a Bob Dylan version, that's a hoax.

What's a hoax? The Bob Dylan version? I'd say "satire" is a more appropriate description than "hoax".

[Zoloft]

After a careful reading, I've decided it's a good thing I'm not a mod here. I would make GBG look like a saint based on what I would do to recent topics.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

In any case, once again you come out with a strawman. The notoriety of the piece is *not* based on it being "the worst song".

What on earth are you talking about ...? You are trying to play the point scoring game at a level you have no idea what you are talking about. How can I be making a straw man argument if I am not misrepresentation your position.

I asked you as an wikipaedo apologist to justify, in terms of importance, all the time, effort and garbage citations put into the "Friday, Friday, Gotta get down on Friday" topic, in comparison to the topics on the Scarlatti dynasty.

You cannot ... can you? And you cannot admit it ... either, can you?

The Wikipedia is increasingly shit about shit and they can no longer have any control over the flood gates.

I mean, look at the first half a dozen versions of that topic.

[Silver seren]

How about the fact that it has now charted in four different countries?

[lilburne]

How about the fact that it has now charted in four different countries?

So did The Laughing Gnome

[anthony]

There has been absolutely no moderation of this topic.

And that's the problem. I think we need a "words taken down" rule in WR.



Until then the only answer I can give to the latest questions by "Cock-up-over-conspiracy" is "Mu".

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

How about the fact that it has now charted in four different countries?

Charted in what? I am sorry, I have no idea what value commercial pop chart have these days. In my days, anything that made it into the charts was pretty much guaranteed to be shit. Bear in mind, it certainly had not when it was first written. What you are saying then is that the wikipaedia is really just popularist entertainment.

Personally, I am not against a topic as long as it is respectful of the individual given their age etc, and as modest as the contribution to civilization she and it is making. My point has always been about the imbalance between it and something that is of importance.

Perhaps in 20 years we will be able to look back and realise that Rebecca Black was the Johnny Rotten of her generation and Clarence Jey and Patrice Wilson her Malcolm Mclaren and Vivienne Westwood. I don't think so but I have been wrong before. Not as it happens. Surely, she is just one line in a topic about flash in the pan Web 2.0 notoriety?

I fully demand a page on Baby Laughing Hysterically at Ripping Paper (Original) ... 13,000,000 view on Youtube ...!!! It is the new internet sensation!!!

Surely that is notable, I have reliable citations about it too! What makes the rules differ in two such cases ... am I suppose to like them young but not that young?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[melloden]

I fully expect a page on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4abiHdQpc]Baby Laughing Hysterically at Ripping Paper (Original)[/url] ... 13,000,000 view on Youtube ...!!! It is the new internet sensation!!!

Surely that is notable? What makes the rules differ in two such cases? I have reliable citations about it.

It only has 13 million views and no parodies. Rebecca Black has about 50 million views and nearly as many parodies.

I think parodies is the answer. The "Bed Intruder Song" was a parody off that ridiculous interview about a rape attempt last year. And that has an article.

[anthony]

I fully expect a page on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4abiHdQpc]Baby Laughing Hysterically at Ripping Paper (Original)[/url] ... 13,000,000 view on Youtube ...!!! It is the new internet sensation!!!

Surely that is notable? What makes the rules differ in two such cases? I have reliable citations about it.

It only has 13 million views and no parodies. Rebecca Black has about 50 million views and nearly as many parodies.

I think parodies is the answer.

I'm not convinced it's a valid question. Are there rules against having an article about hysterically laughing baby?

EDIT: How about 169 million views?



EDIT 2: Ah, there is an article on that one. What say you about that, Mr. up-over-conspiracy?

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Rebecca Black has about 50 million views and nearly as many parodies.

I think parodies is the answer.

13 million views and no parodies ... yet. I predict a spate of parents uploading their Laughing Gnomes.

David Bowie, the Man Who Tried to Sell Out to the World ...

Parodies ... so is there a benchmark of how many parodies a ditty requires to become notable enough? I must admit, I am starting to accept "going viral on Youtube" probably is this generations' punk moment.

Moderated ... Until then the only answer I can give to the latest questions by "Cock-up-over-conspiracy" is "Mu".

