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.