Wikiality talk:Improving Pages

Satire vs Absurd
Not too sure if this is helpful, but I sort of remember what my Arts professor said regarding the difference between an Absurdist work and a Satirist work. The criteria of Wikiality.com to exclude randomness seems, at least to me, to be an attempt to exclude absurdism. The distinction between an avant-garde artwork, (existing simply to exist without any point or meaning,) and an avant-garde artwork, (with attempts to critique a point by posing as pseudo-support,) is fine, but significant.

If one takes a look at the likes of Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica, nothing is holy there; whilst should one take a look at Wikiality, Colbert-ness is pseudo-holiness and Bear-ness is pseudo-unholiness. Thus, America is seen as holy and presented in a positive light in relations to Colbert and any enemy of America--Royal, Nazi, Commie, Terror--are presented in a negative light in relations to Bears. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, of American right-wing ideals presented in a positive light versus that of American left-wing ideals being presented in a negative light. Pointlessness, meaninglessness, and truthlessness portray the understanding of reality as something that is unattainable (nothing is right); however, having a pseudo-point, having a pseudo-meaning, and having a pseudo-truth (or truthiness) can portray the understanding of reality within the right-wing ideals (the Right is right) while ultimately demonstrating the bias or fallacy.

To put it simply, the goal should be the Right is "right" rather than nothing is right. Bearologist 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, you sound like you've read a book about this stuff...so that we don't have to...thank you.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the part about the site that I've wanted to sort out for a while but wasn't sure when and with what topic. I think the hardest thing to do with this site since its an open source and public wiki is to have all the building blocks for good satire and keep it consistent. Personally, I think our goals should tentatively include:


 * Being relatively informed about the subject at hand (prior knowledge, non-bias news outlet, or dependable websites)... for the most part, we already consistently do that with notes on talk pages. Though, like Bum for instance, not everything requires notes...a lot of people have their own butt.


 * We might be mocking wikipedia but the only difference between us and conservapedia is good intentions...and humor... superior porn vandals. We shouldn't get too into the facts or make this some kind of book report but I'd avoid becoming apart of the hypocrisy by not becoming informed yourself.


 * A universal understanding of whats petty, tiresome and repetitive and then whats tasteful and effective. Just as an example...terrorist, commie, etc. or anything over-the-top all make for a good, quick punchline but developing habits make everything less effective over time and shouldn't be the weight bearing joke of the article. I realize we're mocking very repetitive people and as jon said, theres only so many ways to build a taco, but becoming too repetitive ourselves might get old. Stephen does use the terminology often, but its not the premise of all his jokes...just a supplemental tasty treat. He beings more to the table than mocking just the name calling.


 * This pretty much ties in with the first two, but its also important to look at the subject with a non-bias eye. With the elections coming up soon... I don't think its smart to build this site solely on just mocking one group of people. If we look at the person, group or company honestly and try to honestly mock them...I really think it would make for a better site.


 * I also think its important not to lose our edge or take it too seriously. If we want this site to continue to grow, we should periodically make room for the funny stupid sh*t. Because we should honestly just try to make people laugh, regardless.


 * Seeking out the vanity and stoning it/them to death like our cute little sacrificial lame for the better of the community. Quality > Volume. Not just for the vandal types but if an edit doesn't jive or improve an article (especially if the article is one of the better ones) there ought to be a way to undo the edit without a major uproar. Again, we sort of already do this. Though defining exactly what is good or bad, funny or lame probably needs to be reassessed with more depth beforehand.


 * These are just my opinions... everyone probably has their own take on it. I'm guilty of not doing a lot of these and whether any of this is possible on an open source wiki is beyond me. My guess is it probably involves using the talk tubes a little more. -- GlennBecksATool (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Only Political Topics, Or With Politics In Mind?
Okay, let me stir up the pot a bit more (heh).

This wiki is based on Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report.

This character has made few appearances outside the show:
 * Correspondent's dinner
 * a few awards shows

He is a clearly defined character based on ignorant, loud-mouth, know-it-all pundits (not unlike Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh).

His major characteristics (even though he may deny them) are:
 * he loves himself above everything else
 * he believes he is brave and infallible and everything he does is above reproach and acts with impunity as a result
 * he believes everything he says (this may have to do with whose doing the talking)
 * he believes others will be instantly converted to his way of thinking upon hearing the sound of his voice
 * he fears gays, but has latent homosexual tendencies
 * he loves everything about his country as much as he fears and distrusts anything foreign

His minor characteristics (they are more subtle) are:
 * he is racist: for him, minorities are just a peculiar brand of foreigner
 * he is a misogynist: he believes he is God's gift to women, even though he has a very low opinion of them

His religion (Catholic) and his politics (conservative) also color the way he interacts with his guests and presents stories, as well as his love of all things nerdly.

