Jump to content

Talk:Fark/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Something Awful

The concept of Fark and SA being arch-rivals is stupid. Rivals compete with one another. Some users on both sites like to bitch about the other, but there's no real competition save for the one Photoshop contest years ago. I think that section should be eliminated or substantially edited. Thoughts?

  • It's part of the lore and charm of Fark. It's another Fark inside joke. And it seems like to me, to understand Fark, you have to understand the inside jokes. Besides it's an interesting addition to the Wiki article. -->Chemical Halo 22:15, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • I think most people on Something Awful would laugh if you compared Fark to SA. While SA comes up with original material constantly, Fark seems to reuse the same jokes over and over and over and over and over and over. Most of them appear to have originated from SA 3 years ago too. Trampled 13:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • And the "original" jokes on SA originated on Usenet 5 years before that. Bleh. Fark and SA are totally different sites. It should be noted that Lowtax and Drew are friends, Lowtax actually having designed the current Fark layout scheme.
  • Trampled - Fanboi much? (yes, its a Fark cliche :-) ... both sites are great in their own right... so relax a little...
  • Lowtax designed the current layout? Well, thats explained now...
    • Lowtax designed the 2003-2007 layout. The "new" new layout (2007-present) was not designed by him as far as I know. The early Fark layout can still be seen in the archives I guess. --W.marsh 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Cliches Link -- should be segregated

Fark is quite notable, and deserves its own cliches section -- besides, these things are all a reflection of the culture in which they were conceived. Wikipedia is an important medium for the preservation of these subtle aspects of culture which would otherwise be lost to the ages.

  • Suggestions:
    • Flesh out Cliche Link
    • Create seperate link about Fark Tags, the History of Tags, and the Meanings -- also representative use.
    • Get permission from several fark photoshoppers to include representative samples of high quality photoshopping from the site (or better yet, get them to upload it themselves)

EggplantWizard 20:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You could always link to any greenlit PS thread. They're always accessable. --GaidinBDJ July 9, 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Shouldn't the various cliches listed in this section be moved to the Fark.com_clichés page? After all, there are so many that just listing a few select ones doesn't do justice to the rest. --Safety 21:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's get some perspective. First, Fark is not "quite notable." It is a small, infotainment-based Web community temporarily enjoying cult popularity. Second, they aren't cliches; they are inside jokes. Third, Wikipedia should not document ephemera like the history of Fark tags or inside jokes; Fark.com cliches should be merged into this article and greatly reduced. Who is going to read that crap three years from now when Drew has had a near-death experience and converted to Islam and Fark has been sold to Viacom? Just say that Fark is a popular Web community and include some representative headline jokes and photoshop images. Jeez, this fanboy zeal is stupefying. --Tysto 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, first: Fark is quite notable. It's in the top 1200 most popular sites on the web which is quite an accomplishment. You would have to stretch the definition of "small" quite a bit in order to fit fark into it. I agree with you though; fark inside jokes should not have a separate article here. It should be merged in with this article and only the notable elements kept. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to document inside jokes, most of which only total farkers would understand. A reader that has never seen fark before should be able to understand this article and not get bogged down in peculiarities of the site that would take quite some time to get acquainted with. Having said that, it's important that the 'inside joke' phenomenon is documented because it is a big part of fark's appeal. --BWD 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What would you say of a book, magazine, or pop band that was, at its height, about the 1000th most popular of its time? Semi-notable at best and barely deserving of a WP article at all. And my definition of "small"? How about staff size? Annual revenue? Percentage of the population of the English-speaking world that has heard of it? By non-Internet measures, Fark is about as notable as a coffee shop in a medium-size city. How notable is Hitch, the 10th top-grossing film of 2005?[1] Or South Beach Diet, the 100th top-selling book of 2005?[2]. Notable enough for an article, but not by a lot. Also I would argue that the inside jokes are virtually Fark's only appeal. They are largely what makes it notable at all (we can get news links and boobies anywhere) and should therefore dominate this article, not have their own article. I like Fark; I just don't see how it's worthy of the current level of detail and number of related articles. --Tysto 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We're agreeing that this shouldn't be a separate entry. However, we're arguing over the definition of popular, which I don't think is very constructive or pertinent to the discussion. Nevertheless, you can't compare websites to newspapers or books, because what separates #1000 and #500 is only a marginal number of hits. Anyway, it's widely accepted that any site in the top 1000 is considered popular (fark.com was ranked 890ish for the past week). Another definition of notability is how many times it has been mentioned in the press. I think every major news organization has run a story on fark.com at one point. --BWD 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate entries should not be created. In fact, Fark.com_cliches should most definitely be merged with this article. It should be mentioned as a phenomenon. Quite simply, those things seperately aren't notable enough to add as separate entries. As an above poster stated, some perspective is needed. --BWD 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Farkisms

The Farkisms section is very unwieldy and is in danger of becoming way too large. As per my request on the separate farkisms article, it needs to be completely eliminated and discussed as a phenomenon only. This list can grow indefinitely and it violates wikipedia's policies. I quote from Wikipedia's policies:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons.

The Farkisms list is nothing more than a list of random information that does not help the reader understand Fark. A section on the phenomenon would be much more helpful. --BWD 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok all, Something said today in one fark thread is not really a cliche yet. It may seem that way on Fark becuase of it's time warp and hallucanatory effects, but not to the rest of the world. Thus, I've removed the "Excellent, Bring it (ever $SOMETHING) THEN SHUT UP" entry because the forum thread holding it's first use is (to quote the entry) "first used on thread 'Magnitude 7.7 earthquake off the coast of Indonesia' [3]" and the date listed was for tomorrow. Before declaring something a cliche, give it time to actually become a cliche first. badmonkey 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Several times I've referred to this exact page to try to understand a Farkism or it's origin. This information could certainly be captured somewhere on Fark.com instead, but it is useful reference material. Not the most academic of subjects, but neither is drinking games. Ratbert42 02:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is Omarion (is he safe?)?