The last person to do that was Garrett Fitzgerald, aka SarekofVulcan. Are you related? You wont get it because your standards fall short of those required by this forum. You got a well reasoned answer and you are ignoring it.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[anthony]

Rebecca Black has about 50 million views and nearly as many parodies.

I think parodies is the answer.

13 million views and no parodies ... yet.

I think "melloden" might be on to something. Laughing Baby has a parody, and an article.

EDIT: And haters. One commenter said he wanted to see the baby laughing "while engulfed in flames". Another said "Retarded human infant!!! I will destroy you all!!!!" (1). I guess when the baby goes on Good Morning America and tells Katie Couric that these YouTube comments made him cry, Wikipedia will repeat the quotes in the article, and Mr. up-over-conspiracy will compare writing the Wikipedia article to committing a violent felony.

I just have to say that if the entire notoriety of Laughing Baby is on the basis of it being "the funniest home movie ever" that is plainly not true. Wikipedia needs to delete the article on Laughing Baby until there are at least 20 articles about Hannah Arendt.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Peter Damian]

How about the fact that it has now charted in four different countries?

Sometimes the appearance of stupidity is so great that it becomes the appearance of malice. Are you an ingenious hoaxster, sir?

[lilburne]

David Bowie, the Man Who Tried to Sell Out to the World ...

Back in 1990 he did a tour where he promised to perform the song that got the most votes, one of the music papers ran a "Vote for a Gnome" campaign.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I just have to say that if the entire notoriety of Laughing Baby is on the basis of it being "the funniest home movie ever" that is plainly not true. Wikipedia needs to delete the article on Laughing Baby until there are at least 20 articles about Hannah Arendt.

It is a shame you are taking the piss because for once I agree with you. Thank you for confirming yet again what a pile of fermenting ordure Jimbo's carbuncle is.

I guess when the baby goes on Good Morning America and tells Katie Couric that these YouTube comments made him cry, Wikipedia will repeat the quotes in the article, and Mr. up-over-conspiracy will compare writing the Wikipedia article to committing a violent felony.

Now, this is typical Wiki-moron behaviour ...

You attempted to make an issue. I answered it and you lost the point.

The word has more than one meaning and I used it accurately, if a little archaically. You probably don't know this but, generally, the archaic use of a word in English denotes a greater formality, seriousness or importance to the proposition it is being used within.

Yes, I too think they really should rename brassica napus because the use of the word must obviously bring back trauma memories to victims of the crime ... but then we are stuck with because in Latin rapa is the word for a turnip.

Ditto other accurate uses, as I used it.

The most frustrating part of "open door" online communities like the Wikipedia is that, unlike real life, it is not possible to quickly gauge what level or moronity other "colleagues" are ... or if they are even sober as they "work".

[anthony]

You attempted to make an issue. I answered it and you lost the point.

Just because you make a comment and I don't respond to it, that doesn't mean I agree with you. In fact, in your case the times I didn't respond were generally because your comment was either incoherent or contained a personal attack.

The word has more than one meaning and I used it accurately, if a little archaically.

Even if the word rape did have a meaning of "write an article about" (which it doesn't), it's quite obvious that's not the meaning you were referring to in the topic of this post.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Zoloft]

Well, she's for the ages now.
People Magazine

I hadn't heard of her until this topic at WR.

Not really my genre.

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[Silver seren]

I don't think pop music is really a genre for any of us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[melloden]

I don't think pop music is really a genre for any of us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

I love pop music. It produces marvelous children, such as dear Miss Black (she's apparently quite smart, too, despite not knowing why people hate her), as well as her own role model, Mr. Justin Bieber.

I credit Mr. Bieber with having excellent views on just about every aspect of life:

I don't think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them. I think you should just wait for the person you're ... in love with.

...

"You guys [Americans] are evil. Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home.

...

"I'm not sure about the [political] parties. But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad.

...

I really don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby. ... [Re. pregnancy from rape] Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that.

...

I don't agree with war either, necessarily. I think everyone should just get along. I don't understand why people attack. What's the point of killing people - power? If no one cared about power, then no one would have wars. Canada doesn't go around attacking people.

