Follow TV Tropes
Your first point is a good argument for cutting the whole thing—but I'm not convinced we need to go that far.
As for "bashing and trolling", it's everywhere in the examples, despite some obvious attempts to make it subtle. The examples that aren't overt bashing or trolling are generally thinly-disguised how-to-troll lessons.
I'm sorry, but "go tell The Simpsons fans that Family Guy is a better show, and they'll get upset" is not useful information. It's more in the "well, duh!" territory. In fact, it's hard to see it as anything but an invitation to troll.
Bump. Two more votes in four more days, both reinforcing the leader's lead. I think this one's ready to call.
I'll second that.
That's why I wanted to cut the whole page. This, and the fact it overleaps with another tropes (in this case, Fandom Rivalry)
edited 30th Sep '12 3:26:33 AM by Jojolavache
There's no overlap, at least not in the sense commonly understood here about two page descriptions being so similar to one another that they're pretty much redundant.
No, Internet Backdraft is just such a broadly described concept that any number of more specific pages that touch upon similar matters could also be labeled in any current example. In fact, Internet Backdraft even has a list of all such pages, which includes Fandom Rivalry.
Though, more to the point, I think that the issues with this particular page that have already been raised and the accompanied list of related pages is evident of a sizable group of pages on the wiki that would generally all suffer the same problems. Essentially, Internet Backdraft and its related pages primarily exist NOT to explain a concept that generally found in fiction but to complain about real people and/or their opinions, to document other people complaining about real people and/or their opinions, or provide a "How to" guide on getting particular people to complain about people and/or their opinions. As far as I see it, nearly ALL of these pages are plainly off-mission.
And when are we finally calling this stagnant crowner?
edited 30th Sep '12 10:40:38 AM by SeanMurrayI
Off-topic, but I took a look at Fandom Rivalry and it needs some attention, if only to remove duplicate examples.
Well, if anyone believes that Fandom Rivalry needs help, I think that's a topic for its own thread.
What? This is not the same as Fandom Rivalry at all for two reasons: it doesn't require a fandom, or a rivalry. Which is pretty much everything there is to Fandom Rivalry. You can go on a physics forum and claim all that math is useless, and that simple logic tells you that modern physics is too complicated, and there's no such thing as a neutron; it's really just a proton bound to an electron that moves fast enough to generate the extra mass. That will get you some serious backdraft. (Yes, that's a real example, and a fairly moderate one compared to some of the physics cranks I've seen.)
So, no, we don't have a good argument for cutting. This is real, and it occurs in works, and it's not a duplicate. And even if we don't allow examples on the page, in-universe examples can still appear on the pages for works, so the page is useful.
And yes, if you want to discuss the problems with Fandom Rivalry, that should be done in a Fandom Rivalry thread. And yes, it's time to call this.
edited 30th Sep '12 11:34:41 AM by Xtifr
Personally, I think "in-universe" would be much more representative of a broader concept in fiction an media of The Internet As A Wretched Hive of vile bitterness, various forms of social deviancy, geek rage, and the ugliness of humanity.
Anything like this or related to it could much better be covered on a single general page. I don't see much value in branching off and specifying every form of Complete And Utter Bullshit On The Internet that we can identify. In the end, it's all pretty much the same reprehensible bile that does not need coverage on well over a dozen separate pages.
edited 30th Sep '12 11:47:26 AM by SeanMurrayI
I have to say I see no reason to disallow In-Fiction, In-work Examples.
A complete Example Sectionectomy is a last resort for a page that simply cannot be kept under control. Disallowing examples that are not an author or creator using an Internet Backdraft in their work will clean up the complaining mess.
I did flip my vote on In-Universe only again to "yes", but as I noted before the supply of In-Universe examples has been anemic and I think that is the reason why it's getting downvoted.
Several of the in-universe examples we've identified so far don't seem to match that description. Though I'm sure there's plenty that do. Nevertheless, I think that's an overbroad simplification.
I agree that allowing in-universe examples would make more sense, but disallowing examples entirely seems like a reasonable compromise for now, till things cool off. We can probably revisit the question later.
edited 30th Sep '12 11:53:35 AM by Xtifr
Not really. I mean, sure, we can perhaps find a few separate general categories of the very broad Awful Aspects Of The Internet In Media And Fiction (I'm sure The Internet Is for Porn already broadly covers the notable aspect of the Internet as a tool for sexual deviancy).
However, as far as I will ever see it... geek rage, angry mob mentalities, fiery/vulgar/uncivil/immature/dickheaded discourse, etc. on the Internet all pretty much run together. I don't see anything in-universe that would distinguish the digital equivalent of an angry mob with torches and pitchforks from a portrayal of even just a single hothead going wild at his computer that would merit separating it from the rest of the pack.
Be it a depiction of one or one hundred angry people at their computers, there is nothing more suggested by a story in any given in-universe example than the simple matter that The Internet Is A Haven For Unruly Savages.
edited 30th Sep '12 1:05:29 PM by SeanMurrayI
The iCarly example might fit what you're talking about, but the A Fire on the Deep example definitely does not. The Big Bang Theory one could be seen either way, I suppose. I lean toward thinking it doesn't fit what you're describing. Not sure about the other two.
eta: That's all assuming I understand your point correctly, which I may not.
eta x2: I simply don't think that "people on-line can get upset" equates to "the internet is a Wretched Hive", even if they sometimes overlap. Now, whether "people get upset on the Internet" is really a separate trope from "people get upset" is another question. I tend to think it is because it works very differently—the pitchforks are virtual and don't provide any physical danger, for one thing. :)
edited 30th Sep '12 5:38:13 PM by Xtifr
When did I say anything about equating this article to "people online can get upset"? Hell, the current description paints a far different picture than just that. People can get "upset", but how do you necessarily equate that emotion with, and I quote, "[igniting] whole sections of the Internet into a blazing Inferno"?
I argue that the point being made on this page is not describing actions motivated by certain individuals or communities on the Internet merely getting "upset" but that this is about actions motivated through devout loyalty to a work or cause that is then defended through anger, aggression, hostility, and overall vile manners directed at any perceived antagonists. These are characters on the Internet typically defined by a confrontational behavior and who actually look to hit back (hence the term "blacklash" in this current title)—not simply being a crybaby.
My main point then is that when describing fictional and media portrayals of this very behavior, it need not simply be limited to the concept of an entire web community or sizable number of individuals lashing out at one thing. Any depiction of any character(s) using the internet as a tool to spread bitterness and vitriol would make the apparent media concept present in a work.
edited 30th Sep '12 7:22:51 PM by SeanMurrayI
The description, like the examples, suffers from a serious case of hyperbole. I wouldn't necessarily take it as gospel.
Hyperbole or not, nothing in the description would ever equate to only being "upset". Even if you do want to describe a given character as "upset", if that character takes it to any of the actual steps outlined in the description (read: lashing back at another person on the Internet), then who is to ignore the aggression and confrontational behavior that are obviously still present and still definitive of the character's personality when on a computer, anyway?
edited 1st Oct '12 1:27:30 PM by SeanMurrayI
Anyway, back on topic, the crowner still looks like it's ready to call.
Calling crowner in favor of Remove all examples and keep as exampleless definition page.
Whee, only 1162 wicks to clean up!
Why are there wicks to clean up? We define the term.
Generally, most wicks would be either examples or sinkholes.
What's a sinkhole?
Sinkhole. A pothole that's misleading, confusing, useless or pointless.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?