Talk:Fark/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I'd Hit it

Surprised that it wasn't included —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.126.181 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Buttsecks?

So, whats the origin of Buttsecks and the buttsecks owls?

I believe the O Rly owl originated at Something Awful or 4chan, but I'm not sure. -68.202.20.75 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Banninations and Timeouts

Someone "users will be banned for reasons outside the Farq" is very inacurate. Users MAY be banned for reasons outside the Farq if it is something which interrupts other users enjoyment of the website. I posted the correct policies under "criticisms". The policy is that if you do things which ruin the website for other people, even if it's not spelled out for you in the Farq, you may be subject to a timeout. Some people need that spelled out.

As for the references, it's from an email I had with Drew Curtis. He read the statement "users will be banned for reasons outside the Farq". This statement is misleading, inacurate, and does not describe the whole "bannination" system.

I have added language reflecting that. By the way, new comments are usually added to the bottom of the talk page, not the top. I have posted a comment concerning this issue at the bottom. --W.marsh 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Web log?

Would it be better to refer to fark as a "meta-news" site rather then a web log? Anthropic42

Thought so myself after seeing 'slashdot' being refered to as a blog as well. After looking up 'weblog' on Wikipedia, though, I'd be inclined to accept the term for sites like Fark.com, as well - Nils

I'm not sure on the weblog label myself. I think of a weblog as a single person, or small group posting personal type comments. Fark.com is completely user-driven. Users submit articles, write the headlines, and post comments.--Barry 17:00, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Fark is far more community-driven than "blog" implies. Exo314 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is every instance of "fark" or "fark.com" bolded? Chef Lord 02:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Bat Boy

I assume that "a disembodied black baby head" is referring to Bat Boy. I'll make the appropriate edit, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. --DarkNight 21:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

• It really was a black baby's head with a smiling/goofy look. It wasn't disembodied in a violent way or anything, the body was just never shown. It was short-lived (thank god). I don't think it deserves a special mention.--jag123 00:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• maybe in cliches? Tomservo3000 08:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Will the owner of a 30 Mar 2005 66.214.88.100 please pick up a white courtesy phone?

Reverted an edit by 66.214.88.100 which had added the following text:

<<Unfortunately, inexperienced and unpaid moderators often ban interesting and popular posters, such as the legendary "cola," without explanation. Overzealous banning (known as "bannination" when permanent) has caused a slide in Fark's popularity beginning in late 2003, according to the statistics at Alexa.com>>

I'm sure cola is _very_ popular, and his/her bannination _most_ unjust, but unfortunately, as of this writing, Alexa.com's site popularity tracking is unable to home in on specific users, even if the site being tracked _is_ going to hell in a handbasket without them.

If Fark.com's editorial policy and AUP enforcement has been discussed by any independent media, it would behoove you to provide links. If you have any additional material that supports your assertions, please link to it.

... and yeah, that's probably more explanation than was needed, but it can't hurt, eh?

Haha that's just some loser who got banned himself and blatently wants to get in her pants, so he tries to be her Internet White Knight. The Alexa ratings (which he cites are gospel truth in the face of all reason) are kind of Useless as more Farkers switch to FireFox... currently the number is at least 25%. If anyone cares who the loser is, I can dig up his name from an old e-mail, I am certain I know who it is, since he has all of 2 arguments he always uses. --W.marsh 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Adrian 01:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except independent media really wouldn't care. Any long time farker should know who Cola is, I just lurk infrequently and know of her as she was highly active in the comments. After checking her fark user profile, I see she's had 95 links approved. Any site that would ban a user who has contributed so much (Both in links and in comments) without any explination deserves note. For what it's worth, I have no affiliation with either the original editor(66.214.x), Cola, or Fark.com

67.9.175.252 17:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* I've repeated this time and time again. Lifetime bans are done by one of the three root admin not moderators. If you get a simple time-out ban, it's a Mod. Anything major is an Admin And I remember cola. She had it coming. --GaidinBDJ 14:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

So what is the whole "cola" thing about? I have been frequenting Fark for a couple years now, and I've never heard about it. Well, chances are I did but didn't know what the hell it meant. --Uberjivy 1 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

The admins, most notably Jeff have repeatedly said that bans are between the user and Fark, and not discussing them is appreciated. It's no badge of honor, and there's always a reason. --GaidinBDJ July 4, 2005 13:34 (UTC)

The reason Fark doesn't want the bannings discussed is because they're completely arbitrary, as is the enforcement of the site's rules. One has to wonder by GaidinBDJ is such a Fark apologist. For the record, I was banned for posting "France is a sworn enemy of the United States."

