Unfortunate Implications sources: Quantity vs Quality

Unfortunate Implications. It can attract controversial, biased entries, primarily when it's one person trying to shove in their own opinion of what's offensive when few other people agree with them. It's one of the rare items to require citations as a result, but we struggle with deciding what citations are deemed "valid."

Currently, we shy away from Tumblr and Twitter as sources, which is fair, as anybody could make a post about their wonk, come here, and use the source to justify their wonk. But what about multiple accounts from otherwise "unreliable" sources, which seem to point towards multiple people (especially within a particular community, especially across multiple platforms) having an issue with the item? Is that not a valid widespread opinion to note on YMMV? I personally have issue with shutting out criticisms that I know I have seen across a community because there is not yet an article summarizing them in a professional newspaper, especially when it comes to marginalized communities who may still be underrepresented in mainstream journalism... and, to a lesser extent, when it comes to works that aren't mainstream but still have a lot of criticism within their community. Hell, we've even shut down citations from generally notable critics, such as Jacob Chapman, because they expressed their thoughts on Twitter rather than their "professional" blog. And don't get me started on the debates surrounding whether Youtube videos count as citations.

On the flip side, while we give more credibility to paid reviewers than random blogs, that's still one opinion and it may not represent the views of the community. Here's one example of a debate about whether a Vox article was trustworthy when calling out something in movie that's generally considered Snark Bait. And in the digital age, there's a lot of sites that enlist paid reviewers but may have credibility issues themselves. And I've seen Twitter and Tumblr posts that involved research and weren't just spur-of-the-moment rants. I feel like the platform is not the problem, or at least not the main one.

Personally, I think it'd be better to require multiple sources for Unfortunate Implications, even if they're typically less "credible" on their own, to try and prove that this issue is not a specific troper wonk, rather than rely exclusively on the "credibility" question.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 23rd 2022 at 3:10:25 PM

As you can probably already tell from my previous arguments on the matter, I agree that the current method of doing things is... flawed. It presumes that criticisms posted on one website are automatically less trustworthy than arguments posted elsewhere.

One of the things that spawned this, about the example on YMMV.Warrior Cats, is something that no mainstream news outlet will ever cover because the Warriors series is in that weird spot where it's popular, but still obscure enough to not be a trending discussion topic. The people who discuss it the most are just Fandom VIP types who make blog posts, fan art / MAPs, and YouTube videos talking about their opinions. Having even just two very well-thought-out, researched, and argued posts on the subject of racism (as it pertains to the portrayal of the Tribe) is already more than a lot of controversial subjects in the fandom have, and I don't think we should discount them just because their blogs, because... well, if those don't count, then the series is forever banned from having any UI examples, and that's just not right. As a member of several very niche fandoms, I'm opposed to any Audience Reaction that discriminates against smaller or more obscure fandoms, because those reactions should still count equally even if they're not as publicized.

I'm not so sure I agree with the need for "multiple sources" though, if only because I do think the quality of the arguments should be taken into account. But, that quality is not and should not be dependent on our opinions about the website the argument was posted on, rather than the actual reasoning and evidence used to support the thesis. I believe that it should be a trade-off: One or two high quality analyses, or evidence of multiple audience members finding the implications unfortunate. Both if possible. But I do think that there's multiple ways to find citations beyond just looking at what popular critics or news outlets say.

I think one of the only reasons this is even in dispute is that the page itself lists Tumblr blogs as not qualifying, but I think it's a misinterpreted rule. It says that the citation can't just be a random audience member's opinion, but a Tumblr blog isn't inherently biased, one-sided garbage, and a reputable news source isn't inherently any less biased.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 4:04:26 AM

The problem with the "quality" thing is that it winds up being almost as vulnerable to individual opinions as not having citations at all would be. One person's high-quality argument is another person's blatant Bias Steamroller at work. The advantage of requiring multiple sources is that it's a very obviously objective standard that doesn't have to involve any debates over what is or isn't an appropriate source.

Yeah, quality-assessing sources can easily become about someone's personal preference, even if there is often a fig leaf.

That said, the primary purpose of having citations was to exclude particularly silly opinions, presenting a representative view was never their purpose.

The purpose of requiring substantive citations is so that someone can't search out a source to confirm their belief and use it as support for an entry. It's also meant to prevent people from citing their own Reddit post or tweet.

All citation requirements are going to be subjective to some extent. This is not a rabbit hole we need or want to go down. I would happily cut Unfortunate Implications before trying to make it fit some ideal of academic rigor.

That feels pretty subjective, since there's some people who will paint any criticism of a work as silly, plus there are citations from reputable sources that may still be considered silly or at least flimsy/biased (like the one I linked about The Emoji Movie).

