Forum:Content warning, round 3

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Content warning, round 3

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3984 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

So some people want a new round of voting on our Content Warning; and for some people every discussion in the Village Dump is or should be a discussion on the Content Warning. So I'm moving that discussion here. Spıke Ѧ 17:34 7-May-13

---

While fry a goose in the top oven and let it simmer. Golly gee whillikers, flipiddy do da metropolis! Llwy and everyone should, imnho, contribute to both websites. If SPIKE chases some away from ever coming back here, then they think this is SPIKE's wiki and not yours. Bull, both of the two uncyclopedia outfits - the warning notice censored version here, which breaks the joke and is the opposite of wikipedia which we are designed to both mimic and satirize, then the non-censored version in which some really good writers are writing some really good stuff - should be putting their pages on both sites. Both sites are having their troubles right now, in low numbers, and both sites have some good people working them. But all involved should admit that the stupid and unneeded content warning cut the baby in half and we should be a unified voice that that content warning be taken down. It breaks the joke! How stupid can you be to break a successful joke????? Aleister about an hour later

p.s. as for the external source thing, I didn't know anyone was complaining about users adding vids if they want to and if the vid works well with the page. I thought the external source bold-notice in recent changes was mainly to check out if someone was adding advertisements to the page (I've cleaned out the sex articles of links to off-site porno and sex toy companies many times). The best youtube find I discovered was the youtube I put on 'UnPoetia:Well-Oiled Birds', it fit perfectly. It's the same as any other edit though, if the vid or link isn't good for the page, it should be reverted. Like any other eit.

Aleister, the mandate to apply a Content Warning does come from Wikia, though it left the wording to us, and we had two rounds of debate on it. I can live with it and you are unable to; but I opened this Forum about the phenomenon of blaming Wikia--sometimes strategically--for things that Wikia didn't do. Spıke Ѧ 02:08 6-May-13

We had a round of debate, a vote, and Puppy's content warning was put up and was very interesting (as long as we had to have one that one was the best on the web imnho). Then for some reason we had another vote, and a totally different and boring one was put up, with the first words on it telling the people this is a humor site, thus breaking the joke twice in one second. So isn't it about time for another vote and reworking of the warning? Or why not just the words "Content warning. Some of this websites pages may not be safe for work or school" with the buttons underneath, which would then make it neutral and not break the joke? Aleister 17:11 7-5-'13

I'm not anti-Wikia but I agree with Aleister here. The main priority for this site that must come above all else is to be a parody of wikipedia (as I understand). That means no random articles that are immature and not funny and it also means tricking people on their first read of our content. Reader must come first above writer. Do not give the joke away on content warning. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:19, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ScottPat, I was just about to rage quit or rage cook or rage jump rope or something, when I saw your reply. The above is the first time I had that idea, about a simple warning such as "Content warning. Some of this website's pages may not be safe for work or school" and that's all. Maybe with a nice pic of an academic building in back of it (lol). That would kill two birds with one shotgun blast. I'm now signing off to rage eat. Aleister 17:27 7-5-'13

Please do not rage-quit. You are such a great user and friend. You have done so much to bring non-wikia and wikia uncyclopedias to like each other and you are a great writer. I am not going to join non-wikia Uncyc due to reasons I mentioned in the previous forum. I would like to second my agreement with you. Bon Appetite! Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:39, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

We've got to make it look like the sort of content website that wiki would put up. Very profesional and with clear English. The reasons behind this content warning might be that the website is serious but unfortunately has to fulfil its task of covering every aspect of encyclopedic knowledge that it must write about things that some readers may find inappropriate. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:42, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Wikia has implemented a policy to protect themselves from grief by trolls and prudes... And in doing so has caused far more grief amongst a community of volunteers who put hard work and soul into building something fun and special. There is nothing fun about the site anymore and every time I see that content warning it makes me so angry I want to drink a barrel of dinosaur blood. They know the warning is site destroying, they know its there for them and not us, that its an easy way out...but they dont care. We could easily put content warnings on apllicable articles. We ought to fight tooth and nail to end the bloody notice for once and for all. I understand this forum is about scapegoating wikia...but the brutality of wikia against our project is so sharp and ever present in our minds that its hard to not blame them for all of our problems. That bloody content notice. That fucking wikia content notice that fucking wikia has let destroy uncyclopedia. That fucking god damn fucking content notice. Fuck that fucking content notice and anyone at wikia who had anything to do with it. Fucking content fucking notice fuck fuck fuck. Orgasm achieved. Mmm. Smoke. Sleep. Meh. --ShabiDOO 23:26, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Wikia has destroyed this site at all. The only problem I can see is the content warning and Aleister and I have thought of a solution (above). Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 05:43, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

This vote is advisory

As we are having another round of discussion very similar to the last two, you are going to get a piece of my mind, which is also not much different.

