Embarassing crap on the wiki

Another problem is shoehorning your favorite show onto pages by using things like "Averted" or "Subverted" when the work in question is not really an example of that trope at all.

Yes, but that's a topic for another thread.

A "hugbox", in the sense that the pejorative is applied to TVT, is a place which is excessively tolerant even of the most sickening and execrable behaviours, the kind of place where people are upset when a racist gets banned and write passionately in defence of paedophiles as distinct from child molesters. A hugbox, in the sense of the actual object, is not compassionate or loving, it's a mechanical device designed to comfort autistics. There's no sincerity or warmth behind it; it means just obeying a crude algorithm designed to suppress negativity or unrest. Irrespective of whether this description is applicable to the site, I really don't think it's one we want to promote, and it's certainly not laudable.

As for gushing, I think it's reasonable to remove content that purely consists of "x is an awesome anime"; it might be harmless, but it's not adding anything.

Wonderfully put, Bobby.

This is an incredibly dismissive way to look at things—"No one can really like or respect these people." I defend any designated punching bag I either like, or find useful. I like you, and find you useful, so I'd defend you if you were ever a punching bag, but I'd do the same for most Tropers if you decided to use them as a punching bag, because I think most Tropers are in some way useful (or at least likeable.)

(I'm not aware of a Troper who's admitted to pedophilia, but I have argued that the rules should be applied fairly in cases of racism. I was okay with [name removed to avoid accusations of gravedancing]'s ban once the rules changed to disallow his brand of racism, but before the rule change, I considered him useful as an example—"We can be exactly as offensive as him, but no more so.")

edited 24th Mar '12 1:01:32 AM by feotakahari

That's not what I said and that's not what I meant. I'm saying the "hugbox" accusation is an analogy. It doesn't imply caring or consideration for other people, regardless of what you personally might feel, it implies a simplistic, knee-jerk "negativity bad, hugs good" attitude that coddles users with reprehensible attitudes and keeps idiots, creeps and scumbags wrapped in a criticism-free bubble where nobody is allowed (by the rules or the culture or both) to express their distaste for them. I'm not trying to be dismissive here, I'm saying that it is most definitely not a positive term, and certainly not something we should shoot for or take pride in.

And I'd also say that, regardless of the culture of a given website, such a standard should be entirely unnecessary. You would not, I would hope, ever want or have reason to be as offensive as a racist troper, and if the site rules were inadequate that should have no bearing on that.

^ On most sites, when someone says something that's correct, but that's so counter to the expectations of the majority of the site's users that they're judged an idiot, a creep, or a scumbag for saying it, they'll get banned. On this site, they might be allowed to argue long enough to convince someone else. I don't consider this site necessarily less bigoted in its own way than any other, so I like that people are allowed to speak even when everyone else in the thread is telling them to shut up (not a hypothetical situation, although I most frequently agree with the many rather than the one.)

edited 24th Mar '12 1:37:16 AM by feotakahari

That is not universally a positive. In some cases, OK.

Bearing in mind that how their opinion is expressed typically has more bearing on whether they get banned for it than the correctness of said opinion.

We're drifting off topic here.

edited 24th Mar '12 1:43:17 AM by BobbyG

1. I think CCOA was referring more in regards to works, in the sense that we have a higher tolerance for gushing than for criticism, not in regard to what forum behaviors we find acceptable. But yeah, that's getting off topic.

2. When was talking about the gushing thing, I was referring mostly to stuff like the Moment Of Awesome and Moment Of Funny pages. I fully agree that gushing in the actual trope articles is natter and needs to be nuked. But for specialized pages it's a bit tougher because the criteria for adding to stuff to something like the Funny Moments pages is simply "I thought this was funny"; if someone thinks it belongs there they're officially allowed to add it unless it's somehow factually inaccurate.

Gushing here refers to "talking about hotness and similar stuff", not Gushing About Shows You Like.

Yes, we've seldom been prepared to acknowledge that gushing may at times be offensive (or that condemnation may not always be, for that matter).

The crowning moments are kind of a separate issue, tangential to the main wiki, which is not to say they need no consideration, of course. We got rid of Fetish Fuel, which was the main offender where those were concerned; the others strike me as relatively innocuous, if very messy and often poorly written. I'm not entirely sure how a list of heartwarming moments is supposed to enable creepiness, though I know you can't put anything past the Internet.

I was going to say bobby be careful what you ask someone will find something. God help us if they find it on Tvt.

@Septimus: Duly noted. I've seen the word used to describe several different behaviors, some of which are more problematic than others. If we're talking specifically about creepy stuff, yeah it has to go.

At least if someone here finds it we can get rid of it.

edited 24th Mar '12 8:27:21 AM by JapaneseTeeth

Very true.

I think the real reason behind this problem is the fact that anyone can edit the wiki. Meaning not only good, decent people but also the less than desirable folks.

Since this a key feature of the wiki, you can't really get rid of the No Such Thing As Notability rule, but in turn you also can't completely eliminate the problem.

You can't truly eliminate any problem with the wiki. Even if you set rules for the wiki, not everyone is going to understand them or follow them, so it's up to the moderation to look at every page case-by-case and decide which examples need fixing (unless curators becomes a thing).

And it's up to the tropers to bring up things that need to be looked at to moderator attention.

Which is a shame for a site trying to be "academic" in tone since the latter is infinitely more useful.

Since when are we trying to be academic in tone?

We are here to catalogue and categorize tropes, but I don't think we need to be academic. We are a site for fans after all, and quite informal too.

We're academic, but in an entertaining informal way. We're not stuffy academic.

We can still be academic (pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics) without having an academic tone. And we can be academic while being fun.

edited 25th Mar '12 8:47:03 AM by ccoa

Exactly. We are academic in mission and function, but not in tone.

And we have to remember that while we are not Wikipedia, we are not Conservapedia either.

Could you please explain how the wiki serves an academic purpose? There's no academic benefit to breaking things down into elements without analyzing what those elements mean.

edited 25th Mar '12 8:53:04 AM by Firebert