Cleanup

I think it's time to do away with the long list of farkisms as per WP:NOT. I can help work on a more general farkisms section. --BWD 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally am okay with that. I seriously question how useful most of that stuff is except to people who familiar with it anyway (i.e. they're Fark regulars) and that's where WP:NOT comes into play. --W.marsh 16:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just cleaned up many parts of the article, merging a few sections here and there, adding references, and such. I think that the 'Farkisms and cliches' section really needs to be moved to a separate listing page, linked to under 'see also'. Though I just noticed that the Fark.com cliches link is redirected to the main fark page. Any thoughts? Dr. Cash 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Filter table accuracy

I tried some of the listed filters on the scratchpad, and they didn't seem to work. Specifically, "hitler" and "The terrorists have already won". Are these real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.41.239 (talk • contribs)

Good catch. The filters are modified from time to time, so the entries may have been real at one point, but in any case I just did my own scratchpad test, and confirmed that several phrases in the list are no longer filtered. I've removed them. Kickaha Ota 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

cliche: i'm in your____ / ____-ing your ______

Does anyone know how this cliche started? -- Ben (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also be very interested in the origins of this cliche/phrase/meme (whatever is appropriate here). -- 10:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll figure it out. I pinged an individual user. Thanks, all. -- Ben (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They probably stole it from another, more intelligent website, as they do every other cliche on Fark. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's probably from a comment someone made in a shooter game, that's how I hear it told. It probably became a meme at 4chan.org.
Sort of. Someone posted the original "I'm in ur base, killin' ur doodz" Warcraft III picture on SA. --Seed 2.0 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find it at Something Awful... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.165.80.206 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Where did you get this info from? What was the original quote then? -- 10:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ben I wouldn't count on accuracy from an "individual user". Unless they are a for-real sociologist of Internet culture. Comments like the immediately-preceding one seem to be the norm when it comes to website loyalty/disloyalty. Everyone will attribute cool stuff to their favorite site, whether it deserves it or not.
For my own part (and this is original research so it doesn't count), I visit 4chan and fark regularly, and it was showing up at 4chan a while longer than at fark. Erielhonan 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Some video game. "I'm in yer bases killin' yer men."

Possible new filter?

Just a heads up that I think I noticed a new filter/substitution. I had a long set of /comments at the end of my post, and any ones with more then 4 /'s got cropped down to two /'s. I have a screen shot of my post submitted correctly and the result if verification is needed.

69.160.193.22 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)uhlrc

Apparently, the filters now also apply to headlines. That wasn't the case until a few months ago when headlines just hit the TF mainpage as-is. Back then, the admins usually just edited the offensive part out manually. --Seed 2.0 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Farkism

I noted the particular cliché "When __ is outlawed, only outlaws will have __." Appropriate? -EarthRise33 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't really count that as a Farkism. It's a variation of the old saying "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.", which is at least three decades old, if not older. The point being, that gun control laws only disarm law-abiding people, not criminals who, by definition, tend to disobey the law and likely won't be stopped from using a gun to commit a crime. In that context, it makes sense. In other contexts, not so much. However, many people don't seem to be aware of the origins (or don't seem to care). --Seed 2.0 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of, should we add the particular Farkism of "Not News:, News:, Fark.com:"? -EarthRise33 02:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Added the Not News anyway. -EarthRise33 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please review the list before adding things to make sure that they aren't already there. The 'not news, news, fark' one was already in the list as, "Bad News:___ Worse News:____ FARK:____." Dr. Cash 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. -EarthRise33 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that one of Jeff's comments over the disapproval of the new layout has spawned a new cliche -- "___ will get over it." -- The Penguin on the Telly 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the farkisims need a part about the epic trainwreck that was Thread 2857550. It has 4100 posts about a girl marring a guy she had never met in person. How crazy can it get (Sorry Liters, you missed it)Reverendfitty 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How is that a farkism? There's no phrase associated with it. -- Kesh

Totalfark.com

Is there really any need for a separate Totalfark.com article here? I've suggested that that article be merged into this one, and then redirected to here. I don't see that it's notable on its own, and I highly doubt there are any reliable sources on it, so the existence of it as a separate article would violate WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. In fact, I didn't even know there was a totalfark.com article. Cheers, PaddyM 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. It can simply become a section of the Fark page. --Mr. RX99 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with PaddyM. I never even bothered to look at the TF article. It's not bad at all but I don't see why its content can't be incorporated into the main Fark article (preferably also adding a redirect, of course). Afterall, it's not all that different from Fark lite. --Seed 2.0 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -zblewski

he is likely to have trouble

...when the oil hits the anus. This is a fark cliche, although not one of the most common ones, referencing (I think) a Usenet post in which a doctor is asked what would happen if someone ate (drank?) poison ivy... to wit, it would be OK until the irritating oils reach the anus. I am looking for (but not finding) the original Fark thread and/or Usenet post of origin. Any help would be appreciated. --Leperflesh 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

the first Farkism I saw being born, in 2 years of Farking. I'm so proud to have been there.Paganize 07:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The thread can be found here --195.62.207.89 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable farkisms

  • I've reverted the addition of the 'streetlight' farkism. This is not notable enough to be included. Please be sure that farkisms listed in this section are longer lasting than just a couple of weeks before adding them to this page. Also, please be sure to add adequate references to farkisms added to this page. External links alone are not adequate in order to be used as references (author, title, date of publication, were published, should all be added to inline citations). Dr. Cash 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not too sure about 162.84.208.32's recent addition of the "in other news" and "...wait, what?" Farkisms. The contributions are good in themselves but it seems to me like those two clichés are so obvious that they don't necessarily warrant being on the Fark page. I know that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but it might be appropriate to move more obscure and rarely used Farkisms, that are still notable enough to be included, to a separate or an external page. Comments? -- Seed 2.0 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems like the farkisms section is getting out of hand, there are alot in there that are not notable or not in commom usage. While the section does cover an intersting phenomina on fark it seems to be getting unencyclopedic and sounds alot like original research WP:NOR. Too many of the farkisms are uncitied or cite only to an actual use rather than an indenpendant source establishing notability. Whats needed is a policy setting forth criteria for farkism inclusion and possibly a limit to the 10 or 15 most notable. -- Monty845 12:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point. It also illustrates a problem because for a lot of Farkisms there will simply never be a reliable source. If something is nothing more than a (sub)cultural phenomenon, it'll most likely be limited to very few sites (ie. finding a source for the Abe Vingoda joke might not be a problem, but the 'I work for x so I'm really getting a kick out of..." farkism is a in-joke of sorts). Normally, we'd just remove stuff like that and it wouldn't be much of problem because it only affects a specific, small group of people. But that's not really the case here. I think finding good cites for most Farkisms is going to be a problem but I agree that we should at least keep the list maintainable or move more obscure farkisms to a UD-style website that the article links to. -- Seed 2.0 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The quote from Bill Murray (Cats and dogs living together...) is from Ghostbusters, not Gohstbusters II from the scene in the mayor's office after he gets them out of jail. Abmoraz 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)abmoraz

Archive

Just a quick heads up: since the talkpage had become really huge, I've archived some old stuff. I have left those parts most relevant to new editors or to ongoing discussions in place, as well as newer comments. The archived content is here and also accessible via the archive box at the top of the page. -- Seed 2.0 18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anus was unremarkable...

