Talk:DataLounge/Archive 1

"In 2005 an alternative website Qwhip.com was created by a former DataLounger to compete with the messageboard. Although its numbers do not rival those of Datalounge, Qwhip.com has steadily increased its traffic as it often gained participants through disgruntled old time posters from DataLounge unhappy with the new regime and lack of intelligent discourse on DataLounge often due to influxes of new posters."

This content strikes me more as opinion than fact. How can the author substantiate claims that posters are disgruntled, unhappy with the new regime, etc? How does the author substantiate the claim the other site was created to compete?

I'm not quite sure why the DL webmaster thinks he has any say over what goes in this article or not.

Before deleting content, it is appropriate to hold discussion of possible deletions. Deletion wars are against wiki-policy. Lantog 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone find the deleted content concerning saying, phrases, and keywords posted before? Lantog 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking nice Mizezslo and Excusememiss! Lantog 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lantog, and thanks for being patient with us newbies.

does anyone still have the pic of dataloungeland?

I'll ask for a link to Dataloungeland on the DL MySpace.

I pulled some info. that was posted on the creation of QWHIP. I'll be happy to help anyone who wants to create a QWHIP page.

work together everyone ... maybe some QWHIP stuff is ok, but probably not a whole bunch - they can make their own entry.

That's what I did with QWHIP. We just need to keep too much opinion out of it, so I summarized what the original poster said.

I really think the intro. paragraph could be gussied up if anyone wants to take a stab. I don't believe it encompasses all of the content we've put below the top.

Too long, needs trimming

There's a bunch of non-notable stuff in this article about various incidents that occurred within the community that nobody outside of the community cares about. Please trim it down to the relevant, notable essentials. --Cyde↔Weys 21:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree in some cases, but see others in which you are correct. There's reasons for this that may not be apparant, which I'll ensure are included in future edits. Mizezslo 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From The Webmaster/Mediapolis:

In general we have no problem with the creation of this article as long as it does not dilute our trademarks or infringe on our copyrights and as long as the proported history and statistics are factual. If this is to be used by parties that have an axe to grind or wish to promote "competing" services then that is a different matter.

Some falsehoods that need to be corrected. comments in BOLD.

----

"with 30,000 to 40,000 visitors each month"

Way off the mark.

For June:

   * Total visitors: 196,729

   * Total page views: 3,551,313

   * Total hits: 25,236,638

   * Total megabytes transferred: 150,013

----

"and become associated (and subsequently disassociated) with Out Magazine, which prompted an influx of users who posted anonymously. "

False.

----

"In 2005 DataLounge instituted a controversial "primetime" mode, in effect blocking site access during periods of heavy viewing (mainly US mid-day and afternoon hours) to users who had not contributed a $15 (originally $12) annual subscription fee. Mediapolis continually receives complaints about the policy, particularly because primetime often occurs at random hours of the day and night, but the company asserts that the mode is necessary to prevent slowdowns of the other sites which Mediapolis hosts on the same servers, and to generate revenue to pay for DataLounge's hosting, bandwidth and maintenance expenses."

The above paragraph reflects the POV of the authors - not the facts. Note the consistant use of negative connotation promoting this point of view. This would be in the "axe to grind" area.

I suggest something like:

   The site was free until 1995 when due to increasing traffic, the owners implemented "primetime" which gives priority access to paying members.

----

"DataLounge regulars who were dissatisfied with the changes or who had been banned from DL, including a webmaster from New Orleans, Louisiana who created an alternative gay and lesbian-oriented gossip forum, QWHIP, that featured no time restrictions and less banned discussion topics."

This is an advertisement for another site and is irrelevant to an article about DataLounge. This would be in the "axe to grind" area as well.

In general any discussion about "personalities" will lead to never ending edit wars on this article. If you want my advice that should be dropped.

by: webmaster (authenticated) + reply 176 07/19/06 @17:50 [Flag]

oops. that was for july to date. this is for June:

   * Total visits: 353,325

   * Total page views: 6,514,501

   * Total hits: 46,412,520

   * Total megabytes transferred: 268,113

We need to make sure we institute all of this. As much as we love to wax on about Cheryl, I think the suggestion to drop thr characters section is a sound one.

Mizezslo 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS and WP:V. We can't just take their word on all of this and include it in the article, we need independent confirmation. You might also want to see WP:AUTO ... we don't let people write their own articles, as it understandably leads to biased articles. --Cyde↔Weys 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletions/Additions Following Admin and DL Webmaster Comments

Considering the Feedback, I propose the following:

1. Add a section on the special nature of the site as a record of gay "culture" and socialization, and the unique opportunity that the anonymous nature of posting provides for that record to happen. Several social sciences scholars and I would argue that this is of interest to the general public, and I will make a far better case for that in the past than I am here.

2. It hurts, but the characters section is too obscure. We're gonna have to getr rid of it. I think we should keep the "notable" section, and move Josh there as he is the only character that would have interest outside of DL. Oh, it burns, but we must. I said on DataLounge and I'll say here that I'll be more than happy to host a DataWiki on my server. E-mail me if you're interested in doing that.

3. Kill the QWHIP mention . I was serious about my offer to help create a Wiki entry for QWHIP in order to keep the peace (if that's possible).

4. Kill the "groups of posters" section.

5. Take the Andrew Sullivan incident out of the Musto entry and make a section out of it, as it was of public interest and spilled outside of the board.

6. A comprehensive list of media outlsets that have referenced DataLounge, such as Entertainment Weekly, etc.

Incorporate the stats as listed above, link the thread and attribute them to the DL webmaster.

I will NOT delete anything until tomorrow if I don't hear anything.

