Jump to content

Talk:The Koala/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed a lot of the fancruft from this article. Please remember this is an encyclopedia article and not a fansite. Information included must be verifiable, meaning written by reliable third party independent sources. The controversy section is both encyclopedic and well sourced. Lists of editors or examples of writing are not. - Ocatecir 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that the wiki-community jointly decides what is fancruft and what is not. Therefore, it is against community guidelines to make assertions that something is well-sourced (or not) without providing any sort of argument about why this is true. Having said this, in the spirit of the community, I will not override any changes. However, please be on notice that fascist behavior will not be tolerated. Koalitytbone 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review wikipedia guidelines before making accusations of fascist behavior. All information added to wikipedia must be verifiable via third-party independent reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:RS. —Ocatecir Talk 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that when one person overules the wishes of the community, they are engaging in fascist behavior. I, and others concerned with the Koala having an accurate public record, will continue to undo changes approximating vandalism. Ocetir simply declares my changes to be vandalsim without ever offering reasons. This arbritrary conduct will not be tolerated. By the way, where are your sources Oceetir? Why do you defend your version? Koalitytbone 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ocatecir, you removed the following paragraph from my early write up:


Nearly all of The Koala's writing is intentionally politically incorrect. The paper has made fun of/attacked every race, ethnicity, religion, group, people with disabilities, sex, and sexual orientation, as well as recent national tragedies. No subject is taboo, and the The Koala made jokes about the World Trade Center bombing within months of the event. The paper also celebrates a hedonistic lifestyle including the consumption of alcohol, drugs, and pornography.
I initially did not mind, but with the types of additions that are coming I think it should be put back in because it acknowledges the nature of the publication in an encyclopedic manner. The Koala's shock comedy is something that is quite obvious to anyone who's read it so doesn't have to be referenced, and would be a fair compromise with those who want mention of the papers controversial nature.
By the way, if you look through the page's history, you will see that my edits form the bulk of this article including many of the well referenced controversies so I'm not just here to attack the Koala. Just the opposite. When other members of the Koala and I were working on this article, we didn't want to hide what the paper was about, so this description or something like it really should go in.CowardX10 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this represents an unfortunate trend in Wikipedia where people are taking rules as absolutes in cases where it should not be applied. The Koala has press coverage and history so it is worthy of inclusion, but it still is very local to UCSD so waiting for someone in the mainstream media to clearly describe the general nature of its contents in ridiculous. I suggest you save your strict standards of "verifiability" for things such as nationally recognized politicians and accept that there are a lot of topics like the Koala that to be informationally useful, need a description even if unreferenced. Otherwise, this page will be plagued by vandals who will give a highly POV description. I have not written anything that proponents, critics, or neutral parties would say is unfair or incorrect. Also, this can be partially inferred from the "List of Controversies".CowardX10 10:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a local or regional encyclopedia. If you wish to create a UCSD wiki you are free to do so; the code is open source and can be used by anyone. Otherwise, Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and notability apply to all articles, not just the heavier trafficked ones. —Ocatecir Talk 19:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong that "verifiability and notability apply to all articles". This is an ideal to strive for but it is not the only consideration. I suggest you look at these 2 subjects for an area where application of Wikipedia's insistence on verifiability cannot be enforced absolutely: Shock_sites and Goatse.cx. They are sparsely cited at best with the latter having only one and that's to some Internet archive. If you want to put a "needs to site sources" tag at the top as these sites do, then go ahead (even the first of these was put up for deletion partially this reason). So here we have an example of a subject that many including me are glad are covered in detail in Wikipedia but will probably never be written about in the main stream media to the degree necessary to be referenced. This is why rules are more malleable than what you have claimed.
I will also quote to you this from Howard Stern's page:
The self-proclaimed "King of All Media" (a humorous reference to Michael Jackson's appellation "The King of Pop") has been dubbed a shock jock for his highly controversial use of scatological, sexual and racial humor. Stern has said that the show was never about shocking people, but primarily intended to offer his honest opinions on a gamut of issues (ranging from world affairs to problems among his own staff). Though controversial, he is one of the highest-paid radio personalities in the United States and the most fined personality in radio broadcast history.
The above statement has no citation but if you were to go there and delete the above demanding that it be referenced, you'd probably be quickly reverted as a vandal. This is a basic statement of who he is and the nature of his show. Ultimately, you'll be responsible for fixing all the vandalism that results because those who know the Koala justifiably resent the downplaying of its obviously offensive and politically incorrect content.CowardX10 21:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is saying you can't add information without a source, but if it is making a judgment or argument, which commenting on the paper's offensiveness is, a source will be needed or else it will constitute original research. If you'll notice, those articles you mentioned have sources requested tags, meaning an editor has already noticed the lack of sources. There is a difference between unsourced material and original research. From WP:ATT:

Relaxing of standards because other articles come up short is a defeatist attitude and not a valid reason to add original research to an article. The Stern quote you've quoted is pretty balanced and makes no judgment. It says he's controversial, the Koala article also says it is controversial. If not a lot in the way of third party writings about the Koala exist, then maybe that information is not notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. And finally threats of vandalism are also not reasons for inclusion. Vandalism is a fact on wikipedia and is easily reverted and editors are easily blocked.

