UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Parody Pages

i don't like

i dont like this policy... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! As we say in Massachusetts, "Wicked helpful, dude."--Squid Boy 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some constructive criticism? Ways it could be adapted that you would find acceptable, hagnat? I don't recall you having a problem with the Red Ranch page, and you were personally involved in that prank.--Vandr 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

err... the above was a joke. The comment was made even before the policy was actually written. Just check some timestamps there and you'll find that a) there is no way i couldnt say i dont like it b) there is no way for me to be constructive at that time :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I support Hagnat's right to include parody response to the parody talk page, and I simply slap my own forehead for not seeing it for what it was.--Squid Boy 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Whoops. :D --Vandr 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy is completely and utterly about you guys attempting to infringe on Owner Privilege, something none of us can do. Kevan wanted the NPOV thing noticeable and on the page, be glad he didn't simply delete it. Deceiving users is not the point of the wiki, wiki's are about information, and correctness of it, instead you're making claims to be other people and of things added in the game and then actively tricking people. Also, as for your claims of them being clearly subpages of redrum, that's bullshit and you know it, they were moved there afterwards to clear up some of the confusion and then you went against policy and added the {{Custom Title}} template to hide that they were group subpages. Be glad you haven't been A/VB'ed yet.--Karek^maps?! 17:47, 24 January 2008 (U

Er... first of all, Karek, both pages were always Red Rum subpages. I know because I wrote both of them. With the DK13 thing, I did err when I made a redirect on actual DK13 soil, but the page itself was always on Red Rum ground with a Custom title (but Red Rum still visible in the URL and page header).

Secondly, this isn't about us trying to infringe on Owner "Privlage," this is about us trying to have some fun. We're not out to maliciously impersonate anyone. But we are PKers, and our organization does have an entire section dedicated to Misinformation, and pulling pranks is our modus operandi.

If "wiki's are about information, and correctness of it," then why is Project UnWelcome left alone? There are other examples too. Sorry, karek, but parody has long been a part of the wiki. If you think some of our parodies have crossed the line, then let's make a policy that helps us satirists know where the line is. I have no desire to break wiki rules--work with me instead of yelling at me. --Vandr 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Be glad he didn't simply delete it" - um, well doing that would have been incredibly dickish and against the spirit of this wiki, despite his godlike power here. So yes, I'm glad he wasn't a dick. With respect, I find your reverent tone here a little odd - I appreciate all the dude has done, but I didn't join a cult here, I'm playing a game.

NO, no we aren't attempting to infringe on owner privilege - we're trying to PARODY - which in any free society is a valid and important tool of free speech. As for who did what, you're using the "YOU" a little liberally here. I honestly don't know all the things that went on there. So I'll admit that, grant that some shenanigans may have occurred, and say what I am trying to do is come up with some transparency for this without defeating the purpose entirely. SO if you were offended by the DK13 process, let me apologize for myself as a member of Red Rum - though I am in no way empowered to apologize for the group. Exactly what happened there could be prevented by what I am suggesting here. Make it transparent, ordered and fun for everyone.--Squid Boy 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You should learn about Royal You's before telling someone how to use the word You. I ahve no problem with parody but, when you are actively and purposefully deceiving people it's not parody anymore, it's just you being dicks. --Karek^maps?! 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A parady or satire relies on your audience knowing that a) it's a parody and b) what you are parodying. Now, I can understand that you might wish to "con" people at the start of the parody, but if the person reading it doesn't realise that it's a parody then it's not a parody, it's a con - trick. Redrum members (I assume) have also been linking to the tommy gun page as "evidence" of the existance of machine guns. You see, i'm fairly sure it's at least some red rum members doing it because someone went as far as to delete a post I made supplying a link to a statement Kevan made about it being a hoax.--Seventythree^Talk 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We were, back when this was new--we spraypainted it in the mall where the shooting happened. That, coupled with some fake radio broadcasts on the mall frequency, helped to solidify the illusion. Now that it's been a couple months, it doesn't really matter anymore.

And I'll respectfully disagree with you, 73, that parody has to be knowledgeable parody to the audience. Again, I cite the Onion as proof. True, for it to be parody the audience has to realize it at some point (so I always leave little clues in the parody itself), but not necessarily right away.

The classic example of this is when BenderWAW went on the Brainstock forums and started yelling about how Kevan had ruined the game by installing a Tommy Gun. Immediately one of the DEM members pointed out (tongue-in-cheek) that the URL had "Red Rum" in it. Then everyone had a good laugh over it. That was funny. But either extreme wouldn't have been funny, if BenderWAW had never found out the truth (that would be dickery), and if BenderWAW had known the truth right away (just... wouldn't have been funny at all). A balance needs to be kept.