This is why the "multiple citations" rule, even just two, would be better, as people may disagree, but at least it's not just one person.

Also, isn't YMMV all about representative views? If a large part of a fandom has an opinion, we can usually talk about it even if we disagree.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 23rd 2022 at 2:47:42 PM

The problem with Unfortunate Implications in particular is that literally anything can receive that interpretation. If there aren't at least some criteria, then we might as well just copy-paste something like this:

• Unfortunate Implications: Literally everything in this work, to at least one person.

YMMV and Audience Reactions are not about "representing viewpoints"; certainly they are not about all possible viewpoints. They are about predominant viewpoints that have significant influence on the perception of a work.

Edited by Fighteer on Jan 23rd 2022 at 2:58:55 PM

Unfortunate Implications used to be a free for all, where people would just post anything that they felt could be taken as offensive. I remember one entry that was just listing "Problematic" tropes without any context.

Right, "predominant" viewpoints. Instead of using the citations to prove the opinions are popular though, people instead gatekeep them and use them to decide whether or not the implications are "real".

I think that's where a lot of the anti-Tumblr rhetoric came from; since the site has a reputation of being for overly obsessed and overly sensitive teenagers, people will see a Tumblr link and assume it's some Political Correctness Gone Mad-tier nonsense. Instead of looking to see if people agree with the blog or have made similar arguments against the work, people instead just look to see what the website is. It's the same with Twitter. Which, like I said... sort of makes it impossible to find "valid" citations for works that haven't become part of the mainstream. You'd be able to find plenty of essays on things like Disney movies... but what of obscure internet series or a kid's book series?

As for "quality of argument", I was more talking about the level of research and evidence pushed forward, rather than anything else. An argument with more reasoning behind it is just a higher quality argument on the technical level, no matter what that argument actually ends up being.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 3:19:07 PM

Sure, but whom do we assign the task of vetting these citations for reputability? Either we have basic rules like "no Tumblr, Twitter, or Facebook posts" or we PRLC the trope.

Because people would then be able to add anything they wanted.

Like even if you do get two citations how we do know this isn't just a small minority opinion. Ymmv is supposed to be for main audience reactions

The thing is, "Credible Sources" don't necessarily represent fandom viewpoints. He Panned It Now It Sucks and Reviews Are the Gospel are definitely problems on this site. I've seen reviewers express opinions that were then parroted by their fans. These views were then treated like predominant viewpoints in the fandom. I'd rather have multiple citations than a citation from a Big Name Fan or a reviewer.

Edited by RustBeard on Jan 23rd 2022 at 12:27:16 PM

How do you prove it with any other Audience Reaction trope? A vast majority of them seem way more questionable to me than UI does— anyone can claim their fandom believes something as a way to shoehorn their own viewpoints in. At a certain point you just have to assume good faith that someone isn't just writing The Scrappy to bash someone they hate.

On Tumblr you can see reblogs, likes, and comments. On Twitter, you can see retweets, likes, and comments. The more popular each post is, the more likely it is that whoever is posting them isn't just talking out of their ass. Sure, there's risk of this just being a niche part of the fandom, but that's always true— Fan-Preferred Couple can only account for fanfics and vocal shippers, not casual viewers at home; Broken Base used to require there be no middle ground at all between opinions, which again ignores casual audience members; and even things like Ensemble Dark Horse can only account for vocalized internet opinions.

But what seems more telling about a fandom's POV? A chain of twitter tweets with a high ratio of positive fan engagement? Or an article on a mainstream news outlet with no chance for engagement at all, and targeted at a much wider range of readers, including non-fans? Again, there's always the chance that this isn't actually evidence and that people are just biased, but it's way more telling... especially, again, for a series like Warriors, which really only has small fandom pockets spread across the internet and doesn't have mainstream popularity.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 3:33:28 PM

We should prohibit Reddit as well when it comes to Unfortunate Implications.

Anyone can say anything after all.

A Fandom VIP with many likes does not represent an entire fanbase.

Just because someone compared an Always Chaotic Evil fantasy race with a real-life minority ethnic group does not mean that the entire fandom or even the majority of the fandom views said minority ethnic group as such.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jan 23rd 2022 at 5:39:34 AM

I would probably avoid that in general. I like reddit but dang are their alot of crazies in stuff like Walkaway (A sorta No new normal sub) or conservative that would probably be the worst place to get citations from.

This is kinda another problem because social media attracts the most insane takes and people. Do.... We really want to use them when we're currently in a point where the far right or left will react to anything.

No doubt about that.

