Talk:Wikigroaning

I created this article because the term has caused a very wide amount of interest in the media and on blogs since its creation. (try a Google search). It has been mentioned in the mainstream media and it seemed odd that Wikipedia itself didn't have an article on it. Cheers. Grover cleveland 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be researched better. The term was coined on the Something Awful forums, not by John Hendren who posted about it on Something Awful's front page. He distinctly said in his post that he did not come up with the game himself. Gnack 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The term was coined by DocEvil. [1] --Rubber cat 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Hendren the game was invented by fellow SomethingAwful writer Dr David Thorpe and another SomethingAwful forums poster, he did coin the term in the article linked

The Wall Street Journal reference says that the term "appears to have been coined by Jon Hendren, a 23-year-old living in San Jose, Calif., who wrote about it on humor Web site SomethingAwful.com after playing the game with friends online". If you have better references, please add them and correct as necessary. Thanks. Grover cleveland 03:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work. Definite keep. 122.167.175.154 05:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete the article

Wikigroaning is a serious issue. The writers of wikipedia need to understand the term so they stop writing bios of minor Star Wars videogame characters, and work on a real article.

• I agree. That is a completely non-subjective and balanced assessment of the issue. Why did it take us so long to realize this!? Cctoide 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well, there's always this that needs to be taken into consideration, but it is eye-opening. It's a mildly entertaining method for finding articles that should be focused on. Although mildly irreverent, I definitely thing it's something compulsive contributors should pay attention to. Λι(^t_c)Θlοг-Шιlε 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Deleting this article will only make Wiki-Admins look even more biased against articles or orgs critical of Wikipedia. We don't need another Brian Peppers fiasco. Wiki-groaning is an interesting social phenomenon and critique of the Wikipedia community that has validity. ObsidianRE 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's something fairly deep going on with Wikigroaning, because it demonstrates how we have more human beings interested in a measured take on Battlestar Gallactica than on, say, starvation in Ethiopia. It's more than just irreverent fun, it's a true critique of what Wikipedia is. As Wikipedia itself is something of a cultural phenomenon, certainly those cases that demonstrate its weaknesses deserve the same attention.

I edited the wording of the article to be more objective; it now attributes the spreading of the term to the article and the article to DocEvil, rather than making the claim that he invented it. I don't know if he did or not; he very well might have, but that is exactly why I altered the language: to reflect what is known for sure and indisputable. -Kyle, 20 June 2007

Is it really so bad?

I strongly disagree with the undertone which seems to be dominant here: that more people are "wasting time and resources" on "useless" issues than on articles with "genuine relevance(TM)". Contributing to Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game: It's not as if "trivial" stuff is detracting from the "serious" stuff. (Alright, I do realize that servers do cost money - I'll put in a donation, OK? - but deleting stuff deemed unnecessary doesn't create more diskspace either. :-P )

By definition every true Wiki is always a direct reflection of its users. Obviously there is a large interest in "fun stuff" and trivia in the Wikipedia community, which says a lot about the dominant ages and the kind of generations which have already embraced this still quite new medium. In my opinion Wikipedia should be dealing with anything and everything. If currently there's more interest in Gundam Wing than in Starvation in Ethiopia – tough luck! I hope no one is seriously suggesting to turn these authors around to subjects which some administrator may subjectively feel as more important! Be patient! As Wikipedia matures and earns more widespread acceptance, more "serious(TM)" folk will become attracted and will write more serious stuff.

Personally I think it's terrific that I can read everything about Jedi Knights or any oddball subject in Wikipedia. Researching and discussing not so common interests is exactly what makes the Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular so great.

Live and let live --BjKa 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, they're obviously not "not so common interests" that are well documented here. What wikigroaning illustrates is just how unpopular real-life is in comparison to computer games and comic books.

In actual fact, esoteric and niche subjects are frequently marked for deletion while complete plot synopses of individual episodes of popular television programmes are edited by dozens of people and never considered unnotable. Of course this makes people groan, and in the same way as some people have to look at roadkill they're bound to make a game of evoking that groan in each other.

Sometimes it seems as if Wikipedia tolerates the academic subjects simply to maintain the pretense of an encyclopedia. --ToobMug 10:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This seems like an obvious candidate for merging into Criticism of Wikipedia. Anyone have a reason not to do this? Friday (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

that page is overly long already and needs to have some sections broken out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just a little tidbit. If it doesn't belong there, that means it probably doesn't belong in a standalone article, either. Friday (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely should be merged, and we dont need an afd to do this either. Its tiny so the worries about the criticism page being too long are not valid, SqueakBox 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, the "if we can't delete it, we'll shove it where the sun don't shine" tactic. Classy.User:130.13.21.7