The Content Warning was required by Wikia, initially on the preposterous notion that some viewers would mistake us for an authoritative encyclopedia and that that would be Wikia's fault. The problem morphed into the risk of prudish viewers being shocked by content, and we addressed it. A dozen good editors left (and the shocking content mostly dried up). I wrote to Sannse yesterday that the Content Warning has outlived its purpose (though if it vanished, and our itinerant trolls saw fit to declare victory and return, we might need it back).

Aleister was one of the quitters, though he now claims non-alignment under a nice "one community" fuzz. He insists that he needs control of the reader's mind, uninterrupted by Content Warnings, from the moment they look up an article on Uncyclopedia. (Why not from the moment the reader wakes up that morning? Why is the moviegoer's fantasy not shattered by having to buy a ticket and enter the theater, a fatal tip-off that the movie is merely fiction?)

Articles can do several things: (1) Make the reader uncomfortable with toilet humor; (2) make the reader uncomfortable through use of pranks like {{USERNAME}} that seem to address him personally; (3) make the reader uncomfortable at reading falsehoods masquerading as truth. I have been fighting the first two here and I don't think we rely on the third. Or articles can make the reader laugh with clever writing. Ironically, Aleister's aricles do so; they are strong enough to work on readers no matter what Content Warning they have passed through.

I implemented your decision in Round 1 (Shuck and jive and animation). Round 2 replaced it with my terse message identifying the actual risks to the reader's sensibilities. I don't mind a bare-bones Content Warning either.

But unlike Round 2, Aleister, who can't even accept the rigor of a real timestamp on his posts, proposes (below) a vote of unspecified duration, with unspecified criteria for approval, openly invites non-contributors who reacted to previous disagreements by quitting, and has changed the proposition while the vote is open. He is seconded by ScottPat, who only today agreed to review the discussions we had before he got here. I don't regard this as a decision-making process but as another round of venting. Spıke Ѧ 11:23 9-May-13

"Advisory? You can't handle advisory!" - from the movie A Few Good Users. Spike, I never quit, not once. So please lay down your arms (and your legs) on something you know nothing about. I was more or less gone for seven months in 2012, then when I came back I became aware of the content warning and spoke out against it. My talking about "rage quit" in this forum was a joke. Apology not accepted. And thanks for writing Sannse, and I hope that works. Aleister almost all my posts have times!

Actually (2) is impossible. {{USERNAME}} will display the username of a user who is logged in. In order to log in a user would have to accept the content warning, and them log in. If the person was not logged in and the content warning was not in place, the default is “insert name here” or the person editing can add in their own text - which would be much the same as if it had never been used. If you read a website and the content is “you are a dickhead” the reasonable reader wouldn't take it to be directed at them personally.

As for the validity of the vote - while I wouldn't class it as binding, it is a firm indication that regular users are after change. If there is a swing in voting to against then communal feeling is obviously against change. It's against the principles of a wiki to ignore the will of the community, no matter how a vote is proposed.                                • Puppy's talk page • 11:41 09 May 2013

I am sorry to add another comment about Spike's comment but I'd like to say that I understand what Spike says about people will click enter with or without the content warning but I think that it just adds to the humour if you are looking up a definition of something that you either don't understand or you want to prove to your mate that something exists and when you read it you find something you don't agree with and you think what a stupid encyclopedia and then you click and you get the joke and it makes you want to read more.

If you were in a hurry and saw the content warning now you'd probably go on a different website as you think that you have no time for comedy but with either no content warning or subtle content warning you are forced to see the article and laugh.