I'm an "apologist" because I've been a Farker for a long damn time. Pre-comments, even. I've seen it all from the beginning, and there's a reason there's a grey area in the rules. It's just for that reason. The context of the comment factors in considerably. For example, me saying "Show me your boobies" in a greenlit thread about somebody robbing a Krispy Kreme is totally different than a smart-ass / remark at the end of an advice thread. There's always FarkBack if you think a ban wasn't fair. And sign your posts. --GaidinBDJ July 9, 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Fark loses a lot of registered users due to the tendency of mods to ban users for reasons not listed in the FARQ. Commenting about the asinine reason for you or someone else being banned will result in another ban, or permanent banning, and all negative comments about it are deleted. The random reasons for even short-term bans, and the way the mods joke about the power to ban at will, is the worst part of Fark and TotalFark. If you use Farkback to inquire about the asinine reason you were banned, it will most likely be ignored.

It won't ALWAYS be ignored, but good luck trying to get the decision reversed or thrown out. Jew (JEff/drEW) always disagree with their moderators, if you replaced the word 'always' with 'never.' The moderators have far too much say in what does and does not constitute a banning, and the site has indeed suffered a lot of user throwback as a result. --Fark Sucks 19:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This is probably one of the most serious problems with Fark these days - especially the fact that most TFers are just as ban-happy as the mods and admins. That and the fact that the posters there appear to have a median mental age of about eight.

Pardon? TotalFarkers can't ban shit. The only difference between regular Farkers and TFers is that TFers pay $5 a month to see all of the links. Ozmodiar.x 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the white phone... JohnathanZX4 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mention of paid headlines

80.217.225.208 added a mention of paid headlines on the main page, which aren't labelled as such. This is pretty a stale rumor, the article he links to is a year old, but I guess it bears mentioning all the same. I'm not really sure if this practice is still going on... or if anyone (who actually is a part of Fark/TF) really cares. I haven't heard about it at all since the initial drama a year ago. 80.217.225.208's edit seemed a little judgemental, I tried to make a NPOV statement with the same facts. --W.marsh 04:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (knucklebreather on TF)

Not a rumor since Fark admitted to the practice (see me sources below).

I included following sentence in the article;

"However, it has been reported that that Fark, unbeknownst to the users, have been selling preferential placement of story links. [1]"

Sources: Wired, The Jason Calacanis Weblog (first), The Jason Calacanis Weblog (second), The Jason Calacanis Weblog (third), MatthewCahill.com

Maybe something should be added to explain what "selling preferential placement" actually entails?

80.217.225.208 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If users know about it, it's not really 'unbenknownst' is it? I'm not denying the practice, I'm just saying no one really thinks it's a big deal. Except some blogger a year ago. haven't heard anything about it since. The way you have it written now makes it sound like it's some big secret, but Drew has acknowledged it.

By the way, thanks for discussing this here in a civilized manner and not just reverting. I propose it read like this: "In the past, Fark has sold preferential placement of story links on the main page. [wired link]". That's all that really needs to be said, in my opinion. --W.marsh 05:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was 'unbenknowst' when the evidence surfaced. I'm not quite as certain as you are that the users knew/know about it since all references to the Wired-article on Fark.com was deleted by Fark admins. I've got a feeling most people think it's a rumor although Drew Curtis did acknowledge it. Or that it's simply about the adult content links (which are now sponsored) and not about the regular links.

Who knows what's a big deal and what isn't. My POV is that since Drew admitted to the practice and said that nothing was wrong with it it isn't unlikely that 'regular links' are still sponsored. That would be kind of a big deal, especially since most users seem to believe otherwise. But this can't be proven, the only thing that has been proven is that the practice used to be in effect.

I (for now at least) accept your sentence; "In the past, Fark has sold preferential placement of story links on the main page. [wired link]".

Thanks for your cooperation. 80.217.225.208 05:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you that my first suggestion might imply the practice is definitively over. So how about, "In the past, Fark has sold preferential placement of story links on the main page. [wired link]. Now, the only type of links that, officially, are sponsored are the adult content links." If that's not acceptable, go with your version I guess, but I'll leave it to the other Farkers / maintainers of this article to continue on this issue, if they care to. --W.marsh 14:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion; The sentence "In the past, Fark has sold preferential placement of story links on the main page. [wired link]" should for accuracy be replaced with "In 2004, an article in Wired revealed that Fark had been selling preferential placement of story links. [wired link] Now, the only type of links that, officially, are sponsored are the adult content links." More accurate because the "In the past"-phrase imply that the practise of having covertly sponsored 'regular links' has ceased. Nothing would suggest this. Fark did admit to the selling of links in 2004 and said that it wasn't anything wrong with that. They never said they stop doing it. If you read the present Fark FAQ they vaguely imply the practice ("10. Where do you find all of this stuff? All over. If you look through the links, you'll see that some of them come from various sources that repeat. Some are just chance that we stumble across.") but doesn't say so outright. The links that they publically label as being sponsored are (still) only the adult ones. 80.217.225.208 09:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Drew came out and acknowledged the practice. The outright sale of links was never done, but somebody representing Fark.com's advertising interests was implying that they could get such links greenlit. The practice that was acknowledged was accepting payment for preferential treatment of links on the same content. i.e. If News Source A and News Source B both carried stories about the death of Random Celebrity, the link to News Source As would be accepted. There is also another side to this where certain sites request that Fark not allow greenlit links out of bandwidth concerns. (And they're justified, I've had a few of my sites make main page, and it's definatly a workout if your server isn't designed for that kind of traffic.) --GaidinBDJ 12:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to troll, but I think a lot of farkers are cult apogists (and this is coming from a farker for four years and going now). Fark is a fine website, but reread what you wrote - it smacks of "Drew can do no wrong." Sometimes I feel like totalfarkers are insecure about Fark and the criticisms towards it. Very cultish attitudes go on in totalfark, to the level of feeling superior to people who use the website but don't pay for it.