As is quite clear from the above, Mr. Bieber is only the latest (well, second-latest due to Miss Black's recent appearance) in a long line of brilliant cultural icons that have emerged through the pop music scene.

[thekohser]

As is quite clear from the above, Mr. Bieber is only the latest (well, second-latest due to Miss Black's recent appearance) in a long line of brilliant cultural icons that have emerged through the pop music scene.

It sounds like we could blame Canada for these vapid icons, but there's certainly no musical tribute to the notion of "blaming Canada", is there?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[gomi]

... there's certainly no musical tribute to the notion of "blaming Canada", is there?

O, Canada?

[Somey]

It sounds like we could blame Canada for these vapid icons, but there's certainly no musical tribute to the notion of "blaming Canada", is there? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I assume you're kidding, but just in case (and just for the record):

[Silver seren]

Friday has now charted in five different countries (twice in the US on two Billboard charts, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia). Black has also signed a record deal with the help of Simon Cowell.

In other news, Youtube users voted Friday as the most hated song on Youtube, surpassing Bieber's Baby by a large margin. Of course, Bieber still wins in quantity, with five of his songs in the top ten most hated on Youtube.

[Zoloft]

I don't think pop music is really a genre for any of us. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

My preferred style of pop is typified by Norah Jones. She can handle the fame gig, though.

[MZMcBride]

I'm not sure why anthony is being ignored. The title of this thread is completely inappropriate and should be changed.

[carbuncle]

I'm not sure why anthony is being ignored. The title of this thread is completely inappropriate and should be changed.

Ordinarily I would agree about the misuse of the word rape, but in this particular case I am taking "Web 2.0" as a modifier of both "rape" and "virgin". If it was a "Web 2.0 assassination" I wouldn't expect that necessarily meant anyone had literally been killed.

[Zoloft]

I'm not sure why anthony is being ignored. The title of this thread is completely inappropriate and should be changed.

Ordinarily I would agree about the misuse of the word rape, but in this particular case I am taking "Web 2.0" as a modifier of both "rape" and "virgin". If it was a "Web 2.0 assassination" I wouldn't expect that necessarily meant anyone had literally been killed.

I personally stopped using the word 'rape' in snarky wordplay after I talked with a few people who had been raped.

[gomi]

I'm not sure why anthony is being ignored. The title of this thread is completely inappropriate and should be changed.

Despite being an active participant in the discussion, I used my awesome mod-powers to change the title. Flame away.

[thekohser]

Despite being an active participant in the discussion, I used my awesome mod-powers to change the title. Flame away.

Gomi, this was your best action of the week, perhaps the month. Bravo!

[A Horse With No Name]

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

Oh, I don't know -- if you had an 18-year-old daughter, who would you rather see her dating: Silver Seren or Lar? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[lilburne]

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

Oh, I don't know -- if you had an 18-year-old daughter, who would you rather see her dating: Silver Seren or Lar? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Which is more likely to have a collection of these or something like them?

[Silver seren]

Some of us are the fathers of daughters, and cringe at the thought of our children being subject to the tender mercies of the likes of Silver Seren.

Oh, I don't know -- if you had an 18-year-old daughter, who would you rather see her dating: Silver Seren or Lar? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Why would I ever date a girl? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Somey]

Why would I ever date a girl? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Because it might give you a fresh sense of perspective on human interaction in general, and show you the value of normative behavior within a real-world social context? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

They also smell better, don't forget that.

[Silver seren]

Wow, i've never seen a religious argument given with such big words. Props to that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I do know that I don't want to involved in any way with female emotions, they certainly destroy interaction than help formulate it. I've had enough friends who were girls to see that.

And I think "smelling better" is a rather subjective term. Flowery scents make me feel sick, as does perfume.

Though I already have a boyfriend anyways, so it's rather moot.

[Zoloft]

I guess WR is hopelessly heteronormative now?

BTW, had not encountered 'heteronormative' before this year.

So are we done arguing about Black and 'Friday' now?

[Silver seren]

Miley Cyrus has decided that she dislikes Black. At the same moment, she decided that she dislikes the Internet.

[RMHED]

Miley Cyrus has decided that she dislikes Black. At the same moment, she decided that she dislikes the Internet.

Miley Cyrus - never heard of her.

