CaseyPedia talk:Community Portal

From CaseyPedia

Can you work in a semi-satirical guideline also? I like the mostly-factual approach, but I do like a nice bit of snark now and again. And I agree there's a fine snark line to be trodden between innuendo and outright gaybashing -- I tend to favor the less-is-more approach, often a single well-chosen adjective can be funnier than an entire labored sentence. --Lawnmower man 19:55, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

I'll be making a report on things in general at the weekend and will try and define CaseyPedia more succinctly. There's a lot of good stuff here (kudos to everyone) - both serious and amusing - and I'd like to maintain a certain level of "quality" - among others so the mainstream press won't have any qualms about mentioning / quoting from here. NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 20:02, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

So keep it semi-respectful, hmm? (must get around to writing that article...) --Lawnmower man 20:26, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Are we linked from Wikipedia's Casey Serin article yet? Any suitably-pseudonym'ed Wiki user want to add a link? --Lawnmower man 19:55, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

I saw it was there briefly, but seems to have been wikinazied out. NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 20:02, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

NoDebt: I think we need some _much_ stronger guidelines on what topics and tone is acceptable and what isn't. Are we primarily fact with funny as a bonus? Or primarily funny with fact as a bonus? Are joke-only pages acceptable? Where are boundaries set regarding third parties' privacy? Some users are testing these boundaries. --Lawnmower man 20:38, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

I don't see why we cannot have both fact and funny so long as we're clear about which is which; for example, by appropriate use of Category tagging. --Sprezzatura 20:54, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

Contents 1 Layin' down the Law 2 Ideas for distiguishing fact from fancy 3 "Citation Needed" Template 4 Questions about things to do? 5 Timeline or at least a reasonably comprehensive introduction..

[edit] Layin' down the Law

'k, it's been interesting to see how this whole thing is panning out. As I've said somewhere else, I started off seriously, but there's a wealth of material out there which is just crying out for ridicule. Humor adds to the readability (provided it's reasonably on-topic) - I've learnt a fair amount just reading / writing here. I'd say as a rule-of-thumb fact with funny sauce.

Some specifics:

• "running-gag" style "joke" pages are certainly fine, as long as they show a certain degree of wit. A subjective criteria yes, but one which precludes detailed yet groundless speculation on "reach-arounds" and the like.
• random speculation on subjects' sexual lives - which has no basis in the known material - has no place here.
• privacy: third parties who have no connection with the affair other than by relationship / acquaintance should only be mentioned in passing, if at all. "Second parties" who play some role (to pick some names at random Duane LeGate, Steve Serin) should can be documented, but even here specific personal information (DoB, address) is not needed (even if it is publicly researchable). We're not running a witch-hunt or indiscriminate outing campaign.

I reserve the right to delete pages on sight which I consider to overstep the mark. Don't want to come across all high-and-mighty, but it's my domain / server, and it's chez moi where the buck would stop.

Note: "Wikinazi free" is meant to mean that the Wikipedia commandment of NPOV is not in operation here; it doesn't mean "anything goes".

The MurseMaster hath spoken. NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 23:02, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Ideas for distiguishing fact from fancy

I have enjoyed "contributing" (such as my additions have been) here so far, but I think we should not take ourselves too seriously, but also not become a liability for owner.

I suggest the way to maintain 'semi-satirical' nature, and try to straddle the real and the unreal is maybe to follow some norms seen on the rat race page:

1. If we are directly attributing something as if Casey said it, for goodness sake's, let's reference his own words, and NEVER embellish a quote! His own material is too rich and too funny to cheapen it in that way. Some satire just plows right over that bright line, and it is fine, as long as that is clear. Here, since many pages have a serious tone, and I think it is really important to educate visitors as to what Casey is really about, I think it would be dangerous to broach that. At all.

2. So how can we still have fun? Well, I think the rat race page shows how -- do what Wikipedia and Wikinazis would not allow otherwise -- allow strong POV, and also some flights of fancy/speculation, as long as it remains author-centric. In other words, we step a bit out of the encyclopedic and into some editorializing, using devices such as "perhaps" and "it is rumored" or "it cannot be confirmed" or "Rumors that such and such occurred are thought to be baseless". In other words, pre-skewer the possible authenticity of the pure humor-parts ourselves and make it clear it is parody, but without killing the 'joke'.

It may be tough to do this, but those are my main ideas so far....

Soemdood 23:22, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

That's an excellent way of putting it, thanks Soemdood. NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 23:32, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

As the "Goddess of Organization" I'm going to ask all authors that pages whose primary intent is humor / parody / etc be categorized as such. I've added a new category, Humor, for the purpose. This would also have the benefit of keeping our benevolent dictator's butt out of the fire if push came to shove, as humor and satire have much more legal protection attached to them. --Sprezzatura 23:35, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

Boy, I love the ideas and input so much of everyone I hesitate to disagree at all with work already underway, and I much esteem the Goddess of Organization. But I wonder if this is the very slippery path, in that by delineating some pages specifically as intended to be humor/satire, then the implication is the other is serious fact?