Thanks Spike for writing to Sansee, I know I'm a noob and not that experienced but I still think I should have some say. You can judge me on my inexperience if you want, I don't mind. I've read as much of the discussions as I can and it seems as though Leverage proposed to put the words "This is a parody site" (something like that can't quite remember) on here although I am not sure of this and I am not accusing him that's just the way I understood it when I read the forums. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:09, May 9, 2013 (UTC)

I second Brother ScottPat in thanks for writing to Sansee. And for this amazing summary and response that you wrote, thanks once more. You captured my fellings about it near perfectly, but I've never put into words and just complained about the thing and tried to do something about it a few times. Well, this one might work. It would fulfill the place where I would draw a line and accept it (as written, and floating on the cool picture of the academic institution linked-to in the vote on that particular content warning). But the Sannse overture might be a very good connection right now, and wikia may actually come to some of its senses and take the content warning down entirely. Aleister 23:00 9-5-'13

Thanks Al. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 05:45, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Reply from Wikia

Yeah... I don't think the wiki is quite at the stage of not needing a content warning at all. To pick a few from the images I haven't got around to dealing with yet: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I could no doubt find example articles, if I weren't so lazy - although the words Cancer Porn and HowTo:Commit Suicide spring to mind.

But what I can do, is find out exactly what the requirements for the text are. That is, whether we need to make sure people understand the satirical nature of the site (because, believe me, we do get people writing to us who think you are serious) or whether it just has to warn of potential danger ahead. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 23:07, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

We do have a link on each page to Uncyclopedia:About which states we're a parody. I think that would cover us in the same way the CC-BY-SA link does. Having to add that the site is a parody seems to be on par with a warning that the reader may not see the obvious. In which case I'd be happy to change the warning to “Warning: 20% of people are stupid. Envision your four closest friends. If they're all intelligent, you may be in trouble.”                                • Puppy's talk page • 01:30 25 May 2013

Thanks for taking an interest Sansee. We were not originally suggesting to get rid of it until Spike just wrote to you to ask if it has outlived its purpose, which as you point out it obviously hasn't. We simply want to change the wording to something simple that won't give the joke away and looks serious (i.e. isn't a joke itself). The suggestion Al and I have put forward (if you can find it buried under Mhaille, Puppy and Shabidoo's jokes) is in the main vote section of this page. Thank you. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 06:32, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of it is the primary goal of most uncyclopedians. Sanse...what would we have to do to drop the warning? Put warnings on individual pages? --ShabiDOO 13:34, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Puppy above is exactly right. If the viewer is stupid, it isn't Wikia's fault, and if the viewer writes to complain, even in the lawsuit-happy United States, Wikia should have a form letter ready to send in reply.

In Sannse's list above, I have deleted 3 through 6, which had no important mainspace use.

Shabidoo, number 3 was yours, and its only user, your Do It Yourself Medicine Vol. 1, is slightly more pleasant to read without this photo of a headless corpse. Your own "primary goal" is clearly not the suitable rewording or removal of the Content Warning, but conditions in which you can resume violating Wikia's Terms of Use and the warnings emphatically stated on Special:Upload against gore and nudity. This will not happen on this website and your best option is to find another. But, of course, you have.

Number 2 above is tasteless and gratuitous but ambiguous. Number 1 is used in Featured Article Godzilla vs. Urethra, written by a current Admin, whom I have contacted about it, where I cannot do the article justice by trying to write around the removal of the illustrations of an erect penis.

Sannse, you have a Forum to bring obscene photos to our attention. Have you "not got around to dealing" with these to save them for rhetorical uses such as defense of the Content Warning? However, even if we made the site 100% nudity-free, we cannot keep it so, as we don't pre-screen contributions, which is exactly the risk to the squeamish viewer that the current Content Warning emphasizes. Spıke Ѧ 14:10 26-May-13

I couldn't care less if those images are removed. Lyrithya once explained why they should go in a friendly and patient matter and ive come to agree. If deleting a few images and rewrite a few paragraphs in response to reasonable criticism will help remove the damn warning...ill happily remove it. With pleasure.

Spike...you've now used this forum and vfh as a soap box to insult and trash the other wiki. After you railed against the other wiki and its childishness and vitriol...you are doing so yourself in the most hypocritical way. Just because you don't like the dark writing style...or at least the way i write it doesnt mean you ought to attack it on a half related forum. Your views are not always representative of the community and are not fact as you tend to convey them...but are opinions as you ought to demonstrate once in a while. You are the only user who spits unsolicited and uncontructive criticism about anything and everything you dont like, all other users being congenial, mostly friendly and tolerant of other views and styles. Stop putting words in users mouths, showing bad faith all the time and character assassinating people.