Having said that, he is clearly biased, even though sometimes his bias is subtle.

We have been able to create lots of pages that are not related to the show or have anything to do with politics at all by using the "satire" model.

My question (finally) is: should all our pages have a political bent, or can we get away with simply making sure they have one of the Stephen characteristics listed above?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I don't understand about his character and its relevant because this is the character the site has taken on. After the elections, if anyone other than a neocon wins, I'm pretty sure Stephen and the writers will have a harder time adapting his persona for longevity. His character is at full capacity right now with a neoconervative in power, but satire is meant to inflict scorn onto those in power and that may not always be a hawkish neocon.


 * In a sense, all of the content on this site is right-wing biased by the nature of the satire(assuming the false sincerity isn't obvious with it being deadpan satire)...without a doubt, they should still make fun of other parties involved for false accusations and controversies, but calling a democrat who is in power a terrorist for honest to god hypocrisy will sound more like political cleansing rather than scorn because its the same old stuff we we're calling him before, when he wasn't in power.


 * I think this is why Stephen hasn't really hammered the Ron Paul types for being "traitors" over Iraq.. because he sees the complexity of the geopolitical environment and he still needs to keep the dialog open to all parties in order to stay relevant. This site needs to stay a right-wing character that has the ability to satirically laugh at both parties.


 * As for topics, I think Stephen does anything that interests him thats news related and has material on human nature. (religion, sex, politics, environment) I've noticed this is also a challenge for the site because an article based on one news story that is neglected for months makes for a pretty weird read when stumbled upon later.


 * As for the last question, I think he wears his character lightly by not using all the traits listed at once and at equal levels.. so I think thats proven to be more versatile for being able to tackle various subjects. Another thing he utilizes is status shifts and the capability to take the passive, less authoritative figure. He might assume authority over one group on a certain stance but then shift the next minute by playing the dumb, lovable, child-like character. Thats hard to do in text, but if we can try to work that in at times, i think it would lessen the impact of the other pages which feature that solely anger-fed anti-secular, self-righteous facade. -- GlennBecksATool (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How Stephen treats an administration that is not an exaggerated version of conservatism is yet to be seen--he may just become a sycophant eagerly repeating whatever the administration in charge says or does, mocking all the way. But, I'm just speculating.


 * The major characteristics I listed above were personality traits not descriptions of his politics. If anything he is obstinate in whatever belief he expresses; loudly and angrily repeating it and expecting everyone watching to agree.


 * What I was trying to figure out was: how do we determine what should be written for a page that is not about something in the news? Do we insert politics in it (when it is not obviously political)?  Or do we put a Colbert-personality twist on it (and leave the politics out completely)?--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think in this case, (stuff like celebrities, events, common items, common relationships) finding any absurdity or cliche in the subject and exploiting it with tasteful exaggeration is the best course to take. Such as jon pointing out the travel habits of am track passengers...theres no clear target of scorn there, but is still amusing. Stephen said something like this in a recent interview [about not being overly political initially in his career in improv]:

''Starting out, period, like at Second City, which was ostensibly like a social-political satire — but not so much when I was there. It just didn't appeal to me. Because I found referential humor often light on jokes and heavy relying on the fact that people knew what I was referring to. Like, they understand if I make a Ted Kennedy drinking joke, it's not really a joke there. We're sharing the fact that we both know the reference I'm making. And there's something enjoyable about that, because there's a sense of community there.''