All rather seems like some no talent nobody criticising some other no talent nobody.

That's showbiz for ya!

[A Horse With No Name]

Why would I ever date a girl? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

'Cause chicks love bad boys! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Which is more likely to have a collection of these or something like them?

Well, let's just say that I am flattered that this manufacturer thought of me in creating these products. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Silver seren]

I think this flatters you more. And, look, they even made a replica of your mare.

[melloden]

I think this flatters you more. And, look, they even made a replica of your mare.

Are most furries zoophiles? And do the males tend to have an aversion to females?

By the way, Silver, you really need to post a pic of yourself in a furry suit.

[Jon Awbrey]

The World of the Thirteen Year Old … and the Thirteen Year Old At Heart

I think that pretty much sums up everything we need to know about Wikipedia.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Well, except for the Two Year Olds …

[Somey]

Anyway, back to the issue at hand...

One of the problems with these situations is that there seems to be very little right or wrong involved when the victim is also both the perpetrator and the beneficiary. I believe some folks (on WP and elsewhere) refer to this as "being Plaxico'd," but obviously this isn't anything like the Plaxico Burress incident. Rebecca Black hasn't been arrested, nor has she seriously injured herself, at least not physically. She probably wanted to be an instant throwaway-pop star, and she seems to have achieved that. It's possible that the negative reactions from music fans will scar her psychologically, but personally I doubt it. Of course, she may never be able to achieve true privacy ever again for her entire life, but that's only a tragedy if she ultimately fails at being a pop star.

So, while I don't feel sorry for Rebecca Black, we still have to be realistic about what's really happening here. People have made Ms. Black the 13-year-old girl everyone loves to hate, for the moment at least. In effect, she now represents nearly every negative thing that 17-year-old boys think about the aesthetic sensibilities of 13-year-old-girls. This has happened before, with Britney Spears, Mandy Moore, Tiffany, Debbie Gibson... all the way back to Leslie "It's My Party" Gore and Annette Funicello. (Interestingly, they didn't seem to have so many teenage-girl pop stars in the 1970's - just teenage (or younger!) boys, like Donny Osmond and Michael Jackson. Then again, I guess there was always Marie Osmond...)

Meanwhile, the Shaggs were formed in 1968, and they were genuinely terrible:



But fans will recall that Frank Zappa loved the Shaggs, just as Simon Cowell (far less talented than Zappa, of course) seems to love Rebecca Black. It probably wasn't the Shaggs' music itself that impressed Zappa, it was what it represented. Except that when the Shaggs made Philosophy of the World, it was still pretty hard to make a record - you couldn't do it without money, and you definitely couldn't do it without leaving your bedroom. These days, it's much, much easier - you don't have to play instruments, go into a studio, or even bother with physical product. A lot of people are probably bothered by that, at least when someone actually succeeds under those circumstances.

So, all of this - the "viral video," the "meme," and now the Wikipedia article - is ultimately just a form of sour grapes, almost a kind of revenge if you will. It's part of the ongoing erosion of musical (and probably other forms of artistic) professionalism, enabled by cheap, easy-to-use technology and crowdsourced media. I doubt all that many people are happy about this, but it continues nevertheless.

[Silver seren]

I think this flatters you more. And, look, they even made a replica of your mare.

Are most furries zoophiles? And do the males tend to have an aversion to females?

By the way, Silver, you really need to post a pic of yourself in a furry suit.

1. No, only 1-2% are. And I don't believe using a dildo makes you a zoophile, there's a significant difference.

2. Depends. 25% of the fandom is gay. 35% is bi. Another 35% is straight. And the other five percent is, obviously, lesbian. And probably give a floating 1 % out there for other sexualities, I suppose. At least, that was what the last survey came up with.

3. I don't have a fursuit, nor will I ever own one.



@Somey: I suppose it all depends on how Black's next single, "LOL", goes. If it does well, actually well, without all of the negativity that Friday got, things will be different. Of course, it will most likely get more negativity, but still be ridiculously popular anyways.

[Somey]

@Somey: I suppose it all depends on how Black's next single, "LOL", goes. If it does well, actually well, without all of the negativity that Friday got, things will be different.