Does anyone know what the genuine source was of the newly popular cliche talking about how a person's "anus was unremarkable", even if the article or person has no relevance to anuses? I'm guessing it has something to do with Anna Nicole Smith, since it only seems to have appeared in articles about her since her death, but the cliche puzzles (and amuses) me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.176.13.22 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I believe it's a quote from the coroner's report on Anna Nicole Smith. 76.168.248.203 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's true. TSG posted it, TF was flooded with links (as usual) and that's the headline they greenlit. -- Seed 2.0 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FarkTV Edit

I removed This Is Not Art Productions from the FarkTV section. TINA Productions is no longer affiliated with FarkTV. --Joethepeacock 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider reverting the Fark TV listing as it once was before it was blanked, link to review and all:

"In January 2007, Fark launched Fark TV, the much criticized online show attempting to replicate the humor of stories seen on the website. It is hosted at Superdeluxe.com. Plug links are regularly put up on Fark.com to promote new episodes, with the feedback being mixed at best, but mostly negative. The general consensus at Fark.com is that the comments lambasting Fark TV are funnier than Fark TV itself."

Link to review: http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/02/what_the_fark.html

This is all verifiable on the site(s).

--Joethepeacock 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't just claim it's "mostly negative" without a reliable source to back that up. A blog does not qualify. -- Kesh 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you had bothered to GO to the link you would see that it was originally hosted on the KansasCity.com TV section, now, DIAF.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk • contribs) 18:34, June 13, 2007

Nowhere on that page does it say that. Nor does that page support the statement that "the general consensus" is negative. Oh, and welcome to a warning for violating WP:CIVIL. -- Kesh 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Violating what? Your sense of self importance?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk • contribs) 11:32, June 14, 2007

Violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Which you've done again. I've been polite to you, please show me the same respect. -- Kesh 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Lately Fark has been censoring heavily. Should that be mentioned in the fark article at all? (deletion of an entire thread) --Lincoln F. Stern 02:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, that's nothing new. I've been a Farker for a long time now and threads disappearing (as in 'for good', not as in 'going green and getting pulled') has been more or less common for as long as I've been a user. It's probably not really worth mentioning and may even be a bit problematic since it can't really be sourced (short of using before-and-after screenshots which would be... a bit much ;). -- Seed 2.0 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Excessive censorship has led some Fark users to explore alternatives. A new venue intended to apparently bypass what SOME believe Fark has devolved into; a mainstream site appealing to any and all Web users, can be found here: http://www.bannination.com/ . "Bannination" is a reference to a Fark poster being banned from further posting.68.13.191.153 11:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note about banniNation as one of the banned discussion topics on Fark. Ironically, someone has taken it upon himself to delete the banniNation entry from Wikipedia, but I'm not really interested in fighting that battle. --Metamatic 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be. Fark's been under some heavy criticism as of late due to over-moderation. I've been a Farker since before TotalFark, and a very active poster. It's been very different as of late. I'm not sure where it would fit into a wiki article except under criticisms. ~tarrant84

For what it's worth, here's a snapshot of the now-deleted thread: http://s22.quicksharing.com/v/5449089/bannination_bait.zip.html --Atario 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fark has an interesting method to display posts depending on your login. I'm not going to go into it because the people who've discovered it are keeping mum, except to show the advertisers. Basically instead of banning user accounts, different content is displayed. It's quite a neat trick to keep advertisers happy, albeit very... very... slippy.
Example 1: Javascript injection to change the layout of the website depending on the login accessed.
Example 2: Posts are only displayed/omitted depending on the login used to access the site (TF or Lite)
Example 3: Possibly in order to maintain subscriptions... posts are allowed from certain users, however a script runs to delete specified user's content at a certain time
Example 4: Depending on your login and traffic pattern of clicks, you will see different advertisements (well duh)
Also anyone who finds out that a link is paid for instead of specified as a "plug", all posts that were discussing and proving the alleged paid-for-link are pulled and the thread gets locked immediately. 70.112.130.176 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)someguy

Would anyone be interested in adding a section about "shadow banning?" Shadow banning is where a user isn't told he or she is banned, but no one else can read their posts. I want to add a section about it (with citations), but I wanted to get everyone's input first. ~tarrant84

There has been a page made regarding the issue of Shadowbanning, which a lot of people still seem to believe that isn't for real. Yes, they say they won't refund your TotalFark subscription fees if you were banned, but the real issue is that if you are paying subscriber, they don't stop collecting subscription fees from your account if you've been shadowbanned... and there is no obvious indication if it had been done to you. If you were to do something on the site and got punished for it, like a posting time out, it shows up in your profile and in the comments posting area. You KNOW you have a timeout and a reason is given. But when you have been shadowbanned, nothing shows up. Everything looks normal when it works, and when it doesn't work, it pretends to be database errors. The full explanation, complete with step by step screenshots, has been made available at: http://ergh.org/farkdeceit/ 24.12.99.60 01:02, 06 June 07 (UTC)

Yep, I was recently shadowbanned for simply being something other than a venomous liberal. Virulent and despicable anti-military comments and pictures are tolerated, and absurd 9/11 conspiracies are tolerated while bold counterarguments get a person banned. I've documented this kind of thing happening many times yet nothing is ever included in the main article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There are no verifiable sources outside of FARK itself that discusses shadowbanning. Which means we can't cite a source, which means we can't add it to an article. That aside, this is a page for discussing the article, not a soapbox for your political opinions. -- Kesh 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How does one become a verifiable source? The screenshots on http://ergh.org/farkdeceit/ are accurate and reproducable that Fark is removing posts, while hiding that fact from the user. I have personally heard the term "shadowbanned" used in the Fark chat rooms before. If I get a notorized affidavit, will that be considered a reliable source? Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I think there is a Fark/Wiki connection supressing information. The Fark article mentioned a reference to Bannination, and a wiki article about it. A visit to the page shows that article is protected from creation. I started a question in the talkback page, and 30 mins later the Banniation reference in the Fark article was deleted. That being said, a section about cencorship in the Fark article is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Change of Layout (and Code)