 * I donno, thats a good question that I find hard to answer.-- GlennBecksATool (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am currently gathering images for ep307 (I am way behind) and I feel the clip I am going through right now seems to perfectly encompass the question we are pondering.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait...What?
So what questions should we answer with this page?-- GlennBecksATool (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL When someone first starts posting, we want to send them to a page that gives them suggestions for fixing their pages, not just criticism.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah...it was sort of an open ended question to conjure up thoughts of what those suggestions might be. Sort of like defining what bad is so others can understand what good is. Or maybe not.-- GlennBecksATool (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a suggestion, I just thought it might help people get the hang of things. People can't learn truthiness if we just tell them IT'S WRONG. And then not tell them how to fix it.  Or at least give them suggestions.  Sometimes they freak out when they receive messages on their talk pages (some might think it's an error message) so if we can just give them a link in the tag to this page that shows them what they could do until they learn the ins and outs.  If it doesn't work, we can dump it and try again.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily pointing out the wrong as much as explaining what a folly/vice is...examples of wit, sarcasm and false sincerity. I guess I'm not grasping the suggestion concept. It seems very relative to the specific subject/article that it would almost evolve into the sound advice page. -- GlennBecksATool (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that the improving page itself is a suggestion. Essentially I thought we could use this for the most common of mistakes.  Like when people create a page about themselves or their school, etc.  We can tag it, the tag can have a link to the improvement page, and the improvement page can show them how to fix the tagged page. (remove all content, copy content to their user page, don't use real names, etc.)--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically something like Wikiality:Policy, but options for improvement. The tricky thing with this is the variety of bad edits we get. Its hard to separate good faith edits from the bad. For example, a recently cleared page with idiotic message or copy/paste job from wikip*dia is pretty hard to improve upon. With exceptions, most of the time its clearly douchebaggery.

Less obvious examples would be someone implying one of our sacred cows such as President bush to be an idiot or homosexual(or any other republican, conservative or Christian article) or someone simply removing a small section of an article. That could go either way and could probably be solved by this page or just open conversation.

The last and hardest to combat are people who appear to be making good faith edits but aren't aware that its bad. To me, its really only a threat when they're continuously creating new pages or adding/removing/drastically changing content from articles already featuring quality work.

--GlennBecksATool (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

maybe we should start off with a tentative list of specific mistakes...??


 * We do have a page of common mistakes, but no suggestions for improvement or changes.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * well then why didn't we just add to them on that page?...--GlennBecksATool (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at that page? Doesn't it seem a little confusing? I thought adding more to the page would make it more complicated...don't know...--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, so why don't we just take that What Problems Might Your Page Have? section and make that the page. Keep it separated into sections such as: Beauty Issues, Formatting, Tone/Content, Story, etc..and under every section keep that list of common problems and place them in a table or bullet tree so that suggestions can be added in paragraph or list form. And instead of a concrete policy, make it an ongoing project so that new mistakes/sections can always be added to it in the future. Then if need be, cross-link the sections to their identical counterparts on the common mistakes page. I just think the hardest thing for n00bs(hypothetically, that they'd actually care to read policy pages) is not one specific confusing page but a billion of similar-content pages sporadically spread across the wiki. But this is America after all and nobody really reads the instructions/FAQs/directions in the first place.  --GlennBecksATool (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we can force them to read it by including the link to the help page in a tag and replace all the content of their precious page with the tag. Or make the tag so obnoxious they cannot miss it. They will see it, if not read it.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content was copied from Common Mistakes, but I'm hoping to add to it by looking through the Sound Advice archive and finding common problems there as well. I tried to make the sections cater around the sound advice grading scale in anticipation of it being used in the future. If this isn't where you wanted the page to head, feel free to jump in or anyone else... I'm just throwing out ideas that I thought might be the general direction you wanted to go in. That, and I'm bored. --GlennBecksATool (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, I can't get to sleep...the grading scale was an idea I started, but was shot down by another admin (yes, only 2 people discussed it) So, if you feel it still can be used, develop it best you can. Nice work, btw.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness / Storyline

 * Not satirical
 * Page is too random
 * Page is too facty, reality-based
 * Vanity / Non Colbert-Centric content (connection to The Stephen Colbert Experience)

Storyline
(content with storyline)


 * Doesn't start, no focus
 * Doesn't go anywhere
 * introduced character, dropped/forgot about character
 * introduced idea, dropped/forgot about it
 * too bland, has no personality or point of view Wikiality: CPOV

It-Getting / Tone&Content

 * Page features too many memes
 * Page is cliche-dependent
 * Page tries to cover too many ideas on one page
 * Page's voice has no discernible attitude
 * Page content was copied from Wikip*dia, Uncyclopedia or other Internets source (even Conservapedia)

Beauty

 * Excessive font games(?)
 * Page has too many tags

Format

 * Page needs a table or list
 * Page has no links to other pages
 * Page contains one giant, solid block of words
 * Page has no sections
 * Page has no category(ies)
 * Page is too listy

Images

 * Little or no Images
 * Image not sourced, credited, or other ass-coverings
 * Images too dark
 * Images "look" off page
 * Images too big/too small
 * Images are stacked
 * Images have no captions

SPG
For main article, see: SPG


 * understandable text