User talk:Sipep

Criticisms of Fandom Wank
If you want the section to stay, you need to rewrite and source it so it doesn't read like an essay. As it stands, that chunk is wholly unencyclopedic because it talks about "some people" and "these things." "Widely accepted" is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Who has the perception? Who says there's a debate? Who thinks the interaction is bad? Who says there's an ethical dimension? Write it encyclopedically, with sources and references so someone who's never heard of Fandom Wank will know what the heck you're talking about. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article. Thanks. FCYTravis 21:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who wrote the criticisms here but I've seen the same ones 100's of times. Mainly in Harry Potter Fandom who tend to be the main victims of Fandom Wank. I’ll try to locate some. Perhaps the orginal writers will do the same. And I don't know anyone else who'd argue the point about there being an ethical dimension to mocking. I also think it's disingenuous of you to start vandalising the article the day after your vote to delete it was rejected. That's definitely unethical. To say it reads horribly is your own personal opinion. I think it's extremely well written but my opinion represents a consensus among most of the previous writers of that section.Sipep 11:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We can't say that there's an ethical dimension to mocking. That's a WP:POV. It MUST be sourced. Period. It's not who argues the point - it's that we CAN'T argue the point. That is NOT what Wikipedia is. That entire section is like a personal essay, which Wikipedia is not. What it needs is sources. Who on which forum says it's unfair? Etc. Source it and it's cool. This isn't vandalism, this is what Wikipedia is not - a place to dump personal essays. Read that section. It reads like someone's bad English 101 essay... in a class that doesn't require a bibliography. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have encyclopedic sourcing standards. Something that can't be verified, can't be in the encyclopedia. You're right, I thought it should be deleted. If it wasn't deleted, it must be made encyclopedic, and right now, it's not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 11:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's quite a funny one to start: http://www.livejournal.com/users/luciusmalfoy/266232.html Sipep 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another one: http://www.livejournal.com/users/oselle/229550.html Sipep 11:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

More: http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanthropology/10026.html Opinions vary but it's mainly self-confessed wankers defending their own community who defend it. Sipep 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A complaint to the journalfen admins about a community recently closed down by fandom wank's mockery. http://www.journalfen.net/support/see_request.bml?id=359 Sipep 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent post by wank moderator admonishing members for causing trouble elsewhere: http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/855971.html Not everyone agrees with the sentiments expressed. In fact, most members don't respond at all.

Examples in the comments of people being afraid of open discussion due to fandom wank: http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanficrants/1466820.html Sipep 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem with the criticism section that I'm trying to fix - It makes allegations, and Wikipedia can't make allegations. We can only say what *other people* have already said. We can't say "something is unethical." We can say "X person, who was criticised by Fandom Wank, says it's unethical." Wikipedia cannot judge things - that's basic neutral point of view policy. We must examine the subject of each article from an unbiased perspective. I'm focusing on the criticisms section because it's the only part that has actual allegations... the rest is pointless forumcruft blather, which is stupid but inoffensive. The WHOLE DAMN THING had no sources, which is why I put it up for deletion in the first place - see WP:V. FCYTravis 22:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there a site that has been put up to criticize the tactics of Fandom Wank? If so, you should add it to the "External Links" section of the article. FCYTravis 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources are comments in the 'wanks' which are really hard to find without devoting your life to it. I see your just-added request for a source in the Community Function section but it appears very token as you're basically just asking for a link to a sample wank.  It still appears you're a) biased b) still miffed.  I'm still working on getting some links but it will take time. Also, NO NEED TO SHOUT!  Sipep 22:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would I be biased? As I said, I have never visited the LJ in question and consider it utterly stupid that anyone would sit around bashing other people's interests - "OMG LOL!" - I think it's a puerile, juvenile and pointless waste of time - again, which is why I argued for its deletion as unencyclopedic. In five or 10 years, nobody will ever remember that this LJ existed. FCYTravis 22:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have nothing to do with 'Detention'. It was just the easiest one to remember, as it was 'wanked' on one of the fw off-shoots.  However, there have been much more notable withdrawals from fandom because of fw.  Pity I can't remember them, exactly.  May locate them yet.  Secondly, it's not an LJ but a JF (an LJ clone which your LJ account won't work on.)  Thirdly, given the recent creation of the self-admitted, extremely biased fw wiki, I think it's important that this entry remains to give a more balanced POV.  The fw wiki is run by a fw mod and is a pathetic joke.  They even admit it's biased, therein.  The owner has already been deleting entries that don't comform to her own 'world view'.  None by me, though, as it's just a big ol' pile of wank!

"As I said, I have never visited the LJ in question "

Given your exuberance in editing the fw entry, I hope you're joking. Sipep 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Fandom Wank
I'm sorry if my edit summaries appear 'moderator-ish' to you. I try to describe what I've done to the article--as per this guideline--and as far as I can see, it's pretty standard for most people to do the same. Was there any specific edit summary? I'd like to know, so that I can keep an eye on what I type there in future. Also, thanks for adding those links! I've converted them to reference numbers, as per your request. :-) Jude (talk,contribs) 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * it was 'will be restored to Criticism section when a citation is provided' Sounds like you're the sole arbiter, there. Sipep 15:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)*