Mizezslo 22:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why the DL webmaster thinks he has any say over what goes in this article or not.

I Agree. The DL webmaster by no means has any powers to wield here, especially since he's not even actively editing this article. I can see how he thinks it's a bad idea to mention trolls here since it might encourage them, but if the slashdot trolls and various fads on something awful and fark has enough notoriety to be included on wikipedia (and I absolutely agree that they do), surely the most notorious trolls and shared characters that have been a mainstay on datalounge for years do too. I do think that the section of trolls/characters need to be trimmed and cleaned up, and in some cases the description for each and their reasons for notoriety fleshed out, but the entire section shouldn't just be blanket deleted. --Siawase 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Datalounge is a commercial site, I believe they can request the page be taken down. I think honoring the spirit of their requests while getting certain points across is valid.

I think we should delete most of the characters section for two reasons:

1) The Wiki administrator that posted here asked that we trim down such that the information here is of public relevance. Cheryl's pussy, as much as thousands enjoy it, is not of public relevance. Examples of what I think are of public relevance are:

1) The GLBT and gossip culture expressed on the site, and the continuation of a longstanding gay cultural tradition witty gossip and intelligent repartee. I think this makes an overview of the creation, structure, and the nature of the forums necessary.

2) Episodes that seeped into the larger media like Marcia Cross and the Andrew Sullivan barebacking scandal

3) Notable people who post at the site, or are suspected to have posted at the site Mizezslo 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many commercial sites have entries on wikipedia. Wikipedia is about providing correct content from a variety of sources. Commercial sites cannot have content changed which is correct and offered by many contributors. See any entry from Howard Stern to Microsoft to Fox News. Lantog 00:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As long as we're all clear, despite what the DL webmaster says, that the section on susbscriptions is neutral.

Mizezslo 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Edits should be made to reflect the factual issues the webmaster of "Datalounge" addressed. But otherwise correct information (even if the DL webmaster "suggests" its removal) needs stay in. Lantog 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep the characters/trolls section...

...it's going to get rather lengthy and will be difficult to reference. We need to address that issue and also start a list of people that need to be included such that it is fair and we cover as much as possible. There's already complaints that several figures are not covered.

Mizezslo 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some cleanup in that section. For now I moved the characters that I think should be included and have fleshed out relevant descriptions towards the top of the list as a way of organizing it until we're clear on which should be deleted outright. --Siawase 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The esotericism is getting out of control.

This can be fun, interesting, factual, and STILL convey some sense of the overall feel of Datalounge. It would be ruined by just throwing in anything you can think of. At the very least, edit your contributions for grammar and pith.

The trolls and characters section is tedious. Most of these entries are neither individuals, nor characters. Facts matter.

Also, let's address the issue of "composite posters", for lack of a better term. While these composites clearly have their own place in Datalounge lore, there need to be some standards. Cheryl is an example of a composite sketch character who clearly has a place. Her general history is known by most Dataloungers, even those who weren't present when she was around (I wasn't), and has been passed down as sort of an oral history from the so-called "Old Guard" to the "New Guard."

Using this standard, Claire is marginal. Cristal C. is marginal. The Trevor Blumas troll is inappropriate. Nobody knows for sure that Twinkster/Toadstool is FP572, and posting it on the Wikipedia doesn't make it so.

While repetition sometimes confers legitimacy on Datalounge, should we really go down that slippery slope here? Again, I think this could fun and cool without making stuff up out of thin air. That's lame.

Other notes on this section:

The Pot Troll? Um, "Just smoke copious amounts of pot, silly," is an inside joke. It's not used by any one poster in particular. The EST is similar, except it's an inside joke used to described a certain type of post, or poster. If these belong anywhere, it's under a separate header for Inside Jokes and Other Sayings, where anyone who still thinks they are funny can and chuckle his or her little heart away.

Exactly. This is no easy task to look at DL (essentially ourselves) and be brutally honest about its relevance in the wider world.

Suggested Deletions

Here's what I think should be deleted from this article, please comment if you object.

all trolls from Iola and down
delete soap opera section and summarize it with one sentense in the rules section instead
delete the last two people in the Posters of note section

--Siawase 15:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected I'm going through with the deletions, starting with the soap opera section, summarizing it in the rules section.--Siawase 11:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: No trolls at all

In a nutshell: List some of the *established* (may be defined further if necessary) shared characters as examples, but keep all listings of specific trolls out of the article. A small section mentioning that datalounge has trolls is all that is needed really. There's not really much about the datalounge trolls that make them unique, in fact a lot of their material is remarkably similar to that of the trolls on say, slashdot, (see Slashdot trolling phenomena).
The characters on the other hand *are* a unique feature of datalounge, a mainstay that is a part of the culture on there, and arguably they are an offshoot of camp and drag culture. --Siawase 11:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say name the section "collaborative characters" and use the criteria that the name has to be used by more than one person to be a contender for the Wikipedia entry to avoid vandalism here and flame wars there.

Mizezslo 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely rename the section if we keep it to characters only. But that criteria is much more inclusive than what I had in mind. How about: it's a collaborative character that is *undebatably* in use by several people, is well known on dl, and has been in regular common use for at least a year. And if necessary, also keep the list down to approximately five of the most appropriate examples since wikipedia isn't the place for an exhaustive list. The list of sayings will in the future probably also need to be limited by similar criteria. --Siawase 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and rewrote that entire section, removing all the examples of trolls in the process. I added the phrase "wide variety of trolls, too numerous for specific examples to be meaningful" to hopefully explain why there are no troll examples listed anymore. If anyone has any objections after this, please reply. --Siawase 13:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]