|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fark article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Fark has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm thinking there should be some mention of bannination.com, a site setup by fark.com users frustrated with its new moderation policies some years back. Users of fark.com cannot even hint that the site exists without their post and all posts quoteing it being removed. Surely Wikipedia can help keep fark.com users informed with more open information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
LOL was this you too?
While Fark claims to be without political bias, conservative or right-wing comments are usually deleted by the moderators and the user who made those comments is usually banned from commenting on the site for a particular period of time. Right of center viewpoints are de facto censored on Fark. A simple perusal of the Fark Politics tab on any given day will show that the overwhelming majority of headlines favor the liberal or left-wing view on the topic.
Talk about butthurt.
Just noticed this site: www.farkaustralia.com.au. It doesn't appear to have any connection to the US-based site, but the meaning of the term he's using appears similar. I'm not sure what his point is, though,. . . WTF? (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello WTF. Saw that you reversed my small edit to Fark-TV, since it was not supported. Fair enough. In reading the WP:RS page, it seems that a reference to a piece of work itself is a source, and that a "lightweight source" may be deemed acceptable to support a "lightweight claim". Therefore, would references to videos of each mentioned "piece of work" and an additional reference to a "lightweight source" such as the Fark-TV imdb page be sufficient to support my one sentence "lightweight claim"? Gulbenk (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but IMDB is NOT an acceptable source in this case because that information was clearly added by a random user of IMDB and unverified. The "piece of work" verification does not apply in this case because the content in question is attributable only to what amounts now as an "Internet blog" and not a form of reputable media, due to the fact that Fark TV no longer exists. It is also completely out of the scope of this article to cover minor "programs" of a pseudo television "network" that no longer exists. WTF? (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
imdb is, unquestionably, a lightweight source. But I believe it is sufficient to at least substantiate the claim that there were at least 135 named episodes produced. I believe that is in line with the (direct) quote I cited from WP:RS. Also, I believe that "piece of work" verification can be perfected, with a direct link to one or more of the rare episodes still available online. I would have to strongly disagree with your "out of scope" comment...which I believe is the issue at the heart of this disagreement. These minor programs (regardless of their "pseudo television network" presentation) were a branded FARK product, with oversight by Drew. The venture didn't work, and it no longer exists, but you cannot simply assign it to the memory hole because it is inconvenient. If this article is about FARK, then it is proper to discuss all FARK branded products. It is certainly no mor out of scope than a Tennessee road sign.
- Fark TV was really nothing more than a poorly conceived and produced blog, or "video blog". Specific episodes of it are about as notable as naval lint. Wikipedia doesn't cover blogs for that reason. WTF? (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)