For example: I might even be satisfied with a disclaimer on every one of my parody pages, even karek's bright red stop-sign disclaimer, if that disclaimer could go at the bottom of the page so the reader only sees it at the end. If it goes at the top... it ruins the joke. --Vandr 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I really was trying NOT to be snarky with you there Karek. I even apologized for your stuff from the "Royal" Us. I could easily insult you in return now, but I will abstain, because I think you're just feeling assaulted by us, and that's not my intention at all. Vandr cleared up better than I could the motives and process there. Here is the main point: It should not be up to the vagaries of your or anyone's judgment what constitutes being a 'dick.' It should be laid out so that we can follow the guidelines properly. I'm sure George W. Bush thinks Jon Stewart is being a dick every time he parodies him on the Daily Show - but I'll bet even HE agrees that no law should be passed that should prevent him from doing so (and even if he doesn't, the Constitution agrees). Just looking for that.

Are you philosophically opposed to even DISCUSSING the idea of a policy here? How about we start with a "WHY?" on that first?--Squid Boy 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy is discussing the policy. So, in short, show why this policy is needed.--Karek^maps?! 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am opposed to this proposal on principle. --Pgunn 04:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

I will watch the discussion here with interest: I think that having a set policy detailing the right way to go about parody (without actually ruining the parody in the process) will help us find a happy medium, and also help prevent satirists from being marked as vandals.

There has to be some way to regulate parody without a big sign warning people not to be fooled. (Your joy-buzzer analogy was apropos, SB.) Parodies are useless without that initial moment of "Hey, WHAT?!" It's like when I read a news article and freak out and then realize it's published in the Onion. --Vandr 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also will be watching this to see where it goes. I agree whole heartedly that parodies should be allowed in some form or another and that the rules governing them should be explicitly stated. --Dipcup 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Rum are just a parody of the Flat Earth Society and should clearly have a template stating so. --Karloth Vois ^RR 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Parody

Parodies are not mistakable for the real thing. The comparison to a handshake buzzer was quite fitting as they're not parody either. You say the wiki should not save the stupid from themselves. Shaking hands isn't stupid, whereas checking each and every hand you're about to shake is stupid. As for the previous "parodies":

• Yes, the DK13 thing directly supported a legitimate operation, but it supported it through malicious impersonation. Placing the group-box on the page is quite similar to forging a signature, hence impersonation. As to whether it was malicious, I'm just going to say that if you didn't realize the negative consequences of creating that page, then you are the stupid that should not be saved from themselves.
• The Tommy Gun? You do realize that shows like Candid Camera (which is quite similar to this page's function) always tell their victims that they've been tricked? Not doing that leaves them with false impressions about the game and its creator. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• See WCDZ --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how come nobody administratively has got on headless for maliciously impersonating DARIS?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• For example: Here, Midianian's comments could easily have been framed, "Great! We should make sure that any parody page can't be mistakable for the real thing. there should be some clue and certain imitations that approach malicious impersonation would have to be outlawed." and so on... --Squid Boy 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  So, you got my point? It just seemed that you were using them as examples of good parody, so pointing out why they (IMO) aren't parody at all was the logical course of action. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a bit of a distortion to say I was using the hand buzzer thing as an example of parody. I was merely using the hand buzzer reference as an example for ANY joke and how it's ruined if you know it's coming beforehand. That said, the preceding two sentences I just wrote are examples of precisely what I am trying to avoid - debating the kind of finer nonsense of wiki arguments that I think we can both agree detract from the overall goal of getting something accomplished?--Squid Boy 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the DK13 thing and the Tommy Gun, not the hand buzzer. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to get us back on topic and off the rehash of the past

Several of you keep making base level assumptions about what we hope to do with this. The hope is to set a guideline where everyone is happy through compromise. Remember compromise? It's what makes good communities strong.

"Malicious Impersonation" is specifically mentioned by me as something we could outlaw with this policy. Forget the past. Forget the debate about what parody was and what it wasn't.

I'm saying YAY! We have lots of disagreement about what it is! It also seems to be from all the other examples of parody given that there are folks that think parody has a place if defined correctly. So let's stop calling each other petty names and hammer something out! Let's accomplish something besides a shit-fest about whether Squid Boy is stupid or not. I can clear that up right now: when it comes to wiki rules and regulations I am stupid - which is why I brought this matter to such intelligent wiki craftsmen such as yourselves.

Honestly, all I see so far is "I fear change!!" and "You guys were bad before and I'm mad at you!!" OK! Sorry! Help us do it right next time.