That's not the point, is it? It's all well and good if she eventually manages to legitimize herself as a singer/musician, but the fact remains that Wikipedia initially responded to her as a meme, not as a musician - thereby contributing to the trend towards a meme-based celebrity culture in general, just as any supermarket tabloid would, and with a 13-year-old girl no less.

There's a fair argument to be made that pre-internet wannabe teen-pop starlets were roasted 'n' toasted in the media too, of course, I'm not going to dispute that. Maybe there's no real difference between the star-making machinery of 1985 and the Youtube viral-video machinery of 2011, and maybe all this amounts to little more than another example of the "tabloid encyclopedia syndrome." I'm not even sure I object to it all that much, at least by comparison... I will say, though, that on the whole, anonymous blog and Youtube commenters (as well as WP editors) are much crueler and more insulting to their subjects than tabloid journalists ever were. In some ways that may actually be good, but in this case, despite how terrible the song is, I'd have to say more tact and discretion would clearly have been preferable.

[Silver seren]

No, we responded to a charted song. Remember, her BLP wasn't made until about two or three days ago. The song article itself was originally made and kept because it charted, which is what is needed for a song to have its own article.

[lilburne]

No, we responded to a charted song.

You are documenting ephemera and calling it encyclopaedic! How does that work? I can only guess that when the dweebs, and nerds, use the word it is being used in much the same way as 'wicked' was used a few years back. It is what Fowler would have described as Slipshod extension if your actions continue we'll find that 'Encyclopaedia' will become listed amongst the worsened word along with 'collaborator' which wikipedians seem so fond of referring to.

Remember, her BLP wasn't made until about two or three days ago. The song article itself was originally made and kept because it charted, which is what is needed for a song to have its own article.

And yet now there is this BLP of a 13 yo, who for all we know will be forgotten in 6 months time, yet whose BLP will have to be maintained for years to come, well after you and every one else that voted for it have lost interest.

[Silver seren]

Well, i'm sorry if the fact that charted songs become eligible for articles and charting singers also do is an issue with you. Of course, if these weren't how song articles and singers work, we'd lose a lot of singers that i'm sure you like, since they only had one hit.

Edit: Essentially, every one hit wonder would not longer have an article and, well, you seem to feel like no song should have an article. And since you feel that one hit wonders shouldn't, I guess we just won't cover them whatsoever. One of the primary examples would be Kung Fu Fighting (T-H-L-K-D).

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[Casliber]

...the article is about the song, not a person, so it has nothing to do with BLP1E. As for the page about her specifically, she meets the requirements of MUSICBIO by having a charted song. Otherwise she would have been deleted, yes.

You voted Recreate on her personal biography you lying sack of shit. Try to keep things straight.

I really think that you need to consider whether you're either a competent or a capable moderator on this site asshole. I for one have had just about as much of you and Awbrey's manic idiocy as I'm prepared to tolerate. I'm sure you won't miss me though.

Malleus what happened to Brit spelling??? The word is "arsehole" as any good citizen knows...or was that intentional to distance yourself from Tarc's witty play on words previously? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[thekohser]

Edit: Essentially, every one hit wonder would not longer have an article and, well, you seem to feel like no song should have an article. And since you feel that one hit wonders shouldn't, I guess we just won't cover them whatsoever. One of the primary examples would be Kung Fu Fighting (T-H-L-K-D).

Carl Douglas now runs SMV, though, so that's different.

Anyway, I notice that Richard Heene doesn't get his own BLP, but Rebecca Black does? Why is that?

[lilburne]

Well, i'm sorry if the fact that charted songs become eligible for articles and charting singers also do is an issue with you. Of course, if these weren't how song articles and singers work, we'd lose a lot of singers that i'm sure you like, since they only had one hit.

Edit: Essentially, every one hit wonder would not longer have an article and, well, you seem to feel like no song should have an article. And since you feel that one hit wonders shouldn't, I guess we just won't cover them whatsoever. One of the primary examples would be Kung Fu Fighting (T-H-L-K-D).