"Somebody representing fark's advertisements," a roundabout way of saying an employee of fark, sold spots on Fark's frontpage for cold hard cash, which went straight back to Drew's pocket. This is not the kind of thing that would go on behind Drew's back either - a big decision like that would either mean he silenty approved, came up with the idea, or his site is too big for him to handle. I don't think it's the latter. Personally, I think fark still sells spots on the front page. How else do those terrible bbspot lists get the greenlight otherwise? I'm 90% sure there is money changing hands there, but that's only a guess. 66.75.49.213 11:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian Fark

A Fark clone (with Russian content and discussion) exists at fark.ru. However, I really know nothing about it beyond the fact that it exists.--Wasabe3543 06:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It can't suck any worse than Fark. Though a Russian version of Fark? Does that include Drew? Or the moderators? So instead of getting banned for complaining about your deleted posts, they hunt you down in the middle of the night, burn your house down, and shoot you in the head. --Fark Sucks 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it is just a Russian copy of Fark. I see the site submission links, the ads to the various sex/love sites. I can read some Russian and try to get to see actual content, but I bet they most will have stuff making fun of Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

From the about Fark thread:

Q: What is the story behind Fark.ru?

A: The guys from Pravda in Russia asked Drew if they could start a Russian version of Fark. He said ok, we went over to meet them, and it's a fun thing for them to do. I'm not sure how much they have been growing, but I hope they get huge! --Wasabe3543 04:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Systematic bias?

The Fark.com article was labelled an example of 'systematic bias' with no discussion as to why... but the accusation does have some merit. The article has some problems so I've done a rewrite/cleanup... pruning a lot of chatter and making the article much more coherent and useful (I hope). The bottom line is that the article should be an explanation of what Fark is, and that's about it.

And honestly, it seems like a lot of people check Wikipedia for that kind of information when it comes to websites, since obviously most site owners aren't going to present "the whole story" right on their front page. It shouldn't just be an "Hey look! Fark is on Wikipedia!" article for people who already read and like Fark, as some of it clearly was. Nor should it be a "I hate Fark" festival. NPOV, yo.

Hopefully we can clear up this systematic bias thing, anyone is welcome to comment on whether the bias is still there. And if you don't like my edit, I did take a lot of stuff out, comment here too. --W.marsh 21:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

After the rewrite/cleanup I don't believe that it's warranted to single out this article as having a 'systematic bias'; however, it still reads (somewhat) like a fan page written for WASP computer aficionados who often frequent Fark.com.

NPOV, as you write in your comment. My feeling is that Fark is presented in this article in a rather ethnocentristic way. With the 'Farkisms' and the different in-jokes presented the article almost becomes an advertisment for the very site it is about. I have read Fark.com on maybe 15 occasions, 10 hours total, and almost every time I've been surprised and disgusted at extremely bigoted comments that seem to be tolerated by both other posters and admins. I've come across 'Farkisms' such as 'Glass Parking Lot', which is about dropping nuclear weapons on all Muslims (and not meant in a satiric or ironic way). Too many times I've read about black people being compared to animals. Europeans being faggots/pussies. And so forth. All this seem characteristic of the community and it's culture rather than exceptions that I happened to stumble across. From an American, WASP perspective maybe these aspects are not interesting enough to be mentioned. From my perspective they are. This article should present both 'our' perspectives. --saxet 03:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way I'm not a WASP... but let's not have that flamewar right now. Anyway I'm open to rewriting those sections (you're right about the Farkisms I suppose) but I don't have the time at the moment... I will get to it eventually if others dont. --W.marsh 05:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that would be appreciated. Thanks. --saxet 12:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A few examples to illustrate my point. It took me less than half an hour (!) to find these recent Fark.com postings;