Many of the suggestions I made with this policy would eliminate the complaints listed above. Can we start talking about THOSE now?--Squid Boy 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this mostly redundant, given that the bad-faith faking of page titles already counts as vandalism, and that group-owned pages should always open with a NPOV summary? It should be enough just to define what is and isn't unreasonably deceptive behaviour on the wiki (which I think we've mostly done), and let people build whatever parody they can within that space. Actually ruling that all parodies must be formatted in a specific way (and that more creative attempts are vandalism?) seems much more restrictive than useful. --Kevan 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevan, I see your point, but you're missing the main thrust of mine. First, I disagree that the NPOV thing is clear in the Group Pages guideline. I read that as there should be an NPOV thing on the main page of the group, as there is no specific mention of needing this on group sub-pages. I have not seen such notations on all group sub-pages as I have traveled the wiki. So that bears clarifying at the least, and my vote would be to NOT require such an NPOV tag on EVERY page associated with every group. Once on the main page ought to suffice.

Further - the point here is that the tag messes up the parody and that parodies have value. Simply dismissing this as "Meh, we don't need this" is one man's opinion, and while I would agree that yours carries extra weight, I would ask you to recognize that in your comment above you dismiss the entire idea of it being fun and experientially additive to 'fool' people, even if briefly, from time to time. I'm merely asking for parameters in which we can be allowed to do so without angering folks, maliciously vandalising anything or being forced to put some tag on it such that the whole thing is a wasted effort.--Squid Boy 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it's not clear whether group sub-pages count as sacrosanct NPOV-first-paragraph "group pages" or if they're anyone-can-edit public pages. We should fix that. They do have to be one or the other, though, and this seems fair enough.

I'm not arguing for a compulsory tag, I'm just pointing out that the wiki already has some rules to prevent malicious deception (and that at least one of these was overlooked with the Tommy Gun). Your policy seems to boil down to allowing group pages to ignore the NPOV rule for a few weeks, so long as they refer to their page as a "parody" - if you think that's a good idea, that's fine, I'm not casting judgment on it. --Kevan 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the RRF announced they were converting en masse to the human side to become The Ridleybank Revivification Front. The next day they announced it was an April fools joke. Seeing how that event was well received, I think it can serve as a useful example of acceptable levels of trickery. --Toejam 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And notice the pretty little note at the top. ;)--Karek^maps?! 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have conceeded Karek that that note is worthwhile after the fact. I agree with you, you are RIGHT.--Squid Boy 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents:

Good stuff to aim for

• Funny spoofs and silliness

What to avoid

• Parody being used in a malicious way, either as a vehicle for attacking people, or by unfairly impersonating people.
• The credibility of the wiki as an accurate information source being undermined.

What else? --Toejam 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your pages fail your own policy

Both of the pages you site in this policy, fail it. To comply with your own policy, the redirects to them would need to be deleted. Going to Dk13 martial law sends you to your page with no indication in the URL that it is your sub page. They only place Red Rum comes up is in the page header. Way to easy to miss. It's obvious that while it may be a parody, the page is also intended for misinformation purposes.
This policy doesn't aim to improve the parody value of such pages (parody isn't affected by NPOV announcements), it is wholly aimed at making misinformation pages easier to hide

-- boxy ^{talk •}

i 07:54 25 January 2008 (BST)

To be fair, I think Squid was attempting to define whats permissible, and what isn't despite what pages are already in existence, then once protocol has been established, pages would change to reflect it.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxy - I think it's fairly clearly stated above that the two pages I list, I have listed because these are examples of pages that caused controversy I hope to avoid in the future. Of course they fail my policy. This started because Tommy Gun was altered to render the joke useless - which I'm admitting is fine NOW - but had that been done on November 1, a truly beautiful hoax would have not been possible. A hoax where no one was hurt.

I'm attempting to govern the practice that is not currently governed in a satisfactory manner, because current rules are either hopelessly vague or completely nerf the practice depending upon who you talk to here.

A few points to clarify yet again, and try to move this conversation to discussion of a potential FUTURE of parody pages rather than a discussion of past ones:

• You are right boxy that the attempt is to briefly misinform. Would it help if I changed the terminology here to "HOAX" instead of Parody? A parody, a hoax, a temporary 'suckering' in the interest of cleverness and humor. No one wants to hurt anyone, but we do want to play jokes on people. FOOLED. Ha ha ha! You got me! Kind of thing.

• You are wrong that a NPOV line 'Parody isn't affected by NPOV announcements' - it's destroyed by it. It renders the joke useless such that it guarantees no one will be fooled. Being fooled is FUN!

