Talk:Jamie Kane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternate Reality Gaming    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate Reality Gaming, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

The BBC[edit]

Not wishing to rain on the BBC's parade or anything, but this article refers to a fictional character. The BBC are running a game [1].

Confirmed. Quote from Jay Is blog: Just this week, the BBC has launched a site that pays homage to this fictitious pop star by way of a unique alternate reality game that is played over the web.

A good explanation is in the Guardian article linked from the entry. --William Pietri 06:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Say, I note that the person who added this, Jon Hawk, also added Anthony Crank in the same burst of editing. Since Jon Hawk appeared only recently, perhaps somebody who knows Wikipedia's rules better than me should make sure Anthony Crank is worth keeping. --William Pietri 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Just for the sake of noting it here, you took a look at it and commented on the article's talk page that it appears valid. Still, anyone who is more UK-based might want to review the authenticity of the article. (Unless you're British, William.) 24.148.19.210 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to keep posting here, but I notice that the fictional band page, Boy*d Upp, was added from inside the BBC. Tsk, tsk. --William Pietri 07:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

And now this whole thing has made it onto [BoingBoing]. Shoot. Though we have more than a few fictional characters on Wikipedia, they all make sure to point that out in the opening sentence. If this - as BoingBoing claims and it seems reasonable to surmise - is part of a "viral marketing campaign," perhaps we delete and wait for an honest user to take the time to create the article? This seems to be lacking in that department. --Steve McFarland 7:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a marketing stunt, marking for deletion. Please do the same to any other articles from this mess if you find them. --Barberio 08:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use my edits to slander the BBC. If this were part of a viral campaign, the grammar of the article would almost certainly be better. I suspect the article would have been created at the same time as the game started also. Jamie Kane was mentioned on several blogs on Friday - did not one of you consider it was created by someone who reads such things? I'm nothing more than a student. I'm sincerely apologetic for purposefully omitting the true nature of Jamie Kane. However, I still think deletion is a mistake - if any of you play the game, you'll see that you are encouraged to search the internet for Kane. The presence of a page describing the game would be of valuable. Evidence for the game's notability comes from the Guardian and Popjustice. Once again, sincere apologies, I assure you I will do no harm in future. Jon Hawk 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC) p.s. I assure you the Anthony Crank page is completely true, any ordinary british teenager should be able to confirm this.

I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC

The insertion of false information into Wikipedia by news organizations seeking to undermine its credibility certainly seems like something we need to look out for in the future. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth, remember the BBC is an entertainment organisation, and that this refers to entertainment. Its not trying to sell you anything, British taxpayers and the government funds the BBC - its not marketing. Think outside the box a bit, and view it as a brave and innovative form of entertainment. welcome :)

Mis-placed comments on deleting the article[edit]

Please note that contributions to the deletion discussion and votes should have been made on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane, not here.

Crappy marketing. Get rid. --4bnormaldotcom 10:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Viral marketing, delete --MisterBijou 14:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Shame on the BBC. --Uttaddmb 15:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oddly lacking in integrity for the BBC to do this. Here's another for deletion. Tuwa.baab 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree on the delete. I'm not against stuff on fictional characters, but why do the beeb's dirty work? It can be added back AFTER the game is over, perhaps. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 15:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be more valuable to make an article about the whole thing and redirect all related entries to this unique article ? The article could present the fake facts and a discussion on the use by the BBC of the Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign. --81.245.143.84 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Avoid self-reference. This is nothing more or less than a case of commercial abuse of Wikipedia -- it's simply vandalism for profit, and should be treated as such. Delete the offending articles; block the users and IP address space responsible. --FOo 17:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Oups it seems that discussions about deletion should go on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jamie_Kane. I will copy my comment there. --81.245.143.84 17:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how this article is any different to say, the article about Doom3. FWIW, I vote it stays. At the end of the day, WP will have lots of information about commercial products, some of them old, some of them new. What the BBC does to make money is interesting to some people, and adds value to WP, even if the intent of the author was to promote it - its not as if by making a WP article you're broadcasting it. You're writing one page in hundreds of thousands someone *might* stumble on. Keep. --NathanO 09:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not this should be attributed to the BBC, I don't think that the article should be deleted now that it has been cleaned up. Whether or not the BBC "deserves" its deletion is irrelevant, since it is now an informational article that seems to comply with the NPOV. I vote that it should be kept. --Dolda2000 10:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that this is a news item, perhaps it should be an article about what happened?