• ”just farking leave them to it! if people want to shoot and kill the people who are there to help them, then let the n1gg3rs die like n1gg3rs. those who are still there had plenty of warning to leave. if they had nowhere, well tough shiat! being homeless is a better option than being homeless and in a natural disater zone.” harryhallal 2005-09-02 07:05:09 AM
• ”Guess what..black people do loot ! Get off your self righteous horses. When Grand Forks flooded there was virtually no looting. The floods were just as bad, worse if you look at it in a "per capita' way. The fact is that black society, from Hip Hop through reperations arguments, feels it is entitiled to something for a disgusting chapter of american history that happened no less than 40, and most 200 years ago. Robbery and crime are celebrated ! Ignorance is king ! Lets get crunk ! Those are the cold hard facts.” Trdizzake 2005-09-01 05:57:00 PM
• '"Let the ni**er die!" /My fav line in "Gangs of New York"' theviciousscribe 2005-09-01 01:24:45 AM
• ”Isbomb is the religion of peices. Moe ham head (piss be upon him) gave us Isbomb, to help us lead an explosively happy death and dismemberment, where Isbomb followers then get 72 virgins that of course have no physical body either.” jpboaty 2005-08-31 06:29:00 PM
• ”Im not really a racist at all, in fact, Im sexually attracted to all ethnicities of women.” Gin_Fueled_Farking 2005-08-28 04:59:23 AM

--saxet 14:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate (not prove) my point;

• "Kanye is that damn coon singing about us white folks oppressing his black americans, Right, (Jesus Walks)? Thats it, ....Kanye get your black ass back on the boat. You dumbass, Mike Meyers shoulda pimp slapped you. Nothing worse than a nigger(filtered), he should be pickin my grandaddy's cotton."undrtkn 2005-09-03 12:20:58 AM

--saxet 15:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, if you'll check back, the comments you've mentioned that were clearly racist have been deleted and the posters banned. Fark has 300,000 registered users and like 15 mods maybe... they can't catch everything instantly. I don't really think the kinds of things you're talking about are tolerated, as evidenced by the deletions. They don't really delete extreme political viewpoints if they aren't racist or otherwise hate speech though... in my opinion that's okay.--W.marsh 15:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well actually, only two of the six posts above have (so far) been deleted, and at least five of the six posters didn't get banned. But I don't want to get into an edit war so I won't put my paragraph back in the article - however - I think that the 'all other websites are also like that' argument is a poor one. Because that's not relevant for the information going into this article. We shouldn't remove references of the Conservative leaning of The Rush Limbaugh Show, 'cause everyone already knows that most radio talk shows are Conservative anyways so it's not noteworthy'. All that said, thanks for discussing this with me on the talkpage and for not removing edits I've made (e.g. glass parking lot), that doesn't violate (your sense of) NPOV, even if you don't really like them. --saxet 23:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I just don't think the article should say Fark has some kind of slant to it. I don't think there's any coherent argument that the admins do... in 3+ years of reading Fark I don't even know how Drew or anyone feels about politics, even basic stuff like who they'd vote for. Does that sound like a site with a bias?

As for the posters, most people -by far- who post to Fark identify themselves as liberals (albeit in unscientific surveys, but what are you going to do?) Racist comments and hate speech are deleted if mods see them. Sure some people are going to express opinions you find offensive, but this seems like a case of focusing on the stuff you disagree with, and ignoring the stuff you don't. Most posts are pretty liberal. The people you cited almost all got flamed for their opinions, I noticed in a cursory glance. What does a site have to do to not be slanted? Ban everyone who isn't a liberal? Fark isn't Democratic Underground. My point is that any site that doesn't ban dissenting opinions is going to have some extreme opinions you might find offensive. But just because the conservative opinions offend you, that doesn't make fark a conservative site. There are opinions all over the place, and more often than not they're liberal.

And yeah I have no interest in a revert war. Coming to an agreement here on the talk page is what I'm concerned with. But frankly I'm a bit surprised at how much debate is possible about a site whose mascot is a squirrel with big nuts, hehe. --W.marsh 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Fark could be a Communist site, or a Racist site, or a Neoconservative site, or a Hippie site. Whatever direction, whatever bias is fine with me. My problem isn't really with Fark, it's with the article about Fark on Wikipedia.

You say: Fark is a fun community founded by Drew.

I say: Fark is an e-business founded by Drew Curtis.

You say: Fark has a lot of funny stuff that people enjoy.

I say: Fark is the primary source of information for many people.

You say: Fark users comes in all shapes and sizes, some are Conservative and most are Liberals, and they argue about just about everything, there are a few trolls that get flamed when they are being ignorant.

I say: The Fark culture may appear heterogeneous due to the intense arguments that the users engage in, but in reality, it is distinctly white American with an inclination for emphasized political incorrectness.

You say: Fark is one of the most widely read community sites of its type on the internet.

I say: Fark is one of the most widely read community sites of its type on the internet.