Should probably mention it... Also, I've noticed that it's HORRIDLY slow and ugly. JoshJGT 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No kiddin'. Right now I can't even get to the comments - it just times out half the time (Fark Lite seems even worse than TF for me). And the layout looks like it was hardcoded for 800x600. And the thread on the mainpage about the new design is already pushing 1200 posts. -- Seed 2.0 22:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm registering my disgust as we speak. JohnathanZX4 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Its like fark for people who like American Idol. PaddyM 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, you don't need to complain here too. As is the section on the layout change was a prime example of an unverified claim/personal pseudo-research. I changed it to make it at least factual and verifiable (eg, we don't know how many people actually *have* canceled subscriptions)but it's too late at night to make it nice. Pullarius1 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The redesign reeks of AOL. Fark is now an official ad server.

It would be helpful if we could cite a source other than the Fark thread... have any credible commentators bothered to write about this topic? It might seem very important to Farkers but if no one else cares... Wikipedia still needs reliable sources to show this is a notable issue. --W.marsh 13:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point and a bit of an ongoing problem (this has also been discussed, to some degree, above and elsewhere): Fark is a major news aggregator but, for most people, it's "just a website"(tm). Hence, you'll find plenty of real-world articles that deal with the site in general and the odd interview thrown in for good measure, but since it's "just a website" very few authors will take the time to deal with a specific issue (just like very few readers will want to read about it). Technically, one could argue that makes it OR and, again technically, one would be correct. By that logic, we'd have to delete ~50% of this article and large partsof other articles though. This issue, obviously, isn't exclusive to Fark: I remember looking for a reliable source when the SA/Paypal thing happened all the way back in August or September of 2005 and for quite a while, I couldn't find any that met RS and V. The story hit the Slashdot mainpage a few days later and only then did the media pick it up. -- Seed 2.0 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some anonymous user keeps adding the unsubstantiated, snarky comment about highlighting ads more than it does content. This is clearly unencyclopedic and borders on vandalism. Also, Drew just posted a thread pointing out that the layout change in fact makes it easier to *ignore* ads. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2765382 I'm deleting it again and hope that a temporary block on the IP will be considered if it keeps up. Pullarius1 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I brought it up in "New Farkisms" and decided to add it to Wiki. Seems someone decided to do so at the same time, but they had hardly any information, so I combined what we had. Pretty much the same stuff except I had a reference link to the thread, and they didn't. So now Jeff's infamous line, "You'll get over it," has been added to the Farkisms. -- The Penguin on the Telly

"Between this and the staff's handling of the site redesign, many users claimed to have canceled their TotalFark accounts and/or opted to frequent alternative news aggregation sites such as Digg, reddit, and banniNation.[citation needed]" Should this text be left in? It seems to be a source of contention between fans of both camps. It does look as though users have left for other websites, the three mentioned in particular. Some users seem to be weaseling in insults at the banniNation website, though, by leaving the other two sites and making a blanket "copycat sites that have launched and sputtered." In addition to this, the term "by a handful of critics" has been repeatedly inserted where the article talks about user disapproval. I could be wrong, but this seems to be weasely as well. Thoughts? AleBrewerAleBrewer

AleBrewer: As the person who wrote all of the above, I think I'm on solid ground. The amount of users who've actually left Fark/TotalFark is pretty negligable: it's hard to stand behind a statement like "it does look as though users have left for other websites, the three mentioned in particular" because of the three, only one -- bannination -- insists that it has happened. As a new site (not even a month old), they're simply making the assertion in order to advertise their site on a wikipedia entry which is bound to get more traffic than they could otherwise hope for. Further, by writing the "copycat sites" line, I'm drawing a distinction between those sites which are related but different in their methodology and presentation (such as Digg and Reddit) and those sites that are basically ripoffs of Fark's hallmark presentation -- to illustrate, you can google the original name of bannination.com, which was itsnotfark.com, and see what inspired this site. Finally, "handful of critics" remains apt -- there are hundreds of thousands of "farkers," the majority of which are lurkers and don't ever comment. Of those who do, many are fine with the new design. There's definitely a section of people who threw a fit when the redesign began, but to not represent them as a very small minority of very loud users making lots of noise wouldn't be very realistic. I'm all for balance in this entry, but as it stands now, the current entry is tilted toward former Farkers who a) want traffic to a site that copies Fark, yet b) want to smear Fark in the process.

--

Wouldn't the site's content gathering methods be better suited to proof, rather than conjecture? The facts are the website basically has different content for different users, and that would infer those who track marketing and those that advertise.

Basically it could be argued that a paid advertiser wouldn't see the same content as the general public, therefore the site isn't exactly a blog, not a link farm, but an actual dynamic web application geared to providing different content to appease those that advertise under false pretenses.

The proof is above. (Strawman could be argued, but someone from an advertising firm showed an example)

A paying customer (abiding by the rules of the disclaimer and legalities of interstate commerce) would see nothing in the TOS stating that posts will be manipulated to best serve the advertising companies that invest and pay the website owner. (again, proof in the above link), and advertisers are basically shoe-horned into content that doesn't exist, or doesn't see content that actually DOES exist.

The WORST comment websites, even in adult content dare not do this. Drew implemented this and it's part of the site's code: Different content for different users, and with the proof it could be argued that the main reason the site exists is for tailoring to satiate advertisers.

Has nothing to do with the public as all the submitted (and indexed) content is eventually manipulated as he seems fit to best advertise his link farm. Shadowspawn 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

Would some kind Wiki editor be so good as to bring some admin wrath down on the edit war that's been raging over this article? I'd do it myself, but frankly I find the documention on how to do so impenetrably vague. Clayhalliwell 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection on this page. Reading the variations the argument seems to be over stating that only a minority was upset at the changes to Fark.com, and also over whether or not to include bannination.com as a site that Fark visitors left to.

As for the first, I have no idea how it can be decided just how large a chunk of the Fark population was upset.

For the second, as a website, bannination seems to be a direct reaction to the changes at Fark (the early threads, especially, show some antagonism towards Fark mods, etc) and has gathered over 900 members in a few weeks. It seems, to me, that if a list of websites that people left Fark for is included in the article bannination.com belongs along with digg and reddit.