Merged, since that seemed to be the best compromise proposed at AfD and mentioned here. Perhaps there will be enough information someday for this topic to have its own article. - Chardish 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unredirected. There was clearly no consensus to do so in the AfD, nor is there on the talk page. Jtrainor 00:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Truly surreal. Just a few hours after a VfD has closed, several people start trying to pretend that the result of that VfD has no significance whatsoever and they go ahead and do what they want. The result was keep, and it says so perfectly clearly at the top of this page. Unless something significant about the state of the world has changed since then, there's no reason whatsover to go against that consensus. --ToobMug 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AfD did not preclude merging. Your hasty revert caused a content fork. Please take care to avoid this in the future. - Chardish 02:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The result doesn't preclude filling it with linkspam, either, but it would be bad form to do so. If the consensus were to merge then I'm sure it would be reflected in the result. There were more delete votes than merge votes.

I'm perfectly aware of the fork. I considered cleaning up both sides right away, but I thought it better to wait and see if it degraded into an editwar before spreading the noise to more established articles. --ToobMug 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Invented neologism not in popular use. This phenomenon would be better served as an example of First World Problems (FWP).Thomas AM 09:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_Problems

Since I think this term is about systemic bias in coverage, I think the target could be even speciic, such as Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage. So I also support the idea of a merge. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop ruleslawyering and do something useful. If you object to the merge, say why. Don't just complain about the AFD. The AFD is over and it does not tie our hands on what we can do with the article now. It's already been merged. So please either come up with a rational reason to oppose this, or stop whining. Friday (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for the shame of arguing with a bunch of teenagers, quibbling about the fate of content could turn out to be one of the most interesting aspects of Wikipedia. I won't push any more because I've already learnt what I wanted to learn. But I feel compelled to point out that your merge is no merge at all. You haven't carried the content forward to the target page (which I was expecting, and why I never bothered to delete it in the first place). --ToobMug 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some more content from this article to the redirect target. Specifically, I stated what this term is and how it works (along with a citation from a British paper). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See above, where I did merge the page only to have the redirect I left here quickly reverted, creating an unsightly content fork that the reverter didn't bother to clean up. - Chardish 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a fine illustration of my point. You're crying about the unsightliness content fork with no regard to the fact that I explained perfectly clearly why I had left it there. Your subsequent reversion only spread the editwar to another page. This kind of willful ignorance is precisely what guarantees that your kind will always win. You PWN Wikipedia. Good for you. --ToobMug 09:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What is ruleslawyering? --Rubber cat 01:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WHO CENSORED ME

WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH --Rubber cat 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the merge again, and cleaned up the other end of it. The consensus was to keep this page, not to bury it.

Work on improving this article and not on trying to make it disappear. Jtrainor 07:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you plan to take specific action against the users involved, I think that you're wasting your time fighting the vandalism. It's clear that they have no interest in consensus or the opinions of others, or even the guidelines that they cite on their own userpages. I'm glad I played, myself, because it's shown me just how Wikipedia gets its reputation, but I'm not going to dedicate any effort to fighting it because I'm sure they have all the time in the world. Witless ignorance, hypocrisy, and repetition will always win on Wikipedia. --ToobMug 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Go talk about censorship, freedom of speech, or vandalism on some other page. This is for talking about the article. This topic is one small tidbit that's part of a larger topic where we already have a decent article, see Criticisms of Wikipedia. Please don't turn this into some bizarre ideological battle about merging being bad. Does anyone have a rational reason to oppose this merge? Friday (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

im talking about whoever deleted my previous comment, "what the [f***] is ruleslawyering" and reworded it to "What is ruleslawyering?" without any indication that the comment had been edited --Rubber cat 07:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

nobody ever answered my question Rubber cat 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ruleslawyering" --ToobMug 22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Seeing as this will result in ridiculous revert war without proper discussion, we might as well discuss it. I think this should be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage.

Rationale:

1. The article fits much better in a full context
2. This article is about a neologism, and there are a not-insignificant number of editors who think it is not a notable neologism to begin with
3. This article is short, and the only way to lengthen it would be via fluff, trivia, or original research.
4. This topic is pretty much an exact duplicate of Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in coverage, with minor details about origin.
5. A significant number of editors suggested a merger.
6. The article was linked from a high-traffic site while it was still on Articles for Deletion, causing probable vote-stacking or meatpuppetry.--Wafulz 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No-brainer support but we already knew that. Friday (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Support merge re Friday, SqueakBox 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete support per Friday. - Chardish 02:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Support User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support --Biblbroks's talk 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a proposal, that's an abuse of process. There are only three votes, two of which were within five minutes of each other, and the third only a few hours later. Jtrainor 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting a marginally notable page like this is niot an abuse of process, its about making a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support it seems silly to have a seperate article on a short-lived and minor subject when there is an umbrella article already. Chriswiki 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I really see no reason for this to have it's own article. --SXT40 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)