That is a silly argument. There are one hit wonders, and one hit wonders. Countless stuff gets into the top 40 (remind me just how many top 40s are there nowadays), and some although a 1 hit wonder, has for whatever reason lasting appeal, and get repeated air play. Most of it however is just awful, and if it does get repeat play, its on cheap TV shows based on the top 100 one hit wonders (#86). Here is a one hit wonder band which probably every one UK will have heard of Middle of the Road (band) just how much of that is not complete bullshit? The singer has a BLP which seems to be mostly sourced from a Scottish tabloid well known for making shit up and stealing images from flickr accounts.

Now that song Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep is, according its article page, one of the top singles of all time. It like KFF has endured, let us know about this Black one in 30 years time.

[gomi]

Remember, her BLP wasn't made until about two or three days ago.

Her bio was created on March 13. You voted "Recreate" on her bio on March 20. Did I mention that you are a lying sack of shit?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Did I mention that you are a lying sack of shit?

Funnily enough, I noticed that too. It is a skill one is given every opportunity to hone to a fine art on the Wikipedia. Even to the art of developing successful multi-personality complexes.

Let's frame this in another part of our modern reality. Thanks to genius of Larry and Serge, of all the accounts of her existence, the Wikipedia topics on Ms Black are also going to remain at the top of Google search for the rest of her life, however long it might be, which is why I consciously re-iterate the 'Internet Rape' element. Whackopedia is going to remain the scar that is picked at for all her time. Ms Black enters the Holiest of Wikipedia Holes, alongside founder Jimmy Wales, of the "nothing-wrong-with-an-online-biography-of-everyone-ness". A persistent reminded whatever she choses to go and do or be in other life.

A tortuous BLP of a 13 year old. Yes, I think it is wrong.

Does "child success" really benefit the development of its chosen few? Call it the 'Michael Jackson Syndrome', I don't think on balance it has ... and that was before it was chained to the rocs of the Web 2.0. Is "celebrity" - especially for little talent - really the best someone can aspire to? It's a curse that is going to haunt her. Famous for being hated so much on the school playground of Twitter.

I am reminded of Lena Zavaroni. Fame as a child performer. Died, living off social welfare, following a lobotomy in a final attempt to beat anorexia aged of 35.

A ten year packed off the big city to sing "Mama, he's making eyes at me ... mama, he wants to marry me" for the accountant sleazebags in the music business.

Do I know personally any sex crime victims? Of course. More than one. That is ground I have covered here whilst we help raise to public attention the pedophile element of the Wikipedia. Men, if they were to ask, might be genuinely surprised how common it is and how normal and anonymous its perpetrators are. Most men probably know one perpetrators.

I also know women seriously raped by the music industry. There is no way back for Rebecca now, so I wish her well. Thankfully, women in the industry are slightly better protected than they were in the past.

It strikes me that in sex crimes, pedophilia and the music business, one common pattern is the enjoyment of or addiction to abuse of power over others, and to that the Wikipedia is again conjoined. It is part of its appeal to a certain percentage of its incapable, insensitive and unqualified participants whose voices and opinions would otherwise be impotent ... the power to artlessly goad, pierce and humiliate individuals from the top of Google.

Before ...

I tried to find an "after" but the best I could come up with was, this. Yes, "Anorexica ... Saves on the restaurant bills", doesn't it? Frank Bough the 78 year old family entertainer whose 'two reference' Wikipedia topic sums his contribution to society down to the cocaine, wearing women's lingerie at sex parties and visits to an S&M prostitute.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Oh, then enter the paparazzi and the tabloid media picking over her every mood.

Just what any self-conscious teenage girl needs, to be hounded by a gang of grimy adult males with long telephoto lenses ... and "david, from north bergen, usa" (all lower case), telling the world, "she"s pretty. does she want to shag?" 29/3/2011

Again, let's remember, this is a 13 year old child that Jimmy Wales horde is defining at the top of Google.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[lilburne]

Frank Bough the 78 year old family entertainer whose 'two reference' Wikipedia topic sums his contribution to society down to the cocaine, wearing women's lingerie at sex parties and visits to an S&M prostitute.

Ah wikipedia. A few decades back they'd have been lining up outside the offices of the Stasi to file their reports, or waving little red books and denouncing the degenerates. A other places they'd have been twitching the net curtains, gossiping over the garden fence and spreading rumours in the pub. A few centuries further back they'd have been grassing up the neighbours to the church authorities.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Frank Bough the 78 year old family entertainer whose 'two reference' Wikipedia topic sums his contribution to society down to the cocaine, wearing women's lingerie at sex parties and visits to an S&M prostitute.