While I defer to more knowing minds than my own, I prefer the idea of the "one-two punch" -- we generally give a real topic, a real cite, but then take some OBVIOUS wink-wink-nudge-nudge license that is CLEAR parody, and thereby do not have to try to separate the inseparable.

I am not militant on this thinking; just considering how to best preserve the intent, and keep it fun to add to and visit, without being hurtful to anyone. I sure hope I am not coming across as argumentative -- "Reg, you haven't got a womb!" Jehovah bless the People's Front for the Liberation of Judea!

Soemdood 23:55, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

That's a very good point. Maybe I am wrong. --Sprezzatura 23:59, 27 May 2007 (CEST)

Ah HA -- I have an idea! So, what about just a small banner right on main page, simply pronouncing that the material, although drawn from real sources, is intended as a spoof, and therefore, is protected under fair use, parody, yadda yadda? This approach will completely scotch any possible dream that Caseypedia could become a referenced source for things Casey, but I think we should give that up (IMHO) EXCEPT that by shining the beacon on Casey's exploits and providing citations and links to sources we will, in our own laughing but nefariously useful way, be helping bring the story to light and eventually, the proper end. So Caseypedia may indeed get press, but in the right light, and then if anyone wants to drill down to the serious stuff, just look into the links and references. In fact, perhaps this could be (if it does actually reflect the intent - I'm being quite presumptuous here) be placed on a little FAQ page, to alert anyone who is unaware, of the mission and methods of the site.

Soemdood 00:21, 28 May 2007 (CEST)

interesting points, but I'm headed for some massive focused action right now so can't make any detailed comments - it's past midnight in my time zone - and I don't want my wife to get any suspicions about me having an affair with a wiki. I think we're heading in the right general direction though. NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 00:27, 28 May 2007 (CEST)

[edit] "Citation Needed" Template

I don't know where to put this... but when editing on Wikipedia, one can put {{fact}} in and the page will automatically put a little superscript saying "[citation needed]". I tried doing this in an article but it doesn't seem to work here. Does anyone know how to implement this, or even what I'm referring to in the first place? Thanks  :-) Benoit™ 06:13, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

Needs the template to be copied from Wikipedia. I'll do it in a few minutes. --Lawnmower man 06:18, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

Done. I smplified the template a bit as it also linked to a Wikipedia page on citing references -- if we have something similar here I can have it link there instead. It also adds a category so we can find all articles in need of citations. Sweet. --Lawnmower man 06:36, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

Any other useful things we could lift from Wikipedia? Full list, although most of them are specific to Wikipedia's heavyweight processes and rather overkill for us... --Lawnmower man 06:36, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

Thanks... that should do template-wise for the time being. I've found myself repeatedly writing "need citations" in articles, this will vastly simplify the whole thing... Benoit™ 06:39, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Questions about things to do?

Do we need:

• Rework or perhaps kinder view of Nigel the new hater? (after all we do want him to turn DHC back on and post those answers)?
• Galina rework?

--Pmspms 07:58, 12 June 2007 (CEST)

I don't think we should revise Nigel wholesale: he may be coming around now, but it was a long time coming and he was pretty obnoxious to the haterz along the way. I would be in favor of adding a section to the end of Nigel Swaby noting his recent apparent shift in viewpoint -- I'd note also he's exhibited some sense of humor about his perception lately, see his 2759 comment on SLCRE and the Butterfly photo in his Flickr photostream.

Likewise Galina: I don't think we should eradicate past speculation about her involvement from the record, nor should we minimize the fact that she enabled Casey in his fantasies. However, recent developments do paint her in a more sympathetic light and that should be reflected in updates here.

JMHO, obviously, but I'm resistant to widespread Serinesque revisionism of past opinions and occurrences. --Lawnmower man 08:12, 12 June 2007 (CEST)

Good points all. Revisionism is not good and this whole effort is satire and humour more than anything else. --Pmspms 08:30, 12 June 2007 (CEST)

I'd say it's the "truth" from a certain perspective served up with a big dollop of satire and humour and the odd bit of other stuff. As far as reworking the articles goes: document the changes yes, but revisionism no. --NoDebtWhatSoEver™ 08:35, 12 June 2007 (CEST)

[edit] Timeline or at least a reasonably comprehensive introduction..

This story isn't going away soon. I've been thinking we need either a timeline or introduction that helps newbies get going....

It must be incredibly confusing trying to work out WTF is going on if you just jumped in!

Title suggestions? "Pop your Snowflake" ?

Flailing forward posted a detailed timeline (in Word format) on EN around a month or two ago. It contained extremely in-depth details from the beginning of Serin's nightmare up to January, 2007. Would save a lot of work, if you're trying to put something together. -- Benoit™ 18:41, 12 June 2007 (CEST)