The comment of "as well as dozens of "copycat" sites that have launched and sputtered over the years." is a direct insult directed towards bannination. So, I suggest either simply stating that Fark members have left, or include all the major places that they have left for.

AleBrewer 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Wrath has been brought down :) This article has now been fully protected against editing due to intense edit-warring. Quite a number of you have been waaaay over the limit for WP:3RR, I might add. Ignoring for the moment .... Folks, please discuss your differences here and try to come to some sort of compromise. Page won't be unprotected until something is resolved here as this is just wasting everyone's time. Oh, and m:The Wrong Version applies, as ever - Alison ☺ 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Can you remove the references to Bannination (and Digg and Reddit for that matter--they were only added to give credibility to the addition of Bannination, per the editor's own admission on BN). You can see from the change log that this site has been added specifically to advertise BN--and I can provide links to their discussion threads where they state it in no uncertain terms.

01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Here they are:

Thread link:

http://www.bannination.com/comments/1000

doesnotexist | 532 | 2007-05-14 15:18:37 score 0 | vote inappropriate cool

There is a reference to this site on the fark wiki, as there should be. It is an important place to advertise. There is also a persistent vandal who keeps deleting it. I've been fighting him half an hour now, but I have to leave my computer soon. Somebody else please take over.

ratfucker | 470 | 2007-05-14 19:07:46 score 0 | vote inappropriate cool

The thing about the link, if Digg and Reddit can both be listed as alternate sites to Fark, there is absolutely no reason bannination cannot also be listed.

elchip | 42 | 2007-05-14 19:47:05 score 0 | vote inappropriate cool

ratfucker : The thing about the link, if Digg and Reddit can both be listed as alternate sites to Fark, there is absolutely no reason bannination cannot also be listed.

Heh, I added Digg and Reddit when I edited the page so that I could give some cover to adding Bannination... but alas, someone decided it was a "questionable link."


Reading the above citations, I have to agree with the request to remove the Digg, Reddit, and Bannination links. Bannination is currently trying to grow its membership, which gives (admitted) motivation to use the Fark.com article as an advertisement for that purpose. That's hardly a neutral or objective use for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps the Bannination.com admin should create a Wikipedia article specifically for that site. 74.138.26.122 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Kay

Yup, that's pretty damning. Clipping out that whole sentence which mentions the three non-Fark websites would probably be the best thing to do. AleBrewer 04:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The motivation for adding any particular information to Wikipedia is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's valid content for the article. And if there's been a mass exodus of users to other sites, it's encyclopedic to mention them. The obsessive degree to which various anonymous editors have been wiping this information instead of using the Talk page says to me that these are not good faith edits. Clayhalliwell 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I edited it with a edit note that Bannination.com should have an article drafted on it. I personally would have no problem listing it if there were an article to link to. Without an article it comes across as pure advertising, not an encyclopedic entry in my opinion. Big Merl 04:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The "obsessive degree to which various anonymous editors have been wiping the information" cuts both ways. If you aren't concerned about motivation, why are you concerned about "good faith" edits at all? Edits that are applied purely as advertising aren't in "good faith" either. I see no reason to name any of the sites. 74.138.26.122 06:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Kay

Willyjetson 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Do you have proof that there has been 'mass exodus of users?' There isn't data to back that up. The number of users that others sites have gained is completely irrelevant. Reporting hearsay as fact isn't encyclopedic.

Wikipedia policy specifically states it is not an advertising service. Including the non-Fark sites was clearly a violation of the non-advertising policy. AleBrewer's suggestion makes sense. DopplerShift 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)DopplerShift


Regarding Willyjetson's claims of hearsay is where the issue lies. There would be citations to show an increasing dissatisfaction among users on Fark, from Fark.com's own threads, if the threads weren't continually being purged of critical posts and/or being outright deleted. Many of the missing threads contain the citation required which users state they have cancelled their TotalFark accounts and/or were leaving. Would it be hearsay to link to the threads on other sites that state this? That would still require "advertising" them. How would you suggest being able to cite these examples?
I find it interesting that only the incriminating posts from Bannination (quoted above) were the ones referenced. There has been discussion threads, some of which also mirrored threads on Fark.Com before they were deleted, that support the claims of people canceling their accounts and leaving Fark.
Even if it appears the context has been an attempt to advertise, I still would say mentioning Bannination is noteworthy because it shows a direct consequence to the actions taken by moderators and admins on Fark. There are threads on both Bannination and Digg that reveal what people have been wanting to say that has been censored from Fark. Attempting to remove details, like alternate sites, from Wiki seems to suggest an attempt to cover that up, especially when you consider all of the above. It still remains that the supporting details for this information will exist only outside of Fark.Com due to the clean-up efforts at that site. The incriminating posts quoted above, among others on Bannination and Digg, also support that there has been an exodus of users (a direct consequence of actions taken by administrators and moderators on Fark) as much as it incriminates the usage of adding other sites to the section to seek new users.
One final note, right below the "Save Page" button, it says: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." - Was permission obtained for those incriminating posts that were copied here? I highly doubt it.24.12.99.60 10:09, 17 May 2007(UTC)
Some of the arguments are persuasive. I had thought it was appropriate to mention that people were leaving Fark due to actions of the administrators, redesign, etc. The text quoted by WillyJetson was a bit of a surprise, I should have waited a bit before responding for now I feel that I was off base... After the above user's comments I decided to do some searching and, indeed, found a few forums:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2762299
It has people directly canceling their accounts and posting it in response to the layout change and the one moderator "Jeff." It continues here:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2763862
The Digg one's seem to be here:
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Drunken_fallout_from_the_trouble_at_Fark_yesterday
http://digg.com/design/Fark_Completely_Redesigned
Upon further review I'd like to vote against my suggestion and say that BigMerl seems to be the best way to go. Could a bannination stub be created?
AleBrewer 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point Willyjetson makes is that membership and participation at one site does not preclude membership and participation at another site. The internet is a big place, and people frequently participate on multiple sites. Beyond that, even if you have a list of people who say "I've left site A for site B" (which would still be hearsay), what constitutes a "mass exodus"? Fark has what, millions of page views a day and user accounts in the 300,000's? Bannination lists about 1000 members. Even if your assertion is true that every single one of them has left Fark and doesn't ever post there anymore, that's 0.3% of Fark's userbase. That isn't even statistically significant. The phrase "mass exodus" is also emotionally loaded and vague, but I doubt anyone would think that less than 1% of a userbase would constitute a "mass exodus".