Basically, my 'beef' is that I like the idea that people learn stuff when they read Wikipedia, if an Anglo-Saxon Libertarian read about Glass Parking Lot being a 'Farkism' he might think; 'What a cool site, I should check it out', if an African woman reads the same thing she might think; 'Ok, I get the idea, not for me'. I don't think it matters what you or I think of Fark as long as we can both agree on that Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for advertising successful websites, or to drag them through the mud for that matter. --saxet 04:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fark is like any other Internet site. Anybody can come and go as they please. All it takes is an e-mail address to get an account. There are people that troll, just like on any other site, and there are people who are bigoted, sexist, racist, etc, just as there are on any other Internet site (or just walking down the street, for that matter). One of the downsides of free speech is that everybody get to express their opinion, no matter how misinformed or ignorant. --GaidinBDJ 06:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know any Internet sites (including Wikipedia) that (really) has free speech. See Fark's Guidelines where, amongst other things, hate speech is adressed. --saxet 06:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

Rather than revert waring I hope can explain the situation with the lengthy essay that keeps getting added to the Criticisms section lately. The main problem is that it must cite sources, someone else saying this stuff, somewhere else (even if it's a blog), otherwise it is original research, which is very much not something that should be added to Wikipedia. It is also not wikified, which is really a reason for reverting in and of itself.

To be blunt though, I don't really see how useful a long essay on the fine points of Fark policy is for an encyclopedia... trim it down to a brief summary, cite sources, and it will be fine with me. If you want to host a comprehensive essay on the fine details of Fark moderation, Wikipedia really isn't the place. --W.marsh 18:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't raise the issue in the first place. Someone else did, and what the way they raised it is extremely misleading. This is more of a common law entity, there really are no "sources", just how the broad and liberal rules are interprited.

As for the sources, I emailed Drew, that was his response, I wrote it up, he sent it back to the mods. The sources are cited earlier which just say see the Farq for reference. I would rather just not have bannination mentioned at all, but someone brought it up (Uncle G) so now it has to be addressed or else the statement is misleading.

I guess a solution would be to cut it down to one or two paragraphs or just eliminate banninations.

It seems to me that this section appears to violate the NPOV policy.... While there's not something terribly specific, statements like "giving moderators rather godlike powers to ban whomever they disagree with" doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Coloclone 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this information isn't verifiable nor is it neutral. Please air your personal grievences of the website elsewhere. 15:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)tarrant84

the tags in the tag section

The inline tag images really need to go. They offer very little and make the paragraph impossible to read. Barring any objections, I'd like to take them out. --rebug (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias

If I had the time and energy I could prove beyond a doubt that Fark (which is functionally composed of moderators) is liberally biased. I would strongly suggest those those of you who seek to complete and accurate article test this assertion by creating an account and taking a conservative stance within the site. Although site officials claim they do not tolerate bullying and ad hominem attacks, I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have been banned for simply defending against personal attacks from leftist users; 99% of the time I have done this with pure logic, something the admins don't seem to be capable of recognizing. I must also note that in these situations I have been the only one banned; I attribute this to the fact that is has usually been myself trying to counter the fallacious remarks of half a dozen liberals.

I recently told a Fark user that they had "no business posting" because they claimed that China could cash its debt and destroy the US economy. This fool failed to realize that China's own economy would be destroyed in the process, therefore it was an absurd and disruptive comment to make. I was perma-banned for this one ad hominem.

A final suggestion would be to follow the posts of the user "Legless Marine," a rabbidly leftist user who (aside from the name) almost exclusively posts images/comments that degrade and slander the United States and the US military. In so many words this user has praised the mutilation and death of US military men and women with a disturbing level of glee, AND YET HE CONTINUES TO EXIST WITHOUT REPRIMAND FROM OTHER USERS OR ADMINISTRATORS.

Haizum 11:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The descriptions of the Farkisms "But Clinton" and "Morans" also display liberal bias within the article, eg the blanket "Republican" and the use of the condescending and somewhat racist word "redneck". Wikipedia is liberally biased so I don't expect these to be changed, but I just want you all to know that I've got my eye on this sort of subversive propaganda. Haizum 11:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't do anything about sites you think have a bias. Wikipedia only records facts. --BWD 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Wikipedia article itself, which contains biased statements as mentioned above. Haizum 06:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You have just as much power as everyone else to edit the article. --BWD 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha, in theory. Haizum 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As a conservative, let me tell you this. There are a lot of liberals who use the internet. They post on Fark. I think Fark is very fair and balanced in what they approve for the main page. 147.31.4.44 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)tarrant84

You've obviously never participated in one of their threads. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you Troll as a conservative, expect alot of liberal responses. --Lincoln F. Stern 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur, Fark is biased to the right. --Lincoln F. Stern 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

Wiki isn't the place to voice all your criticisms of Fark. Wiki is a factual database. I removed the two paragraphs talking about moderator's godlike powers and a personal claim of bias against the site, mainly because it violates the NPOV and because there was no linked information.

Wiki really isn't even a good place to talk about Fark's policies, perhaps we should remove everything regarding it.