it is my opinion that this page be locked and marked as innapropriate advertising, not nessisarily deleted, it is fairly well written and comes from a valuable source. Deletion is probably appropriate, however wikipedia is getting information straight from the horses mouth and it is not as if all the information is 100% flowering praise of the game, it seems to be just informative. If the BBC has respected the NPV of wikipedia then let the article stay, otherwise delete it.

  • sorry, i never realized this was the rewritten article, many apologies. i looked at the original and ... well it's not so good. the current incarnation is much improved.
  • Note that in fact none at all of the sources that I have used are the BBC. I made an effort to deliberately exclude the BBC as a source, and to use third-party sources. Uncle G 11:55:44, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

Will somebody delete this already? This page was slashdoted because it was abused. I think that is enough to delete it asap! Belgarath The Sorcerer 2005-08-15 11:58:17 UTC

My opinion: keep article in its current form, but put mopre emphasis on the introduction that it's controversy was that it was abusing the wikipedia system. Redirect all similar articles here for controversy article. Report this article up higher to senior admins/foundation for discussion and to put in blocks to stop this happening again. A marketing article does not belong on wikipedia - however by the fact that someone has tried this, been caught, and caused such a fuss means that it should be kept for historical purposes. Last thing to do is link this from the BBC article in their controversy?? section. - Master Of Ninja 12:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This has no place here. At work I sell elbow-joint pipe parts, I don't go make an entry about how great the product I sell, and then direct traffic to my website - unless it somehow became famous or has important footnote in history. (( User was anonymous )) The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.186.125 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 13:59:02 UTC.

Strong keep. As the article is right now, it's very clear that this is a fictional character. I see no problem with the article in its current state. --Doradus 15:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to delete this item immediately. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimbius (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 19:09:28 UTC.

Please delete this useless page - Maximus2Dali The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.127.241.2 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 19:21:06 UTC.

If this article is deleted then please delete all articles about games. Certainly Halo 2, Doom 3, Fatal Frame, Half Life 2, et al. I don't understand the arguments for deletion. And, BTW Belgrath, it was /.'ed because a big stink was made over nothing. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.73.215 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 02:10:51 UTC.

I think there are many people now arguing with the idea of deletion who don't realise that the article has been totally re-written (such as the user below?). If you want to track what happened, watch the article's history: now I don't think there's any problem with it. Bobbie Johnson 2005-08-16 11:22:23 UTC

Hate to add to the flamewar, but seeing as how this article has been re-written by another person and thus does not fall under "self-promotion", as well as to be more "accurate", a pretense for deletion of this article no longer exists -- except for the childish emotion of "revenge". Additionally, without getting too metaphysical, I would argue that "the Britney Spears phenomenon" is equally or more so fabricated than "the Jamie Kane phenomenon". So let's all not get too excited about thinking we can clearly separate "real" from "fantasy". The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.158.229.246 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 19:59:41 UTC.