As for the text quoted above, quoting 3 posts out of thousands on a message board would seem to constitute fair use. DopplerShift 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)DopplerShift

The phrase "mass exodus" does not even appear in the article. AleBrewer 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's being used as an argument for including a site that was clearly added for advertisement and not for encyclopedic purposes. I think it's fair to say there have been people who left Fark, as you noted above, but to say they've left for specific sites is speculation based on hearsay (which I didn't think was a credible enough source for Wikipedia). Again, people often participate on multiple sites. (sorry, forgot to sign DopplerShift 13:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)DopplerShift)
That they left for digg and reddit may be hearsay, however, a good number of people do seem to have left for the bannination.com site. Looking around, I haven't come across anyone stating that they have left Fark to read Digg or Reddit - so you may be correct in suggesting that saying so is hearsay. I have, however, read more than a few statements that readers have abandoned Fark for Bannination - the site seems to have even been created to be a deliberate option to Fark. Right now, my thinking is leaning towards removing digg & reddit but leaving the bannination reference. AleBrewer 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting discussion, but I'm going to point out that the fact that even referencing bannination.com on fark.com will invariably get a thread or post removed, and cause you to get "shadow banned" from that site, as a seconday reason to mention it in the Wikipedia article. Certainly as a user on both sites I think it a reasonable thing to archive that headlines submitted that reference bannination.com will be deleted and those who submit them are punished by the website. "Advertising" or no "Advertising". Furthermore, can it be deduced that they are advertising the website for the purposes of gaining users, or for the purpose of educating others on the actions perportedly being covered up on Fark.com? It's certainly worth consideration. --Reed Solomon 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fark has about 40-50,000 Total Farkers. Though this number is very hard to determine, as they keep the financials very closely guarded. 1-1,500 have joined Bannination. Some still are members on Total Fark, but most are not. That's around 2%. That's significant.

What is also significant is the number of users who have left Total Fark. Again as Fark keeps the figures tight, it's hard to work out, but just by looking at the number of discusssions to Total Fark, the numbers are well and truly down.

87.194.41.4 10:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why were the filtered words taken out? That was a useful section of the article. oh wait, I know why. because bannination.com is one of the filters and a Fark admin also happens to be a wiki admin. not a neutral POV. ~tarrant84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.128.242 (talk • contribs) 16:59, June 8, 2007

Actually, it's because there is no reliable source to cite for that list. I'm not sure who you're claiming is a Fark admin, but I would refrain from making accusations of bias unless you can provide evidence. Assuming good faith is core to Wikipedia. Finally, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs. -- Kesh 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the idea behind verifiability and reliable sources is that they allow people who are not experts on the subject at hand to determine whether a statement is to be considered true — if you can find a citation for some esoteric physics principle, you don't need to be a physics expert yourself to say something about it. However, when it comes to things that are directly and easily verifiable by anyone sitting at this page — how a certain website works, for example — what good does it do to wait for a published mention of it before you allow yourself to deposit that bit of human knowledge? For example, if I were to state in some article that dragging the vertical scroll bar at the left edge of a browser window allows the user to see higher or lower portions of the viewed page, would I be wrong to do so unless I could find a publication that said so? Would I need a citation to imply that the phrase "between a rock and a hard place" meant "in a difficult situation"? At some point, this sort of thing becomes a ludicrous and hidebound adherence to policy in lieu of using one's brain. And I'd say that posting a filtered word on a forum should be more than easy enough for anyone here to do, if they doubted the statement. Atario 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Streetlight Farkism

Shouldn't the "street light" farkism be included in the farkism section? I've seen it on Fark more often than many of the other farkisms listed.

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2618004

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2621616


"It's a Streetlight" should be included, especially since it definitely started on Fark. DopplerShift 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)DopplerShift

Well, it was listed back when the whole thing started. Since it wasn't clear whether the streetlight cliché was going to turn out to be just a fad, it got removed (that section is pretty big as it is) . Since I am no longer a TFer and only occasionally visit Fark lite, I don't know if it's still in common usage. Just thought I'd add some background info. -- Seed 2.0 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean this? As for the cliché itself it's like many other clichés: it's fairly reliable if its subject matter (in this case UFOs) is involved, however, since there's few greenlit links related to the subject matter it's not particularly common overall. Still, like I said, I go to Fark (lite) quite a lot and I've seen it more times and it seems more reliable than some of the others in the list. This is just my own personal impression though. Here's a recent example.
Streetlights should definitely be included. It's virtually unique to fark and it's used for almost any unexplained phenomena, not just UFOS. Here are some recent examples so it's more than a fad. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 82.43.117.197 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So far we haven't had any objections so I'm putting the street light farkism back. I'm slightly concerned that it refers to someone specifically even though it doesn't give their real name. Anyone know if this is OK with wikipedia?

BTW the two unsigned posts above are mine. Sorry about that, didn't see the message telling you about the tildes then. 80.6.106.90 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

History Section

The last sentence of the History section contains the phrase "more on that later", which really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. --dinomite 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nutsack the squirrel has returned to the FarQ. See thread #2821362. (scan for the posting by Drew) Lincoln F. Stern 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to "mustard" in the article that needs to be changed to point to "Mustard (condiment)". (Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!) If an admin-type could make that change, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. CSWarren 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting

... for the moment. Please play nice! :) - Alison ☺ 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please don't start again. The three-revert rule is policy and violating it is a blockable offense. The article was on full protection because of it for a pretty long time and it's safe to assume that any revert warring won't be looked kindly upon -- and that goes for both sides of this dispute.
If there's still something to say about the issue, please say it here. -- Seed 2.0 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A great deal of persons have openly stated that they have left fark.com for specific reasons. I am compiling these criticisms into an entry that will be posted to the fark.com article as an example of 'criticism', for which there is currently none. I am avoiding hearsay evidence and instead relying on screencaps and other evidence (such as links) that give specific examples of shadowbanning (which has it's own wiki entry) and excessive moderation. In Bannination.com's defense - the community was formed in direct opposition to fark.com's new policy of intense moderation. Bannination is a term that derives from a farkism used to refer to a user that has been banned. The phrase 'enjoy your bannination' is popular in Fark.com threads where a user has overstepped the rules and is likely to be banned. Bannination.com is unique in that it is entirely moderated by the community. No individual holds the title of moderator, and no one person is responsible for choosing the content of the site. Both processes are automated in order to avoid what is perceived as being the 'downfall' of Fark.com. Faethe 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So now I see Stephen has decided it's better to gut the article, removing the entire Filters section — information basic to the topic at hand — than allow even passing reference to a web site he doesn't like. I do hope he'll go through the whole article phrase by phrase, deleting anything that has not been published at least thrice in the New York Times. Atario 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is rather silly. With this article it would seem that fully half of it should be removed for lack of a source. It is amusing, though... all of this trouble over a little website. Perhaps the question should be whether or not Fark is worth an article page; especially as so much if it cannot be verified.