Please can we talk about how to govern this? We continue with "I fear change." and "You were bad before and I"m mad about it." Hoaxes, parodies, or goof pages are an undeniable part of our community, and rather than piss people off, wouldn't it be better to gently guide this kind of positive creative energy? The process on the DK13 page was roundly complained about because the rules were vague - which lent itself to more rogue behavior. This is going to continue, no doubt. Rather than just say, "We'll deal with them one at a time..." Which virtually guarantees that someone, somewhere will spend hours of their time on something they deems hilarious, only to have it zapped. That person will become frustrated with this community needlessly, when a few simple guidelines rapidly enacted by intelligent people could fix it.

In the absence of such a policy, the alternative I guess I would personally advise groups like Red Rum, would be to just continue to throw these pages up, and hope that the machinery of the wiki is slow enough that it still works, and do it with rotating members of a more than 50 person group, so that the A/VB consequences are minimized. I imagine Kevan and sysops email boxes will be flooded with various outrages that seems stupid to me when we could just fix it such that a majority are happy with whatever process.--Squid Boy 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "parody" and "hoax", may seem subtle, but it's really not. This is "the" official wiki of Urban Dead... it's the only metagaming site that is linked directly from the game interface. We therefore have an obligation to keep it informative, even if a certain amount of levity and fun plays out here. Allowing hoaxes to be perpetrated here goes directly against the main purpose of the wiki.
Parody is fine here, because the nature of parody is that everyone (not just those smart enough to work it out) knows that it's someone taking the piss. A simple, non-intrusive, statement at the top of the page doesn't affect the enjoyment of a good parody piece, because parody is already known for what it is, someone taking the piss.
Hoaxes however, go strongly against the informative nature of this wiki. They set out to deliberately deceive wiki readers. It can't be allowed, and must be treated as a bad faith use of the wiki, and NPOV statements are the best way to counter these, when discovered.
IMO -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:09 25 January 2008 (BST)

How do you feel about putting it at the bottom? It's still there, but it at least requires the reader to read the entire page first, and allow for perhaps a BRIEF fooling? I think lots of folks could live with a note at the bottom. So it's not the FIRST thing you see, but it's still right there. How does that sit with folks?--Squid Boy 16:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sits fine with me--I think this may be the best compromise we can hope for. --Vandr 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be voting against that too. But I'm sure you guys can meatpuppet up enough votes to make it interesting -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:43 26 January 2008 (BST)

No Parody, No Compromises

This is not some forum you can make jokes on, or a mailing list your can prank every once in a while. This is a wiki: a repository of factual information designed for the express purpose of providing individuals with such information. NOTHING MORE. Parody has no place in a wiki, due to the blatent violations of NPOV, which all wikis should strive for.

Further more, "Free Speech" does not exist on the Internet, especially not on a wiki. This is not America. The Internet knows no nationality, so please stop trying to force it down our throats. All "opinions" on this wiki are subject to modification to someone else, and ultimately, if the person in charge of the wiki doesn't like what you have to say, they can take it down or modify it and you can do nothing about it. We are subject to NPOV, not our own POV.

So, I not only say we remove this policy, but move to ban all forms of parody from the Urban Dead wiki. Thank you. --Indio65 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Good luck with that one. This is absolutely a place where I have made and read countless jokes. You sir or madam, swing too far the other way. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I do appreciate it. I would leave it at that, but I take offense at the charge you make about my USA focus. I don't believe I mentioned America anywhere - except in my example about George Bush and Jon Stewart, and there it was appropriate because those men ARE in America. Freedom of Speech is a universal concept associated with Free Societies that pre-dates America - and something I think it's fair to say most of the non-despotic world strives for. Are you actually Kim Il Jong's nanny? If so, then I understand.--Squid Boy 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Squiddy, read Indio65's userpage. I think we've been the victim of a counter-parody again. *laughs* --Vandr 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did after, but I thought my response was light enough as is, so I left it.  :)--Squid Boy 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy is clearly an elaborate joke

You can't fool me! (Oh, remember the tale of the boy who cried wolf.) Buh sewiously - you can't have a policy that allows mischievous scams - that's like trying to become leader of the Anarchist's Society. There's plenty of room on this wiki for parody, but it is supposed (at it's heart) to be an information resource for players of the game. Once your scam becomes a legal discussion, the joke's pretty much over. Move on. You've become the news. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Funt Solo, You where saying about the anarchist's society having leaders? I knew someone who actualy joined the anarchist's society, went to strictly timetabled meetings and yes, while they didn't have a leader in the strictest sense of the word, they did have someone who "dictated the course of the meetings and orgonised the activities of the society" strangely, they didn't find this quite as funny as I did....--Seventythree^Talk 12:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:36 26 January 2008 (BST)