--ShabiDOO 16:52, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sake! This is simply a forum about voting to change the content warning or to remove it. The original proposers of this forum do not encourage or support any anti-wikia or anti-other wiki comments or comebacks against those comments on this forum. Please stop this argument at once on this forum or remove it to another discussion page so that it does not clog this page up. Once that has been done please remove this message as well. Please do not turn this into an argument against wikia or against another wiki. Thank you. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:43, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

"Have you "not got around to dealing" with these to save them for rhetorical uses such as defense of the Content Warning?" < Spike, I actually find that paranoia offensive. I haven't deleted them (and many others, deleting these doesn't touch the overall issue) for two reasons: firstly, because I'm working on updating the guidelines, which I hope will give you a bit more leeway. And secondly, because I really haven't got time right now for the difficult, persnickety, and incredibly drawn-out argument and would no doubt be triggered.

*Deep breath*. The reality is that there is a vast amount of NSFW content on this wiki. Clearing it up would be unlikely, if not impossible. So unless there is a policy change here (bigger than my "occasional nipple" clause in the rewrite I'm doing) I don't expect to see the content warning go in the near future -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 21:55, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

All thanks go to Sannse for her occasional nipples.                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:36 29 May 2013

Vote

Since we've been changing the content warning every season or so it seems about time again. And for this vote Brother ScottPat and Brother Aleister propose a content warning which will do the job of warning that this site is a bad, bad site while not breaking the joke or adding anything else pertaining to wikia or anybody. Here would be the entire content of the content warning.

• 1)To contain the words "Content warning. Some of this encyclopedia's pages may not be safe for work or school, and some are unsuitable for children."
• 2)Which would be followed by the two enter or not buttons.
• 3)The light background be a picture of an academic institution or temple, this picture here, just lighter and enlarged (or engourged - i.e. Shaibadoo)

To be an open vote until enough people are heard from, from all sides and sites.

Score: 6

• For. Aleister 15:28 8-5-'13
• For Great. If this goes up it won't put it into people's heads that this is a comedy or dodgy website (as the current one does). Thanks Al. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:27, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Imagine the "enter" button laying across the lawn in the lower left portion of the picture. That could look really nice! Al 18:02 8-5-'13

• For. Provided Wikia doesn't require language stating that Wikia does not endorse the contents. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 18:13, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
• For. Orgasms.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:26 09 May 2013
• Fence Oh Lordy..not the template again. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:10, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
• For. To contain the words "Content Triple-Dare!*! Some of this encyclopedia's pages are so lame they may not be suitable for Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah and Confirmation, and some are, like, totally unsafe for adults."--Funnybony  21:12, May 17

  I'm gonna count that as a "For", with a joke after the vote (since he didn't put the language up as a new vote). Unless someone wants to check with Funnybony. Aleister 23:14 17-5-'13

• For. Will this warning be there forever or will it be changed again in future? Anton (talk) 09:45, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

How about.....

Warning: May contain badly disguised innuendo!

"Content Warning: Unless you are a retarded fuckwit who may have mistaken this website for a serious collection of articles and not a mixed selection of juvenile penis jokes and satirical ramblings we a legally obliged to inform that the some of the sites pages and images may not be safe for work, schools or children based on the opinion of out of touch liberals and/or lf opinionated rightwing nutjobs. Should you wish to continue click "enter" whilst sticking two fingers up at the intellectual "nanny state" views of those who believe you should be required to see a content warning on a satire website, no doubt due to its dangerous and possibly lethal contents." -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

• Against. No as it doesn't look serious so the site would fail as a parody of a serious encyclopedia. Don't give the joke away before they've read the article. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:15, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe. Remove the first word and add a full stop after ramblings.                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:26 09 May 2013
• its not hard core enough but better than any sincere attempt. --ShabiDOO 21:31, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
• MayBe, if your content warning had a background of dark clouds and lightning, and the words were being uttered by Oscar Wilde. Aleister 22:52 9-5-'13
• Spiritual For: Although I don't think that using obscene language on the entry page would help our cause any, I think this pretty well describes what we think about the content warning. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 05:54, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
• Against. I don't think that swearing at the reader on the entry page will actually encourage him to go anywhere further. Anton (talk) 09:37, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I think this idea was a joke Anton! Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:41, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Well, but isn't it a real vote? Anton (talk) 09:44, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

This vote here will actually determine which user will be sacraficed in order to reap a good harvest this year. I believemAleister is leading the vote now. His sacrafice will be valliant and spectacular. --ShabiDOO 22:45, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I say we sacrifice the user who is most deficient in spelling capability. (And I know that isn't me, since I was district alternative in my 7th grade spelling bee.) Besides, you do want to be "valiant" and spectacular, don't you? Two words: Spell check. Or was that "fire works"? -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:38, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Can someone be deficient in a capability? --ShabiDOO 03:46, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

...or...