/.'ed[edit]

This has made it onto Slashdot. Expect server lag :( --68.99.18.130 08:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No lag yet :) --NathanO 09:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
There will be no lag caused by /. for obvious reasons. Hey, nowadays, wikipedia might be able to /. /... -- 141.2.120.17 09:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeap, no lag yet too :) -- Crucis 18:40, 15 August 2005

Being /.ed is not a big thing anymore for Wikipedia... :) Wikipedia has more hits than Slashdot, and getting more everyday.

see also the 2 year comparison [2] /. traffic is basically flat while WP is growning exponentially! Thryduulf 10:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia was craping itself just earlier, so no, it didn't do well with the slashdot effect. People relaly need to stop harping on with those Alexa ratings. They come only from a) websites which put an alexa tracker on their site and b) people who install the alexa toolbar (most come from the toolbar). How many Slashdotters do you think actually install the alexa toolbar?
If you don't believe me in how meaningless those ratings are, take a look at the top 10-20 listings ([3]), how many of those websites do you actually recognize? Xanga, MySpace, Blogger.com, 163.com (what is that?!), Casale Media, fastclick.com, adult friend finder, alibaba, mojo works, etc... ALL beat Wikipedia. Wow, those sites must be SOOOOOO popular. Nevermind that most people haven't heard of them.
I would imagine (apart from MySpace and Blogger.com) that they are advertising sites. Every one of their banners that loads on another site counts as a click. 128.243.220.41 09:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Notice how no one is comparing ACTUAL statistics given by the sites' admins to compare, but are instead relying on a brain dead measurement like Alexa ratings. Nathan J. Yoder 14:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
As the above author correctly assumes, Alexa can only underestimate traffic for any site, since there will always be visitors who do not have the toolbar installed. With that in mind, The Open Source Technology Group, of which Slashdot is part, only claims "9 million average daily page views". Compare that to Alexa'a Wikipedia statistics and Wikipedia receives nearly 100 times the number of daily page requests just from Alexa toolbar users. --Jballagh 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Why are you using page view statistics instead of the unique visitor statistics? It says over 18 million unique visitors per month for Slashdot, lets see exactly how well Wikipedia does. Yet again no one is using statistics generated from the actual server logs.
Also, you're misreading the statistics on that Alexa page. It does NOT say 800 million per day. It says there are 800 page views per million page views by Alexa users. In other words, it's 0.08% of all page views by Alexa users. It really sickens me how often people parade around statistics like these out of total ignorance.Nathan J. Yoder 18:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

/. seems to have attracted an influx of dubious newly-registered users leaving messages in the VfD page. Then again, perhaps, they will turn into useful editors... --Mintchocicecream 11:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot is having an effect, as Wikipedia is being rather slow today. :O STrRedWolf 14:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

BBC official statement [4][edit]

Jamie Kane Wikipedia Entries To clarify the confusion about Jamie Kane biographical entries appearing on Wikipedia: The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work in the BBC (where we've been beta-testing for the last month). This was unauthorized and made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing. To confirm: the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. We hope you enjoy the game:-) Team Jamie


Unfortunately, the amateur media isn't reporting the official statement; instead, the fools choose to berate the BBC and marketing in general. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Adraeus 17:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

VfD results[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane. -- BD2412 talk 06:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

I played this game through (it has its own timeline), and I feel the plot summary is somewhat lacking, but I'm loath to put more details in after the controversy over deletion. Any thoughts, anyone? --Jal 11:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It was lacking when I wrote it, and I hoped then that it would be expanded by editors in your position. Please remember when expanding it, however, that it is intended to be a summary, not a grab-bag of game minutiae. Uncle G 16:28:47, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Goof in ending congratulatory video[edit]

Did anyone else notice this? When jamie is talking to you in the video that jess sends you at the end, you can see a boom mic going in and out of the frame.

Bastards[edit]

After all that help I gave Jess and Greta and everyone, hacking into various websites etc, and they won't reply to any of my emails. It's been weeks now since I heard from any of them. I thought they were my friends. I wouldn't trust them if I were you :( Sweetie Petie 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

! --Quentin Smith 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

references[edit]

the refs for this article use a really nonstandard and awkward format. Anybody want to clean them up? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The game no longer works[edit]

The game appears to be broken now. The messenger parts of the game no longer work, as they remain flashing 'Connecting' endlessly and it is now impossible for players to progress in the game as they cannot get past these messenger windows. Does the article require updating or the BBC contacing?

Helpful Sam

I've tried emailing the support for the game, and no luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.243.220.22 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).