147.31.4.43 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)tarrant84

Do you even know what a discussion page is for? Non-NPOV comments can be made on a discussion page for the sake of keeping the article NPOV. Also, you aren't allowed to delete comments from a discussion page unless you ask the user. Is an admin going to warn you for this, probably not. Haizum 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what a joke. You don't have to link anything on a discussion page. Keyword: Discussion. Haizum 10:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like you violated policy and deleted the comments of two different users. Nice. Haizum 10:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This listing should be deleted as it has no Encyclopedic value.

Hey anon, this is a talk page, not an article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Finding" fark cliche is not only false, as the article in question was NOT an AP article but an AP article and a French new services articles being compared, but, it is not a Fark cliche in any real sense.

Criticism reverting debate

Hey everyone, it seems that a small edit war has broken out about the criticism section. I quote Wikipedia: Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement. While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.

The last sentence may refer to this case: [[2]] [[3]]

However, let's call a cease-fire and discuss that section over here before we make any more changes. I was the one who added most of the info that seems to be in dispute. One of the main complaints is that there are no sources cited (a problem with the entire article really). Well, I don't know what would be acceptible as an unbiased source and I would be hardpressed to find a source biased or not for any part of this article. I will say that I am a regular on the website, having been there for over four years and I'm currently a TotalFarker. Despite the information that I added, I do very much like the site (I wouldn't be on TotalFark if I didn't) however anyone who spends a good deal of time in the Fark community and talks to the Farkers inside and outside of the site would agree that the unbalanced moderation especially in regards of what can and can not be said, is one of the chief problems on the site.

Anyways, before we let these edits get out of hand, let's see if we can come up with a consencus so that this article will be complete and accurate and stick to a NPOV.D'Iberville 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good call.

I think the best idea would be to remove "Fark policies" entirely (I wrote it). It's not really relevant, nor can it be verified-- it was written because we had too many people coming in and saying "I got banninated for X" or "TotalFark bans liberals/conservatives just for their viewpoints!". I wrote the entry after emailing Drew Curtis and getting his take on it, it's the best I could do. I just got sick of this section becoming people's personal weblog about their specific instances about being banned.

However, at this point, I think we should just reference the FARQ and move on.

The point of Wiki isn't to show a website has a particular bias, it's just to provide factual information. The actual bannination policy is very 'grey', common sense type thing. It's very hard to explain as there's no sourceable information, just the emails I have from Drew.

tarrant84 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)tarrant84

You guys are really huge nerds. -C

You want to remove "Fark policies" because they cannot be verified, yet you want to reference the FARQ, which is a summary of Fark policy. Think about how much sense that makes. Haizum 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"The point of Wiki isn't to show a website has a particular bias, it's just to provide factual information." So by your logic the articles on the website Media Matters for America and the website Media Research Center shouldn't contain any information on their leanings? I'm afraid you can't pick and choose what articles can contain a criticism section. You should stop being an apologist for Fark.com and read up on WP:NPOV and WP:TPG. Haizum 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire issue can be solved by deleting the entire article. It's usless, pointless and has no value whatsoever. 3/1/06

The entire issue could be solved if those that take issue with the article killed themselves. What's ironic is how my comment would actually be more productive than yours. Oh, and sign your comments next time per WP:TPG; I believe 1 warning is enough. Thanks. Haizum 07:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV, critisizm provides an alternate viewpoint in which to view a subject. By removing it, you are potentially giving the article a positive POV. I suggest the section stays. If this edit war continues, the page can get protected, but I don't want to see that have to happen. --Zsinj^Talk 17:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: I have added a disputed tag to this section that is currently in the middle of this conflict. I suggest leaving this content on the page, at least for the time being, so that others can have the opportunity to comment on this subject. --Zsinj^Talk 17:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle and for the sake of consensus. Protection of articles isn't what Wikipedia is about unless the vandalism outweighs common consensus editing. Haizum 17:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

inline tag images

The tag images in the text of the paragraph describing them are non-standard and violate the manual of style. I am going to remove them soon unless there's an objection (and a good reason). --W.marsh 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And they simply look horrible like that. --BWD ^(talk) 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I'll support Protection on this article if Tarrant84 or other sock/meat puppets keep vandalizing the page, as was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fark.com&diff=42091768&oldid=42091719 Just a thought. Haizum 01:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and original research

If you aren't familiar with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiablity, you should read them, to be fully informed in this debate. They are all closely related to eachother, the gist being that articles on Wikipedia should be tertiary sources:

A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

To summarize what all of this means in terms of criticism, Wikipedia articles should summarize published criticism (secondary sources), which are in turn based on threads, e-mails, policies, etc. (primary sources). The Wired article is a good example of this in action.