Here is some reading for you to become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, based on the arguments you are making:

—Ocatecir Talk 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me also just explain that cutting all the bullshit unverified info in an article (like i did by removing lists of editors, examples of writing, etc) also reduces the likelihood that an article will be deleted. For example, while perusing the afds one day, I noticed The Mikey Show was up for deletion. I looked at the page and saw why; page after page of fancruft, none of it attributed to any source, none of it establishing notability or why the world outside of San Diego Morning talk would care. By removing all the extraneous information and adding a well sourced section on the controversy it creates, I saved it from deletion and the nominator withdrew his nomination. Look at the difference between the bloated, nominated for deletion version, and its current state: The Mikey Show. That should give you an idea of the standard to strive for to avoid this article being deleted. —Ocatecir Talk 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Ocetir is wikipedia's sole arbiter of what is "bullshit" and what gets deleted? You are a fascist sir. Yeah I said it. Now tell me what rules i've violated, and what other sourced "bullshit" is in the article. FASCISMO. Kill any jews today Ocetir? Koalitytbone 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, in the quote I want to re-insert above, there is no statement that it is an offensive paper. What I want back in is a fair compromise between those who would put very unencyclopedic and inflammatory language to describe the paper and my writing which is indisputable and encyclopedic. All I say is that its contents are politically incorrect and what that content is, which is really no harsher than saying Stern is controversial. The fact that it attacks other religions and ethnicities can clearly be seen by the Jizzlam reference. The fact that it promotes pornography can be inferred by the "what is shown on Koala TV" reference. Also, as you can see by the Stern quote, his highly controversial use of scatological, sexual and racial humor, mirrors what I say about the Koala. The paper has made fun of/attacked every race, ethnicity, religion, group, people with disabilities, sex, and sexual orientation, as well as recent national tragedies. Secondly, the shock sites I mentioned don't "come up short" in my opinion. This is simply a topic that at the moment will not get enough coverage so that it can be completely referenced. But it is a valuable subject, the articles are informative and accurate, and it has probably saved a lot of people from being tricked into those sites. Thirdly, I've read through the Wikipedia guidelines already, and they represent an ideal that cannot be universally applied to many worthy subjects. Wikipedia itself acknowledges this by the inclusion of a number of topics such as the aforementioned shock sites, Howard Stern, Pokeman, the Slashdot effect, List of sex positions, etc..
In terms of deletion, I'd rather have my description in and risk it rather than ommitting information that this article needs to be more complete.CowardX10 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are talking about two different things here. The editor who originally responded seemed to be taking issue with all the information that was removed. If you are only advocating reinserting that paragraph you mentioned earlier, I am fine with that. That paragraph was removed only because it was becoming redundant as the controversy section already illustrated the paper's type of humor.
As far as the guidelines go, again, just because articles come up short does not mean abandonment of the guidelines for other articles. As this is an encyclopedia and not a directory of information, the fact that something is included confers a degree of notability to it. Therefore we must strive to only include the most important information. Many people apply the 10/100 test: would the information be verifiable in 10 years? Would someone 100 years from now care? I think that is a very good threshold for inclusion.
Lastly, I'm not sure how Howard Stern, Pokemon, the slashdot effect, and a list of sex positions are not verifiable. Each has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable works (just look at the reference sections for each), and therefore are notable. Your logic here confuses me. —Ocatecir Talk 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of Howard Stern, it's a matter of making assertions that a listener would know is obvious after hearing one show. So if I were to have in the introductory paragraph, "Stern uses profanity in his show, and frequently has strippers as guests", I'm not going to search magazines and newspapers to reference these facts. I'd rather save this effort for things like, "John Kerry is a traitor who collaborated with the Viet Cong". Your source for that had better be more than Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. For the sex positions, there are many citations, but not everyone of them is cited. For instance, under the "Receiving partner on top", the Reverse cowgirl and other variations aren't cited. And the references for the "Less common positions" and "Multiple penetrations" are sparse at best. I accept the status of these articles and would rather have a comprehensive write-up instead of eliminating everything that wasn't cited. Now that doesn't mean you have to accept any random sex position someone wants to add. But whomever is maintaining the article has struck a good balance between citing what they can while allowing for mention of positions that are common knowledge, but very difficult to find in an academic or mainstream publication. The same is true for the other articles I mention. They reference what they can, but also make uncited assertions like(in the Slashdot effect), Typically, less robust sites are unable to cope with the huge increase in traffic and become unavailable-common causes are lack of sufficient bandwidth, servers that fail to cope with the high number of requests, and traffic quotas. Sites that are maintained on shared hosting services often fail when confronted with the Slashdot effect. Anyway, I'll be putting my paragraph back.CowardX10 04:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Information included must be verifiable, meaning written by multiple reliable third party independent sources." Here's my verifiable evidence that you've been dishonest all the way around: WP:V requires that material is attributable to _a_ published source, not multiple sources.
Nevertheless, the part of the write up in question is obviously appropriate if verifiable, and can be verified by the following sources:
La Prensa (http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/july26-02/comment3.htm, already cited as a reference elsewhere in the article): "He alluded to the magazine’s infamous track record, its stereotyped caricatures of minorities and women"
San Diego Union-Tribune(http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20061026-9999-2m26koala.html, also cited in the article): "The Koala, the notorious satirical publication at UC San Diego, is under fire again."
The Daily Nexus , UC Santa Barbara (http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=6953): "A large reason why the Students of Color Conference is taking place at the UCSD campus is to protest The Koala, a UCSD-backed “humor” publication that relies on racism, sexism and homophobia for its comic material."
These as well as a myriad of other sources verify the attributes of The Koala that are apparently in question. As it _is_ a satirical publication that is purposefully politically incorrect, it is most appropriate to include the questioned paragraph in the article, and would in fact be in contradiction to WP:NPOV not to include something of its nature. I suggest it remain. Jeremiah 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here's my verifiable evidence that you've been dishonest all the way around" Who is being dishonest? Did I say that such information did not exist? No. I already agreed that the paragraph can be added. You obviously did not read the entire discussion or you need to work on your reading comprehension. —Ocatecir Talk 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Koala/Archive_1&oldid=1052525991"