It seems strange to me that the complaints of heavy handed moderation that exists at Fark can now extend to this Wiki page... anonymous users are also gutting "negative", yet factual, information on a separate Wiki page that also mentions Fark.com, specifically the wiki page that was made for Shadowban. It can easily be looked at here as an issue of providing information, even if that information CANNOT BE DISPUTED and people attempting to cut out entire portions of a section in attempt to erase that information. By removing information that you don't like, the integrity and neutrality of the article has to be called into dispute. This article should be more about the facts, even if that means bannination.com has to be referenced somehow... otherwise this article turns purely into an advertisement for Fark.com if you can't allow cause-and-effect information to remain on this page. Ultimately, I would have to ask why such a large site is so afraid of a sub-2000 user site being mentioned in any shape, way or form. 24.12.99.60 01:17, 07 June 07 (UTC)

I wrote the original "criticisms" entry on Fark. If you remember, we got into an edit war because of this same thing. The users complaining about the new heavy handed moderation are absolutely correct. And that's what Fark wants its wiki entry to be-- an advertisement for Fark. That's what they wanted in 2004 (when I defended their moderation policies, and actually emailed back and forth with Drew to post his side of the story.) Case in point, there is a great deal of validity to users complaining about Fark's new heavy handed moderation. ~tarrant84—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.59.243 (talk • contribs) 02:02, June 7, 2007

Criticisms

Fark entry probably requires a criticism section concerning all the "shady" stuff that people report about. Shadowbanning, excessive moderation, layout, moderator and admin interaction, selling of links without letting the users know. Any others? --Lincoln F. Stern 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, we would need verifiable reliable sources to cite for those claims. So far, none have been found. If you are aware of any, please discuss them here so we can improve the article. -- Kesh 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Shadowbanning is verified on http://ergh.org/farkdeceit/, but by its nature 'verification' by independent third parties is not possible. Instead we can cite that shadowbanning is alleged, and link to evidence - that should satisfy NPOV as well as citability. --Leperflesh 07:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. As you state, there are no verifiable third party sources, which is what WP:RS requires. Until someone actually does create such a source on the concept, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 02:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I'm going to come back with the Pruning shears later this weekend. There's way too many citations that link to forums and Fark itself, which does not suit WP:RS. If folks want to find some other sources to back up those quotes, please do. Otherwise, this article is going to shrink quite a bit. -- Kesh 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It needs to. Faethe 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur, this article needs a serious clean up. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What, you want proof of shadowbanning? How about screenshots, even with pestering TF users to resubscribe... yet their accounts are linked to a purge script that runs every x hours? I could make a movie with fraps and convert it to flash if it's needed, but it's a slick way that fark's owners sucker their advertisers and also TF members. Most never see their posts disappear at all, but it's not difficult to prove.

If you want proof, I'll gladly upload it on youtube or such. I know of plenty of people that are shadowbanned, most never even knew it till it was shown to them. Their advertisers would sure like to see it too. Shadowspawn 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:RS. We need a reliable, independent source to show this information. Even if you showed people unable to log in, that wouldn't help with "shadowbanning" unless the page splashes up "You have been shadowbanned" when they try to log in. It's a term some folks on Fark made up to explain banning without notification. If you can find some reliable sources that discuss it, then we can add it to the article. -- Kesh 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess you do not understand what shadowbanning is nor the legal ramifications about it. One ramification is the legality of shadowbanning a paying member without informing them, which fark currently engages. --Lincoln F. Stern 09:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased opinion here - I used Fark frequently until I figured out I was shadowbanned when switching computers while checking a forum. I am a totalfark subscriber and upon further investigation found that I had been shadowbanned since January of 07 while still paying for the totalfark service. This is not good business and I think it should be discussed on this site. Drew and his moderators should be ashamed of themselves. If you'd like me to send you proof via screenshots, ytmnd movies, etc I would be happy to. Someone needs to bring this bunch down a few levels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.144.240 (talk)

Shadowban

How can a somewhat new original concept be given its own page? I see that people have tried to create a shadowban page but it hs been deleted every time. It is a concept that is allegedly used on certain forums. I can see how getting citiable sources and whatnot would make it hard to mention whether a given forum practices that method but I do not understand why an article about the practice can't be made. --Lincoln F. Stern 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as other people voting against the creation of a Shadowban page are against it becuase it is a neologism, what is the justification for a wiki entry on Badonkadonk? --Lincoln F. Stern 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference is citability. Badonkadonk has seen use in many, many movies and TV shows, plus news and magazines. Shadowban... well, hasn't been used outside the FARK forums. -- Kesh 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that is has been used outside of fark forums. Actually if you mention shadowban in a fark post it'll summarily get deleted. --Lincoln F. Stern 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If you do a Google search for shadowban -fark, you get very little coherent information.
And none of it is verifiable. My original wording had been vague but, outside of forum posts and the occasional blog, who actually uses the term? Nobody, that I can find. -- Kesh 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a google search with and without -fark and the results are about the same.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.122.104 (talk • contribs) 02:29, November 12, 2007

Unverifiable Claims

I don't see the problem with deletion of long amounts of unsourced information, including:

  • Fark/Something Awful rivalry. There is no source for any of this information whatsoever, and people have requested a source since February.
  • Ananova controversy. There is no source for any of this information whatsoever, and people have requested a source since February.
  • "Drew responded to this by saying he had considered selling links he was already going to post to servers that could handle the bandwidth," etc. There is no source for this information either, not even links to a forum post.
  • Tags. No source for "The signature of Fark has always been the tags given to stories by submitters," or the use of tags and their declines, and the use of humorous symbols in place of comment numbers, etc. etc.
  • Farkisms and Cliches. Seems to violate many of the things that Wikipedia is not, and it's nearly 30k in size.
  • Filters. No source for any of this information either, and it's not all that noteworthy anyway?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchip (talk • contribs)