This website is designed to make you vomit in shock...rip your eyes out....defecate an exploding hole in your pants, murder you family and then donate your life savings to us. It is especially designed to corrupt your children, convert the world into violent jihadist terrorists and over all make planet earth an acidic sulfuric living hell. Only click on enter if reading the above text makes you a horney turtle

Score: 1, 000, 000 horney turtles

• For. Signed the horney jihadist turtles.

A little footnote

To the people who are writing ridiculous suggestions below Aleister's suggestion it is filling up room on the forum please stop. Only write another suggestion if it is sensible. As we have explained this round of discussions is about making a content warning that doesn't actually give away the joke. The two above give away the joke and aren't profesional enough looking to deceive people. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 05:43, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

• Sir Scott...you have taught us all exactly how we should behave on a commedy wiki. From now on we will try to be more serious ... perhaps as serious as Pope Benidict times Ross Perot with a dash of Allah ontop :) --ShabiDOO 16:32, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of Pope Benidict. In retirement he has taken on the powers of a superhero, and has rid the world of much evil during his emeritus status. I think all Brother ScottPat is getting at is this may be the vote to do something really good, a vote to make that content warning actually work for us. So he's gotten carried away (literally, I can see Wikia personnel removing him from the premises while looking out my window near the CEO's office over here in the Falklands). Aleister 16:39 10-5-'13

The Wikia staff! I WASN'T EXPECTING THE SPANISH INQUISITION! (An epic reply to this comment awaits!) Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:25, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

The only solution is for all of us to mass email every wikia staff member every day and find every way possible to lobby them to cut it the fuck out with the disclaimer until it flies out the window. That is the best way to do something good with the content warning. As for Pope Bennidict...I wish I was a sweet looking twelve year old boy. How else will I get a chance to meet him in person and learn all he has to teach? --ShabiDOO 00:50, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing stopping us from having random content on the warning page, so we could actually have multiple suggestions put forward and not have to pick a specific one. That way it depends on the luck of the draw as to which one you see. We could even add a "refresh" option to see the others.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That would be fun. Maybe creative users can design their own ideal content warning template. As long as we are forced to wear the chastity belt we at least should have total discretion as to what we can paint on it. In any case, I see it as each vote on this page is it's own issue. Your consideration of the warning Brother ScottPat and I came up with your be appreciated. Thanks. Aleister 18:44 13-5-'13

p.s. you too, Shabidoo, please consider weighing in on each issue being voted on here. Thanks. (as for you wishing you were a 12-year old boy, I thought you were a 12-year old boy!!! Hey, now I have to stop delivery on the candy and flowers I've been sending to your parent's home.)

Like Mhaille's suggestion about a random selection of content warning notes. I also agree with Anton that saying 'fuck' on a welcome page isn't necessary either. Articles just need to be funny, that's all. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:03, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

I too like the idea of a random or rotating selection of content warnings. But I agree, the content warning should not contain obscene words or swear at the reader. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:47, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear this up!

Al and I have come up with the suggestion of having a content warning that's purpose is not to give away the idea we are a comedy site to unsuspecting people. As much as we like the humorous suggestions including Mhaille's that have been forwarded these do not help in showing that this is a serious website and not a comedy website and so the content warning we have now might as well be kept if we picked one of them.

Our suggestion is to finally solve the warning by putting forward the serious point that as a parody website we might as well have everything parodying an encyclopedia including a serious encyclopedia style content warning. We are happy if you do not like this idea and we appreciate some funny ideas but let's not turn this page into a discussion about random content warnings that are not going to help us reach the aim we set out. Please put them on another forum.

We don't mean to be impolite we just think we need to concentrate on what could be a serious change on this forum please. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 12:59, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

ScottPat, most of those comments were jokes or half serious. Im not sure telling people how to behave on forums is a wise way to deal with wiki matters. This is a parody site after all. Ive been blocked twice for doing so myself. Though your effort to get a good content warning is appreciated for sure. --ShabiDOO 16:27, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

I did realise they were jokes I was just that they are taking a lot of the forum up and people coming to vote probably get the impression that this forum is a joke. I don't mind the jokes but can you put the next jokes on another forum please. Thanks. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 19:22, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. --ShabiDOO 00:03, May 25, 2013 (UTC)