Wikipedia as FPP?

December 29, 2006 2:14 PM

Has it become acceptable to copy paste a wikipedia article, shuffle the links around a bit and make an FPP out of it, or did this one just go under the radar?
posted by furtive to Etiquette/Policy at 2:14 PM (45 comments total)

Major Kong, I know you're gonna think this a crazy but I just got a message from base over the CRM 114.
posted by furtive at 2:15 PM on December 29, 2006

furtive has caught jcterminal ridin' dirty.
posted by bardic at 2:20 PM on December 29, 2006

If you want to save your soul from Hell a-riding on our range
Then cowboy change your ways today or with us you will ride
Trying to catch the Devil's herd, across these endless skies
posted by soundofsuburbia at 2:29 PM on December 29, 2006

furtive, it's called ghost writin' da wikipedia.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:31 PM on December 29, 2006 [3 favorites]

heh.
posted by furtive at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2006

An epipemic of wiki cut-and-pastes = a problem.
An occasional instance = not a problem.
posted by cortex at 2:38 PM on December 29, 2006

I think there's potential for snarking on the subject matter, and therefore could make for an interesting FPP, but the post in question is shit. Unimaginative and plagiaristic.

Good FPPs are made by finding interesting subjects and finding solid links to support your post's theme (if it's not just a one-link). He merely went to a source that had already done this for him, and copied it.
posted by ninjew at 2:43 PM on December 29, 2006

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:44 PM on December 29, 2006

Good FPPs are made by finding interesting subjects and finding solid links to support your post's theme (if it's not just a one-link). He merely went to a source that had already done this for him, and copied it.

And? There are thousand of good posts from mefi history that are identical to what you describe except that they consist of a single link without context. There are good posts that consist of one or two links surrounded or followed by a summary/context paragraph from the linked site. These things are kosher. Wikipedia isn't automatically disqualified as a source.
posted by cortex at 2:47 PM on December 29, 2006

I'm not hatin' on the wiki. But what was the point of the post? He could have accomplished the same thing by just linking the wiki article.
posted by ninjew at 2:52 PM on December 29, 2006

What's the point of posting a link to content instead of posting a link to another site that has the link to the content?
posted by cortex at 2:56 PM on December 29, 2006

whats the point complaining about the second gayest posting today?
posted by phaedon at 3:05 PM on December 29, 2006

Don't yield to that alluring witch, laziness, or else be prepared to surrender all that you have won in your better moments.
posted by furtive at 3:15 PM on December 29, 2006

Sorry, phaedon, I could have sworn you just used 'gay' to mean 'bad'.

Intelligent people know that this is unacceptable.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:21 PM on December 29, 2006 [2 favorites]

Come quick, languagehat!
posted by matthewr at 3:25 PM on December 29, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: you're totally right. and i wouldn't want anything to take anything away from the stupid+white+folk tag.
posted by phaedon at 3:31 PM on December 29, 2006

stupid+white+folk+in+a+four+button+suit
posted by InfidelZombie at 3:48 PM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Has it become acceptable to copy paste a wikipedia article, shuffle the links around a bit and make an FPP out of it, or did this one just go under the radar?

Listen - by Smart Dalek (Score: 5, Funny)Thread
Malda doesn't think it's a problem, and it certainly hasn't stopped the Karma Whores. You might as well shut the fuck up.
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:50 PM on December 29, 2006

Actually, it's not a bad post. I just got done reading some of the articles and they're pretty fascinating.
posted by loquacious at 4:14 PM on December 29, 2006

grind grind grind grind
posted by bshort at 5:07 PM on December 29, 2006

Good lord, complaining about people using gay to mean bad has to be the gayest thing going these days.
posted by xmutex at 5:10 PM on December 29, 2006

Using gay to mean bad is totally gay now.
posted by found missing at 5:21 PM on December 29, 2006

Okay - I understand the "gay" debate - but are we using "bad" to mean "bad", or "bad" to mean "good"? I can't keep up with you kids and your damn "slang" talking.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:30 PM on December 29, 2006

You know, I have no dog in the gay race, but if you want to say something sucks, or that something's not good, or that it's unpleasant or tedious or otherwise does something to your worse self, say that. Think of the specific thing that bothers you and lay it out. Say it stabbed you, or say your gorge couldn't handle it. Say something we haven't heard before.