I personally found the information presented in its condensed form to be inherently useful; however, I am not sufficiently acquainted with the relevant policy to argue against its removal should community consensus favour so. Having said that, I find it unacceptable that newly-registered accounts (no disrespect intended) are taking it upon themselves to remove hours of work by other editors without having received (or even requested) community input on the matter. Be bold, but do not be reckless. Ayla 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's helpful, but is it Wikipedia's business to provide what (in some cases) ends up being a FAQ for the idiosyncrasies of various Web forums? Elchip 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the information should be removed, since it doesn't cite any secondary sources (citing Fark about Fark isn't enough). We're an encyclopedia, not a FAQ. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a request for comment on WP:RFC/ART with the aim of generating a community discussion. Ayla 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is no substantial community response within a few days and you decide to go ahead with the removal, then I would recommend dropping a copy of the material on this talk page for future reference. Ayla 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to delete Farkism Section

While this section is very thorough, it appears to fall under WP:NOT#INFO "indiscriminate collection of information". This information should be kept on a fan site for the subject, not on Wikipedia. Since this has been discussed before without vote or cleanup, I will start a vote to if this section is encyclopedic. Please weigh in and vote, I will act on the vote in 14 days. Big Merl 08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on "votes." We should be working towards a consensus, rather. That said, I agree. While amusing and interesting, it's indiscriminate. -- Kesh 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Spend any time on Fark, and it's apparent that the cliches really make it what it is. They are vital to the article. Keepscases 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a vote, just my opinion since we are trying to build consensus rather then vote; I think the list should go. I have used it myself for amusement after being on Fark, but I do not believe it belongs in the article as a list with each and every cliche explained in length. A section describing the use of cliches with a few examples to illustrate the point of them being used would be appropriate. mceder (u t c) 12:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's funny to me that some editors are so hung up on calling things not a vote when almost everything actually is. Anyway, I the section should be removed as it is a collection of mostly one-time and out-dated statements made in the fark-comments once. Cheers, PaddyM 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Some editors find perhaps the difference between consensus and voting to be important? mceder (u t c) 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But it's completely arbitrary - everything is a vote and not a consensus. Look at AfD, RfA, etc. These are all votes with the idea of consensus, but everything comes down to majority rules in the end. Cheers, PaddyM 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, some disagree with your opinion. I.e WP:VOTE. They purposely try to steer (even though with a big FAIL boat on it) the AfD RfA etc away from voting since it could spill over into editorial editing, where voting is a bad idea. Just because the majority may believe something to be true makes it no more or less true. mceder (u t c) 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote no. I agree that, ideally, this list should be hosted on another website but until one is found/made I don't think the entire section should be deleted since the clichés are an important part of Fark. Perhaps Drew Curtis can extend the "official" list [11].
The list is too long and contain several entries that shouldn't be there, some are general internet memes (such as lolcats and "i'm in ur base, killing ur d00ds") or only very rarely used. As an alternative, I propose that we trim the list by removing anything that's not unique to Fark and require "recent examples" of each farkism's usage to justify its inclusion. I suspect that this will cut down the list quite a bit. Deus Ex Machinæ 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly disagree. Farkisms are a major part of Fark. It hasn't even been tagged a month yet, give people a chance to add examples. - JNighthawk 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand you, but I believe the point to remove this list is because there are too many examples of the Farkisms, a indiscriminate list, that raises the argument to remove it. mceder (u t c) 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
strong keep. nomination for deletion is totally unfounded and completely without merit. --emerson7 | Talk 00:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well beyond that it is your opinion, do you care to elaborate so we can actually discuss this? The foundation and merit as stated comes from WP:NOT#INFO which is a policy outlining what Wikipedia is not. The argument to remove the contents is that it falls under an "indiscriminate collection of information". mceder (u t c)
Remove. Does not belong here. Fark hosts its own list. And I say that as a long time farker. aeonite 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The question here is not "do sufficient people who like it vote to keep the information; the question is, does the information violate Wikipedia policies on inclusion. In particular, it is trivia, original research, and not verifiable from external sources. Policy trumps opinion, and as always the onus is on the people who wish to include the information to justify it. >Radiant< 09:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Verification was provided for all of the entires, and contrary to your claims nowhere does WP:V state that information about the source needs to come from OUTSIDE the source in order to be verifiable. Original Research doesn't come into play either, since no entry provided a "novel synthesis that sought to promote a position." WP:AVTRIVIA is just tangential, since this isn't a colleciton of unrelated, useless facts but a breakdown of an important part of Fark culture. Finally, though I am loathe to do it, removing the section makes this article both incomplete and of poorer quality, which goes against the trump card of all Wikipedia policies, Ignore All Rules. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 10:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If the Farkisms are to be removed from this article, they should be restored in a new article. See this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_snowclones and many others like it for examples. Keepscases 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're getting at? Arguably the list of snowclones belongs in Wiktionary; but the difference is that the LOC is a "list of common and well-documented memes in use worldwide" whereas this page holds a "list of memes common only on fark, and not documented in external sources". >Radiant< 09:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Lame... I came to this page just now specifically for the cause of looking at the information that you deleted. I guess I'll have to go through history. Shouldn't have to though. 74.135.113.208 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This. I came here for the same reason as 74.135.113.208 only to find that the most valuable part of the Fark entry has been completely scrapped. I called upon Drew to start a "Farkipedia" or something similar because I was afraid this would happen. Unfortunately, I don't see that being forthcoming anytime soon. Therefore, Wikipedia was our only source for such information...until now. I see what deletion proponents are saying about Wikipedia's policy and their reasons why it was taken away, but it doesn't excuse the fact that removing such a useful source of information for all Farkers is a disservice to its users. If anything, it should be maybe a separate entry such as "Farkisms" or "A List of Fark Cliches" that would be site-specific. 66.142.41.196 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily set up the Talk:Fark.com/Farkisms and clichés subpage in order for individuals who are interested in participating in this discussion (or merely accessing the old information) to avoid the trouble of navigating through the article history. Ayla 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fark/Archive_2&oldid=1088795132"