Ah wikipedia. A few decades back they'd have been lining up outside the offices of the Stasi to file their reports, or waving little red books and denouncing the degenerates. A other places they'd have been twitching the net curtains, gossiping over the garden fence and spreading rumours in the pub. A few centuries further back they'd have been grassing up the neighbours to the church authorities.

But the case of Wikipedia proves that the digital age has streamlined and improved our culture. You can do it all from the convenience of your mom's basement.

[milowent]

rebecca black is part of history now. the news coverage has been massive and sustained for weeks, she won't disappear from pop culture memory.

of course its all absurd, and we can all cry about it if we wish, but its not like people didn't focus on equally ridiculous stuff 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. they did.

e.g., take Jacob Hyer, who fought one messy boxing match in 1816 against an English sailor he had a grudge against. His arm got broken and the match had to be stopped. Over time, however, American culture elevated him to the title of "The Father of The American Ring," and the "First" American boxing champion, though he only had the one fight. It wasn't the first american bout (as became the lore), and he certainly wasn't a "professional" boxer (though he was inducted into the Boxing Hall of Fame in 1969). nothing about jacob hyer and boxing was remarkable (though his son was a legitimate boxing champ).

19th century american pop culture decided jacob hyer should be remarkable; he touched a chord somehow. and thus he became notable. its the same thing with rebecca black.

[taiwopanfob]

rebecca black is part of history now. the news coverage has been massive and sustained for weeks, she won't disappear from pop culture memory.

Yes, the WickedPedia version of the Nuremberg Defense: just following the sources! Makes about as much logical and ethical sense too!

[milowent]

rebecca black is part of history now. the news coverage has been massive and sustained for weeks, she won't disappear from pop culture memory.

Yes, the WickedPedia version of the Nuremberg Defense: just following the sources! Makes about as much logical and ethical sense too!

thanks, godwin. my greater point is that wikipedia reflects human nature to record frivolity like this. its not a recent phenomenon, herodotus recorded many stories of people who did dumb things and were remembered, and that was 2500 years ago. what is absurd is to assume that human nature changed because the internet was invented.

[lilburne]

rebecca black is part of history now. the news coverage has been massive and sustained for weeks, she won't disappear from pop culture memory.

Yes, the WickedPedia version of the Nuremberg Defense: just following the sources! Makes about as much logical and ethical sense too!

thanks, godwin. my greater point is that wikipedia reflects human nature to record frivolity like this. its not a recent phenomenon, herodotus recorded many stories of people who did dumb things and were remembered, and that was 2500 years ago. what is absurd is to assume that human nature changed because the internet was invented.

Isn't that the point that is being made here. That wikipedia, when it comes to BLPs is nothing more than a scandal sheet, that the participants in the game are no more than slimy pieces of garbage. As for your boxer example, the story grew in public myth, until such time that he became generally famous, though undeservedly. The process took place over several years, whereas for people like Black and wikipedia process takes a couple of days like "OMZ ZE HOLE WEEKENDZ". Now having made the page you'll all have to maintain it. But it six months time when she's mostly forgotten the shitbags on wikipedia will have moved on to some other instant hate target.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

wikipedia reflects human nature ... what is absurd is to assume that human nature changed because the internet was invented.

But in the old days, their reach was only over the garden fence and it was all quickly forgetful. The chances not to be recalled instantly, forever at the top of Google, in all its dumbed down glory (and it's going to get dumber and uglier).

lilburne, I like your Stasi, Church Authorities analogy ...

There will be a limit to how many Rebeccas Web 2.0 can create as there are as the novelty of will wear off quickly. In the real world, she might be reduced to a single line reference. What is going to happen to her?

13, 14, 15 ... is she and her family now doomed now to have every detail of her life documented by the mob? I suppose as the number of free laborers finally declines they will have to start locked such articles up to remain as is to save them from the vandals.

AS Jimmy said, what's wrong with having a biography anyone can edit for everyone?