Thanks for your attention. Resume your snark. But this isn't a limited-time offer. It will always stay good.
posted by cgc373 at 5:59 PM on December 29, 2006

Thanks for that offer cgc373. I support it wholeheartedly. A MeFi without the constant use of "sucks", "lame" and "gay" (to name 3 of the most heavily-used) would be refreshing as hell.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:04 PM on December 29, 2006

I was sucked by a lame gay once.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 6:15 PM on December 29, 2006

I was lamed by a gay suck. What a coincidence.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:20 PM on December 29, 2006

Posts and comments that bother me for whatever reason I tend to pass over in silence, as the man said, but I don't go quietly because I can't speak about not liking them. Rather I skip because saying, "I don't like it" makes too little difference to type and add. Who cares whether I liked it? Nobody. I don't even care most of the time. So meh's the word?

Not really. I just feel that if I'm gonna hate on something, I ought to hate on it. I think there are standards to uphold for invective, especially in the Hallowed Context of MetaFilter as she is writ.
posted by cgc373 at 6:41 PM on December 29, 2006 [2 favorites]

Are "gay sucks" anything like geoducks? 'Cuz those things look hard, mr_crash_davis.
posted by cgc373 at 6:47 PM on December 29, 2006

Cock sandwich anyone?
posted by IronLizard at 7:08 PM on December 29, 2006

grind grind grind grind

bshort, that is so gay.
posted by quonsar at 7:24 PM on December 29, 2006

And quonsar gets away with it. He's sneaky, that one, all lower-cased 'n' shit. He gets away with it because it's humorous and pointed. "Entirely pointy," in Buffy's parlance. snarquon, indeed.
posted by cgc373 at 7:30 PM on December 29, 2006

I was sucked by a lame gay once.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese
I was lamed by a gay suck. What a coincidence.
posted by mr_crash_davis
bshort, that is so gay.
posted by quonsar

Heh, heh. You guys are just so funny'n'clever! Exactly like so many of the comments you read over at YouTube! Just cracking me up, really you are!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:04 PM on December 29, 2006

Aw, c'mon flapjax. I'm pretty sure every one of the commenters you quote is taking the piss, while phaedon already apologized for what looked like deployment sans irony upthread. And YouTube? That's just low.
posted by cgc373 at 8:19 PM on December 29, 2006

Aw, c'mon flapjax. I'm pretty sure every one of the commenters you quote is taking the piss

No worries, cgc373, I was just taking the piss too... I don't actually take any of this too seriously. Anyway, I try not to.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:41 PM on December 29, 2006

Okey-dokey then. Now if everything would CALM THE FUCK DOWN (ahem) in the stavrosthewonderchicken-posted-a-lot thread next door, things would be peachy.
posted by cgc373 at 9:31 PM on December 29, 2006

I am calm. I am cucumberlike in my quiescence.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:39 PM on December 29, 2006

Oh, you weren't the troublesome personage, Mr. Wonderchicken. I had another soul's restless scenery-chewing foremost in my thoughts.
posted by cgc373 at 9:42 PM on December 29, 2006

(Which is to say, more clearly, I think bardic was behaving rawther badly o'er there, for reasons I cannot see, if there are reasons.)
posted by cgc373 at 9:43 PM on December 29, 2006

Hey, liquorice. How's MetaTalk treating you?
posted by cgc373 at 9:53 PM on December 29, 2006

(I'm monitoring threads too closely, because I sort of expect bardic to start attacking me personally for my taste in mealy-mouthed defences of stuff that shouldn't ought to be defended, no-way no-how, and I don't want to miss his first sortie.)
posted by cgc373 at 9:55 PM on December 29, 2006

There you go, liquorice. Another favorite for the collection.

Isn't it weird how lonely MetaFilter can be, given all the damned drama?
posted by cgc373 at 10:01 PM on December 29, 2006

Yep. I remember you from the lonelygirl15 threads over the summer. Deep connections notwithstanding, of course.
posted by cgc373 at 10:11 PM on December 29, 2006

It's a funny ol' world, m'heart.
posted by cgc373 at 10:35 PM on December 29, 2006

That's sick.

Or maybe bad.

I don't think it's gay, though.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:05 AM on December 30, 2006