It's fine to make claims in articles without citing sources for every one. We assume good faith, so we assume your claims have a good source. But that only goes so far - when there's a dispute, sources need to be cited. If reliable sources can't be cited for, in this case, a criticism of Fark, then those claims should not be included in the article. Primary sources (like the Fark FAQ, Fark threads, etc.) may possibly be cited, but no "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative" claims can be made from them (which wasn't the case with the stuff I removed). In other words, a Wikipedia article shouldn't be writing original criticism (or original claims in general). This is policy.

So, uncited criticisms shouldn't be in this article. Cited criticisms are fine. That's what this is all about. --W.marsh 20:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia only records facts. --BWD 13:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All this discussion, and the biggest proponent of making changes to the article itself has summed up perfectly why you all need to move on and leave the entry as it is.Tresser 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When I said that, I meant that all unsourced criticisms need to be removed from the article. This article shouldn't be hijacked by people with an axe to grind. --BWD ^(talk) 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point. I suppose I did not articulate it. I'm not here to represent Fark, I'm just trying to keep all the information acurate, fair, and verifiable. However, it seems the new additions are relatively fair. Again, I still don't Wiki is the most appropriate place to voice "Fark criticisms", but when you omit them someone always comes here and adds them.

tarrant84 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)tarrant84

Slight tweaks to 'Filters' section

The previous example -- "it's a bitchilly out" getting changed to "it's a biatchilly out" -- wasn't a very typical case of getting caught by the filters. Many people would expect the filter to kick in if you leave out the space between the two words like that. What catches people is that the filters ignore spaces -- so "bit chilly" gets nailed for including "bitch", "I worked on that pic until my fingers bled" would get filtered to "picoontil", etc. Also, I added "first comment -> Weeners" to the 'Filters' list. If the entry is going to cover specific filters at all, it has to cover 'Boobies' and 'Weeners', since those are the two famous ones ("Sorry about that. Moderators, please delete my Weeners.") Kickaha Ota 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another tweak that may be a bit more controversial: The first use of the word "filters" in the opening sentence of the section previously linked to censorware. This seemed to me like a somewhat inappropriate and potentially biased link choice. I changed the link to point to the wordfilter entry, which is much more clearly applicable. If someone thinks that the use of filters on Fark is censorship, they will presumably think the same way about the wordfilters on most other sites as well; so it would be more appropriate to expand the wordfilter article stub and include an NPOV summary of the potential censorship aspects. Kickaha Ota 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Renewed Assertion of Bias

I recently started commenting on Fark again, and because I was banned, I've been keeping a relatively low profile (asside from the similiarity in username).

On the thread started for Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D), I called a person out for making personal attacks against other people. After the attacks continued I made my comments a little more interesting.

Since most everyone was joking around with the headline, " You or I hit a policeman: jail time. Congresswoman hits a policeman: A-okay" and making various inflamatory versions of it including Bush, Rove, and racially charged remarks, I said...

"A conservative like myself makes a weaker or less direct personal attack: Banned. A liberal directly calls someone an "idiot": A-okay."

I made this comment and the end of a string of very reasonable, very typical, list of comments. I was clearly there for the discussion. However, 10-15 minutes later I was banned and the majority of my comments were removed. No explaination given except for "Comment Deleted: Just Trolling!"

Obviously the reaction was emotive, and therefore I must conclude it was from a liberal mod, liberal enough to silence anyone making a point.

This is why I stay away from Fark. Haizum 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to Soapbox, this is a reference for anyone that believes bias should be mentioned in the article. Haizum 19:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A first-person anecdote is generally not an appropriate reference. Kickaha Ota 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is, but don't get caught up in a fallacy; if we established a correlation it would simply be a large number of "first-person anecdotes." Haizum 20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really for that kind of stuff. If you have a published article covering these complaints, great, we can cite it appropriately. But it's just original research to say in the article that a bunch of people on the talk page shared some anecdotes, so that means X, Y and Z. --W.marsh 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let my story be for context and nothing more. I don't expect edits to be made at this time. Haizum 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for soapboxing, and Fark has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias repeatedly. Something as difficult to prove as what you are suggesting is obviously non-encyclopaedic and furthermore original research and largely irrelevant to the article's reader. Cheers. Exo314 13:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone seems to get banned. I got banned for submitting the following headlines:"Vote for your favorite Farker. Difficulty: Mods excluded from contest" - as in, don't turn it into a mod ass-kissing contest. I thought it was innocent, actually. To be fair, I thought the following was funny, but wouldn't actually get me banned (geez), especially since I thought the admins have to approve the links?

"What would get you banned the fastest in a SFW thread? Although stating the obvious, this thread will probably be very not safe for work." I guess submitting links can get you banned. Who knew? I thought the second one would turn into a thread of naked ladies. I would say that some mods or admins are just a little more overzealous than others when banning people. Not saying I didn't cross a line, but if I got banned for the above submittals, it seems like a bunch of people are probably getting banned for less arbitrary reasons as well.

Got Nothing.

THe article doesn't explain why "Got Nothing." is used in conjunction with Melissa Theuriau. Can someone tell me what it's a reference to?

