Talk:Cracked.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
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 Comedy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
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 Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Executive Editor vs. Editor in Chief[edit]

The David Wong page says he's the executive editor, but this page says J. O'Brian is the editor-in-chief. I looked up both terms and an executive editor often refers to an editor-in-chief. Anyone have any ideas as to why this discrepancy exists?

Clean-up[edit]

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. Egg Centric 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Is cracked.com reliable?[edit]

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... 139.218.233.53 (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? 139.218.233.53 (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. 139.218.233.53 (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[edit]

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)

Not a "humor website"[edit]

Cracked.com may have its origins as a humor website, but it cannot reasonably be described as such today. The front page currently shows the following article titles at the top:

  1. 5 Things I Learned as a Sex Slave in Modern America
  2. 6 People With Amazing Yet Totally Useless Abilities
  3. 22 Shockingly Dark Lyrics in Otherwise Happy Songs
  4. 4 Famous Movies With Deceptively Complex Symbolism
  5. A 90-Second Guide to Determine if Your Internet Cause Is BS
  6. If 'Motivational Battle' Speeches Were Honest

etc. It's clear that the emphasis is on social commentary. The article about sex slaves definitely doesn't make light of them. They now click-bait with anything they can find that people might consider interesting (or enraging).

Additionally, the attributed slogan - "America's Only Humor Site Since 1958" - doesn't appear anywhere I can find on the website. "America's Only Humor Site" is in the webpage <title> attribute (which is largely de-emphasized by modern browsers); there is no year reference. Presumably the joke (obviously an internet site could not have existed in 1958) was deemed unfunny and removed at some point.

70.24.5.250 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not as prominently displayed as it was, but cracked still refers to itself as a comedy website. See the bottom of the "write for cracked" page where they explicitly refer to themselves as "one of the most popular comedy sites on planet Earth." Over the past year or so they've definitely been injecting more social commentary into their articles, but that's not to say they aren't a website built on comedy anymore. McSquishin (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cracked.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)