Wikiality:Sound Advice/Archive/January 2007

=Week of 1/21/07=

Suggestions

 * This page doesn't seem to have too many formatting problems:
 * a few pics
 * plenty of sections (some blank or need to be expanded)
 * However, there are a few things that need fixes...
 * lots of good stuff, but there isn't a single thread holding them together. Without it, the page just sort of wanders around, but not in the way the state name suggests it should...maybe wandering around could be the thread?
 * although the running joke of everyone shooting people could also be a unifying thread?

There is more than enough material to work with, it just needs some editing.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice start, however, only 2 sections need work (or can be deleted):


 * History, Or Why Would Corn Farmers Need So Many Damn Guns?


 * Achieving Statehood


 * The "Typical Day in Iowa" is priceless. The rest of the page needs a little SPG work.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Internal Linking in Iowa
I would mostly second what WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer has already said. My main concerns are that the page does need some attention to SPG, as well as a bit more cohesion in the overall "narrative." I agree that the two sections noted above need to expanded or cut.

I also think that the piece as a whole could do with some internal linking - you reference a whole lot of people, places, and things for which articles on Wikiality.com exist. It is a Very Good Thing to link your article to other articles. My usual approach is to just start putting brackets around things, hit "Show preview," and see what turns blue. If it stays red and it seems likely that there should be a page for it (e.g., if it were a term like "Presidint"), I would check my spelling. If I had that right, and it was still red, I would do a search to see if maybe the page is called something close to that (like maybe "The President"). If you have questions about this, or want help with links on the page, feel free to ask. --thisniss 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

=Ann Coulter= It definitely needs a rewrite. Comes off as way too resentful. There should be an artificial appreciation for her, like O'reilly & Bush. She should be the "greatest" woman radio pundit. We can use External Sources to link to harsh reviews of her books, etc.--Pro-Lick 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

=Charlene (I'm Right Behind You)=

Comments, Suggestions, etc.
I think this article is great. It is a good example of riffing on the littlest bit of info. Colbert dropped, but still keeping it withing the "Stephen Colbert Experience." I do wish there were some reference to The Police and Sting, or even Puff Daddy and the Notorious BIG, since the song is an obvious takeoff on "I'll be Watching You.", but maybe this would be too obvious. I would also be happy to write that stuff up if noone objected. --Esteban Colberto 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think this article has potential, but I think it needs some work. Since this is obviously an important part of the rich history of The Stephen Colbert Experience, I would love to see you give it a truthification.--thisniss 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

=Factoid= Suggestions
 * are "factoids" supposed to replace truthyisms?
 * some sections, as it is, it is a HUGE BLOCK OF WORDS with very few breaks.
 * some pictures would help too, maybe some people famous for speaking in factoids.
 * I feel the definition isn't quite as truthy as it should be (maybe a little more mystery, the article seems very self-aware)
 * get rid of the randomness, it is not truthiness
 * the "new" history about "God invented America...etc"
 * Galileo dying then writing a book

Remember, these are just suggestions--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Bi 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Truthyisms? Well, I don't know...
 * I added some paragraph breaks and divided the whole thing into smaller sections.
 * Pictures: will get around to that...
 * Definition: fixed (I hope).
 * Wait... are the "God" and "Galileo" things to be gotten rid of or retained? I was under the impression that they're the, um, truthiest parts (since many people gut-feel that Galileo underwent some very bad persecution, and America was somehow created by God); and I added the other stuff just to give some context. But I threw away the "writing a book" part.
 * Galileo/God thing is very truthy, but not the writing a book after dying, only the undead can do that, unless you are saying Galileo is a zombie. But then, it would be too random.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's now a picture. :) Bi 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback and suggestions: I went in and added some internal links, and made a few minor edits to try to tie the whole piece a bit more to the "Wikiality.com" project as I see it. I stuck the Mailer bit in a "Factoid" box, just to break up the text a little, and added a couple of tags so that it's linked to the proper categories.

As it stands at the moment, I find this piece appealing but maybe still a bit random. I don't know why, but I come away from this still feeling like I don't know what a "factoid" is. You give a lot of "history," and a few examples, but it sort of eats itself in the end. Like WatchTV, I wonder about the relationship between factoids and truthyisms. Perhaps you could compare/contrast these? Maybe what you're really trying to do belongs more in the truthyism category than in the factoid - factoids might be more like soundbites? I think this is a good story, but it almost feels like too much story for the "factoid." --thisniss 19:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if I have to give a distinction I'd probably say that "factoid" is more concrete and relates more to the physical universe, while "truthyism" is something more lofty and abstract and pie-in-the-sky. Of course, this may have nothing to do with how these terms are defined and used elsewhere, but that doesn't matter does it? :) Bi 18:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does matter, "factoid" contains the word fact and "truthyism" contains the word truth. And that makes all the difference in the world.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the newly added distinction helps a lot!! --thisniss 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does, will this be nominated to be "featured"?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

=Wikinazi = This is a beautiful page. The picture must one day be given front page featured status! Along with the tombstone! Also, love the link to Colbert Vandal, brilliant dictionary page, too, btw. However...(isn't there always a "however" in these things?) there are a few SPG mistakes, and it contians only 2 (just 2?!) solutions to wikinazis. There must be more. If there is a God in Heaven, there has to be more! Otherwise, this page looks ready to nominate.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this page (which was started by ColbertNationEditor, thanks hero). In the future, some ideas are a list (partial of course), of users who were blocked for having some association with Colbert, a section called "Hate Speech" which would include some of the more egregious anti-Colbert quotes on wikipedia, and perhaps a section on the history of the wikinazi that combines the recent battle between Colbert and Wikipedia and some real history.... --Esteban Colberto 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

minor truthification/adjustment
I just went through and made some edits to the piece - mostly SPG, adding internal links, reworking sentences for flow, minor stuff.