I always assumed it was a sort of textual shrug, as in "I have nothing of note to contribute to the discussion, so here's a picture of a beautiful woman". Maybe another Farker has more info? Exo314 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, Exo. It could be any other picture... for example, a cute kitten or a pizza or something. It's all good. Mchmike 06:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Morans

The mention of the "Get a brain! Morans!" cliche originally cited the photograph as taken in St. Charles (which is correct), then at some point it was added that St. Charles is a suburb of St. Louis (which is incorrect). An anonymous editor added a snide remark about this inaccuracy and later somebody changed the part that was right, saying that the photo was taken in Hazelwood (which is incorrect), and that Hazelwood was a suburb of St. Louis (which is correct). While most of Boeing's buildings are located in Hazelwood, the missile plant in question is indeed located in St. Charles and I edited the article to say this (forgetting, as usual, to log in). To avoid further confusion, I removed the note of St. Charles' location. --deckard 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ananova ref

Is this link an ok ref for the Ananova non-linking claim? It doesn't fit the usual bill of being a "reputable source", but it has a comment from Drew expaining the problem.

What Fark is run on?

Does anyone know what Fark is run on i.e. slash or something? Thanks.

With regard to software, it's mostly custom-built and/or heavily modified. I remember discussing this with Mike back in 1999 or 2000 via Email. He was very nice and polite but (understandably) chose not to go into any detail. Hardware, is a different matter though. That is pretty much standard, as far as I know. You can check out the recent eBay thread (they're auctioning of beer, bourbon and some other server and a router) for some more information. Seed 2.0 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Seed 2.0

It's completely custom-built code. And different sorts for different functions. It has never used plug-and-play website scripting. That can be learned in the FArQ on the site itself.

Most farkers will tell you something less insightful, like "beer", "1,000,000 hamsters on 1,000,000 wheels", etc. Erielhonan 13:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tech FarQ may be found at http://www.fark.com/farq/tech.shtml.

"Apache (w/ mod_perl + mod_gzip) and MySQL on several custom-built FreeBSD boxes, Foundry load balancers, and some random Cisco gear to support remote ::management. The hardware is co-located at Open World here in Kentucky. Offsite backup is co-located at Servint Internet Services in northern Virginia.

The software is all homebrew stuff. It was cobbled together as a quick hack, which then evolved over the years into an even bigger hack. There are ::other systems out there with more/better stuff, but, hey, we like being unique. :) The code was originally written by Drew, Joe, and Phil but has since ::been rewritten almost completely (numerous times) by Mike, Meg, and Drew. "24.233.40.212 08:53, 18 December 2006 ::(UTC)temporarysanity

Moshzilla

No moshzilla? Seems that she's been run off of Wikipedia completely. Madmaxmarchhare 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No moshzilla? Seems that she's been run off of just added to Wikipedia's Fark page completely.

...there, fixed that for ya! --emerson7 | Talk 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Site POV issue

One thing that has not been addressed is that Drew Curtis is the owner of the website. It's his to do as he sees fit (including making money with it), and the users are allowed to hang out as long as someone does not do something foolish. His bias, or the motives of the mods/admins have nothing to do with it. It is a privately owned site that gives permission to people to say their piece as long as it does not ruffle the owner's or his appointee's feathers. If the site has a POV or an agenda, it is Drew's and he is within his rights. The complaints mean nothing. Xj14y 23:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point being exactly what? I don't think anyone is disputing that. Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to be a smartass here. I just don't understand how what you're saying is contributing anything. There is nothing wrong with running a business and this very subject comes up regularly in the threads (and, in my experience, the Fark.com mods have relaxed a bit when it comes to censoring this issue).

Fark is a privately-operated, non-government site. Within reason and within US law, the owner is free to restrict access to it as he sees fit. People often use the "living room" analogy in cases like this: as in, you're free to kick anyone out of your living room and people generally expect guests to act in a civil manner when they're in somebody else's house. Seed 2.0 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nay, they kick anyone out that isn't in lock step with their liberal agenda. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, somehow Weaver95, Dancin in Anson, Billdozer, FlashLV, and other well-known farkers whose viewpoints are solidly conservative haven't been banned. Hmmm.—Wasabe3543 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And just for good measure, why not throw in Arnold T Pants, HangonVoltaire, Muck4doo, hellbentforleather, wildbluebonnet, enave, Shut........UP, BlindMan, mdalli, cthu1hu, Secret Master of All Flatulence, Skinnyhead, essucht, Darth Shatner, as well ericjohnson0 and the_gospel_of_thomas, though those two don't seem to be active anymore (but were not banned)....—Wasabe3543 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)—also, BojanglesPaladin, 10 U.S.C. 311, Skwidd, mrvikings, dfenstrate, mkfreeberg, olddinosaur, man Fark must have some lazy-ass mods for not booting any of them.