[lilburne]

rebecca black is part of history now. the news coverage has been massive and sustained for weeks, she won't disappear from pop culture memory.

Yes, the WickedPedia version of the Nuremberg Defense: just following the sources! Makes about as much logical and ethical sense too!

thanks, godwin. my greater point is that wikipedia reflects human nature to record frivolity like this. its not a recent phenomenon, herodotus recorded many stories of people who did dumb things and were remembered, and that was 2500 years ago. what is absurd is to assume that human nature changed because the internet was invented.

A way with your godwin. People that do things in an unquestioning, mindless, or mean spirited way, should be called on out on it. I wonder if in 30 years time those that are engaged in the WP game are going to be bragging to there kids about how they anonymously added anonymous quotes like "I hope you go cut [yourself] and die" or "'I hope you cut yourself, and I hope you'll get an eating disorder so you'll look pretty" to a biog of a 13 yo. How they ensured that such a biog was written, retrieved from the bozo bin, and all in the name of increasing the sum of human knowledge.


It may be that the last 100 years in western society was the only time that people could retain a degree of privacy about their lives, that every little miss step wasn't gratuitously recorded for all prosperty.

Oh and BTW appealing that there were other gossipy cunts in history does you no favours. Its rather like whining to the cop that there are others pissing in doorways too.

[gomi]

Stick a fork in her ass, she's done.

For future reference: (Funny or Die)

[Silver seren]

I'm just going to sit and wait until her next single is released and she gets even more infamous. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[thekohser]

Set your Outlook calendars for 2016 and the "Rebecca Black centerfold" edition of Playboy.

[lilburne]

Set your Outlook calendars for 2016 and the "Rebecca Black centerfold" edition of Playboy.

Is that legal?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I wonder if in 30 years time those that are engaged in the WP game are going to be bragging to there kids about how they anonymously added anonymous quotes like "I hope you go cut [yourself] and die" or "'I hope you cut yourself, and I hope you'll get an eating disorder so you'll look pretty" to a biog of a 13 yo.

Look Ma, there's me on the Wikipedia!!!

Is that legal?

I go for the eating disorders, self harm then substance abuse rehab and conversion to Catholicism by the age of 25 followed by a decline into obesity and being wheeled out every 10 years to comment on some "Those where the Web 2.0s" type documentary. A sort of Linda Lovelace for the 2020s.

The ARK guys must be amazed at their luck over this. It even comes up tops in a Google search just for the word "Friday" and I wonder how long that will last. Why bother trying harder ... she ought just to do a song for every day of the week.

A "Fortune Tellers' Wiki" would be much more interesting.

It's just a pity that they did not record the song properly, or someone else rush out a proper remix of it for the market. God, they must regret that canned cheer by now. They did do their own a remix and it came out even worse which proves beyond doubt it was luck rather than genius.

Anyone else remember the KLF's "HOW TO HAVE A NUMBER ONE – THE EASY WAY" ... good God, it even has its own wiki page. How uncool.

The basic process that they outline in the book is as follows :
1. Listen to as much top 40 music as you can, and as much up coming dance music as you can
2. Hire a studio, an engineer and a programmer
3. Loan $20,000 from the bank, tell them that you are a small business owner starting a label
4. Pick some grooves (drum and bass riffs) from the albums, give them to the engineer and programmer, say you want to have something just like that
5. Manage the engineer and programmer through the creation of the track, if they are any good they will take the component parts and mash them together.
6. No matter how cheesy, gimmicky or hook laden the Frankenstein beast you create, just go with it. Push through it and go there.
7. Professionally master the finished product

[Tarc]

Set your Outlook calendars for 2016 and the "Rebecca Black centerfold" edition of Playboy.

Is that legal?

We had a "Countdown Until I Could Legally Fuck Britney Spears" calendar in my old radio station back in the day.

Just sayin.

[A Horse With No Name]

Set your Outlook calendars for 2016 and the "Rebecca Black centerfold" edition of Playboy.

Is that legal?

We had a "Countdown Until I Could Legally Fuck Britney Spears" calendar in my old radio station back in the day.

Just sayin.

Okay, I'll set my alarm for 2016 for Ms. Black's coming of age party -- I'm sure that she'll love a horse for her 18th birthday! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)