This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Noticed that this article is heavy on material related to Cracked magazine. Since Cracked.com and Cracked magazine are two distinct entities, I'm going to shorten the material pre-2006 (Cracked.com's launch), provide a "See also" link to Cracked magazine, and expand the content related to Cracked.com. Silentriver1019 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks pretty good now, I'm removing the neutrality tag. EggCentric 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I know there was a recent discussion about this matter, but I was wondering: should Cracked.com be considered a reliable source? If so, should we remove it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Huh? "Remove it" from where? And why would we want to remove anything if it is "considered a reliable source"? Sorry, but I really don't understand the question, and how it relates to this article... 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am questioning the reliability of Cracked.com as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks. You confused me by saying "if so, should we remove it?".
Nevertheless, isn't this page for discussing improvements to this article itself? You might know better than I, but I thought questions like this were discussed at WP:RSN rather than on the article talk page of the "source" in question? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Adding - ah, I found the discussion you were talking about, I think: here. Is that the one you meant? Do you disagree with the outcome? I suppose not many people commented there, but it seems like a reasonable discussion with some knowledgeable users input to me - nobody except the guy proposing it seemed to think it was RS, and I have to say I agree with the outcome. It doesn't seem like the sort of site I'd view as an RS for Wikipedia at all. That, of course is a totally separate issue to this article about the website, which seems an ok short article, although all articles can obviously be improved.
I haven't looked specifically at the references on this article, but in general, if the article is otherwise well sourced and notable I think it might probably be ok to use it as a primary source in an article about itself, to support additional information. I'm not an expert though, and I confess to still being a little confused about what it is we maybe should remove, and from where. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The scope of this RfC is not clear: Are you asking if cracked.com is a reliable source for this article cracked.com? Or are you asking if it is a reliable source in general, for other WP articles? If you are asking about this article specifically, the answer is no, it should not be used except for basic facts about the company (size, number of employees, etc). Other sources, secondary sources, are better for everything else. I note that many of the sources used for the cracked.com article are press releases or self-promotional, which are not acceptable. On the other hand, if you are asking about using cracked.com as a source for other articles, the RSN already had a discussion about that. That discussion was brief and inconclusive. Regardless, this Talk page is not the best forum for asking that latter question: it should be asked at WP:RSN (again) or, alternatively, at the Talk page of the specific articles that are relying on cracked.com as a source. --Noleander (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Removing Mara Wilson from featured writers list
Mara Wilson wrote ONE article for Cracked. Patrick Cassels from College Humor has written 2 and he's not in the list. We can't just put every person who has written one or two articles for Cracked, and I'm sure she was just a guest writer. So, I'm leaving the list to have only those who are featured often and are well known, to avoid people misinterpreting the contents thinking they are recurring writers.. Cancerbero 8 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)