I did do a little bit of work on the "tone," however. I, too, feel that with a bit of work this could definitely be "featurable" on the front page. With that in mind, I would want it to represent the best of Wikiality.com. Since we are clearly superior to the Wikipedophiles, I feel it is important that the tone of the piece does not decend (accidentally or intentionally) into taunting. Teasing is alright, though. We can slap them around a little, as long as it's clear that we're not really looking to start a vandalism show-down. That was the major motivation behind the lines I added about Wikiality.com not tolerating vandalism - I feel we should recognize the potential charge of "hypocrisy," and make fun of ourselves, in order to show the difference between us and the "true" Wikinazis. Without at least a little bit of self-awareness about the irony of wanting to keep our site relatively vandal-free (which we do), I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of putting this on the front page.

Other than that, I also agree with Esteban Colberto's suggestions about possibly including some of the history about the Colbert/Wikipedia feud, although I don't feel this is a necessity. I would love to see this on the front page soon! --thisniss 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I'm happy with this page as it is and I don't feel it needs any more. Proposed sections could be added to other pages, wikilobbying for example. --Esteban Colberto 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. It should stay on Peer Review for its required week, to see if other folks have suggestions, comments, etc., and to give you all time to let it breathe.  You may find some minor adjustments that you want to make between now and then, but overall I think the page is great.  When the time comes, I definitely think it should be nominated for Featured Article voting. --thisniss 19:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

=Confucius =

Comments, Suggestions, etc.
Um, I really don't think this is "Feature" material. I just wanted to put something new on this page, and I do think it's kinda funny. I wrote this as a one-off because I wanted an excuse to use Esteban Colberto's wonderful image. I mean, it was just sitting around in his gallery, waiting for a home and all...

Anyway, feel free to "review" Confucius (or not, as is more likely). You might learn something new about this fascinating thinker (you won't, believe me). Just to answer the question before it's asked: I feel this works better as a short piece, which is why there aren't more sections. So all suggestions to "add a section about X" will be met with great hostility. That is, unless you want to write the proposed section, and it's brilliant. --thisniss 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Suggestions:
 * perhaps a few examples of his fortune cookie advice columns.
 * Also, a little history about the guy, he is oriental, but what kind of Foreigner was he? Besides all the advice, how was he useful to Americans? (which is the only reason why we wuold have this article)
 * how did he get into the advice business?
 * did he start as a child? And what was it like to go to school with a kid who was always talking in riddles and being such a busy-body
 * any rivals in school?
 * did he have any brothers or sisters?
 * did he ever try to use his "advice" on his parents (while they were trying to punish him?)
 * There are probably more, but I think that can be a nice start--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added some of his fortune cookie advice. Bi 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that you added the cookie advice, but I think the sayings need to be nonsensical, since this is confusionism after all. Other than that, this is a funny article. I agree with pretty much all your point thisniss.--Esteban Colberto 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have taken some of these suggestions - a bit more about why Confucius matters ("The Legacy of Confucius" section), and I've incorporated the fortunes into a new section called "Confusian Truthyisms." I ended up making a template (Template:Csay) for these, because I thought they would look better on the page than a series of random-ish quotes. You all may disagree (especially the "you"s that are Admins, and have to keep up with Templates). But I couldn't figure out any prettier way to do this based on my own limited knowledge. I left several open "fortunes," in case anyone is feeling particularly truthy. "My" truthyism is actually a quote from a modern master of Confusionism - you can follow the link to find its source if you don't recognize it right away. :) What else do you think the page needs? Watch, do you think the "early life" is crucial? I'm not quite feeling it right now (I'm extra sleepy and stupid this month, too), but it seems like you might have a vision.  Confucius say: if you're inspired, you should edit him! --thisniss 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Newer edits, now to the next stage?
I have reworked the piece again and feel that it is ready to leave Peer Review. Since I would like to use this as a "process example" (and I do like Confucius enough that I wouldn't mind seeing him on the front page), I would like to nominate it for a Featured Article. What should I do next? --thisniss 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, it hasn't been up for a week, but since the person who created the page never bothered to put that rule about being on Peer Review for at least a week before going to Feature Noms, you can go ahead and nominate it.


 * Oh, but please make sure it passes the Smell Test and make sure you read the Voting Rules here and on the nomination page.


 * Good Luck!--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am willing to wait an extra hour to make it officially one week. :) --thisniss 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Feature Nom
I have nominated the page for Featured Article voting.

=Gerald Ford=

=Kentucky=

=Gloria Steinem =

=Revolving Door=

=Non Faith Based Charities=

=Bear Hunters of America=

=George Washington=

=Atheists=

=Ralph Reed=

=Condoleezza Rice=

=Marx=

=Jayson Blair=

=Sharks=

=Toyota=

=Delaware=

=Cylons=

=Ted Kennedy=

=Poincare conjecture=

=Soledad O'Brien=

=The Qur'an=

=Stem Cell Research=

=The New York Times=

=Jew=

=Serge LeBlanc=

=Notes=