We already have a problem with this site consistently bashing Moral Guardians of all political persuasions.

We don't want this website to be balkanized between those who believe that certain minority ethnic groups are Always Chaotic Evil vs. those who believe that WASPs are Always Chaotic Evil with very little room for Gray-and-Grey Morality regarding which ethnic groups are considered Always Chaotic Evil (or that no ethnic groups are Always Chaotic Evil, only the very few misguided individuals within them).

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jan 23rd 2022 at 5:55:28 AM

Well, yes, obviously. That's one reason why I do think the argument's quality should be accounted for- but the actual site these opinions are hosted on shouldn't automatically bar certain discussion topics from qualifying. I really do think that people's stereotypes about certain websites are bleeding into being able to decide what citations should and shouldn't count.

And, again, if you guys are concerned over how we "prove" a certain opinion is widespread, then you need to admit that that's an issue with YMMV pages as a whole, not just UI. I still maintain that social media's ability to let people engage with people makes things more telling. Someone who's knee-deep in the work usually has a better idea of what the work's content is and how people in the fandom feel about it, in contrast to paid reviewers who are more often than not giving their own opinion.

We still need to account for works that aren't super mainstream- like, again, Warrior Cats. Pretty much nobody in the fandom would dispute that the books have an issue with ableism, and while claims of sexism and racism aren't as common, they're still recurring talking points. But, since it's not in the mainstream, there's no way to get "proper" citations for it in the way people expect for other works. And, obviously, works with smaller or nicher fandoms can have content just as problematic as any big name work, the only difference being how many people there are to publicly call it out.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 6:02:20 AM

Like the way this is phrased. I could cite multiple random threads from stuff like kotaku in action or other not great things which discuss stufff like this.

This sounds like it would open up to many issues. We wouldn't be able to ban stuff like that if we're letting in left wing opinions from the social media sites as it would come off as a double standed.

This just sounds like it will be abused too much especially with how extreme politics have become.

The problem is what a "quality argument" is subjective in itself with how widespread political opinions and propaganda are.

Edited by miraculous on Jan 23rd 2022 at 3:03:48 AM

Again, a "quality argument" would be one supported by evidence that can be objectively found in the work, and that explores the argument in detail. It doesn't have to be an essay, but one that doesn't just say "this work sucks" and actually spends time explaining their point. It might still be biased at the end of the day, but there's way more to work with than just someone's opinion.

The arguments you guys are talking about here usually are just low-bar opinion pieces that often misrepresent the works or exaggerate things, and those can come from anywhere.

I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the actual format, presentation, and work put into the discussion. I'm not making any stance about what arguments would be considered quality. I'm not here to gatekeep what opinions are and aren't "good arguments". That's why I'm using quality to mean "well written and supported", not "something I agree with".

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 6:14:11 AM

The issue though is that evidence that can be objectively found in the work is subjective In itself.

What makes one interpretation of something right over another. As I can easily also show you someone of uh not great repute who can give a several hour review (like the right wing YouTubers) or essay that would still be totally bigoted in disguise. Yet if you cite multiple of them it's okay.

Reddit is a horrible source in general for a myriad of reasons. There are so many obviously fake stories there that there's an entire sub (r/thathappened) that chronicles them. There have been accusations that foreign bad actor countries (Russia, Iran, etc.) and large corporations have used paid commenters to boost their claims. I've found the site's community to be just unbelievably toxic and sometimes downright cruel overall. I could go on and on.

I left Reddit years ago and never looked back. I even deleted my account. I don't even miss the meme subs anymore. I even went as far as to use LeechBlock to block some of the political subs, because rather than being filled with reliable information and interesting takes they are often filled with wild conspiracy theories, baseless accusations, and other non-factual information. IMO that site is anything but a reliable Unfortunate Implications source. They are as bad IMO as Twitter, maybe worse.

Sorry if I sound angry. Reddit was the source of some of my worst memories. As I said, they aren't a source we should use IMO.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jan 23rd 2022 at 6:26:23 AM

...Well, there is a reason this is in YMMV at all. Not everyone will agree that every implication exists and is unfortunate. I disagree with the idea of gatekeeping opinions if they are widespread enough (as in your hypothetical), as long as they're not utterly nonsensical and wrong about the work's content. We shouldn't dismiss a common opinion just because we don't agree with it. There's a huge difference between someone complaining because a work has girls in it and complaining that the same work has racist undertones and portrays the main male character as an idiot. One is biased garbage no matter what arguments are used to claim it's sexist, and the other actually has some truth to it.

I don't actively use Reddit, but I've been there a handful of times and while it's not a great site I do think it has gotten better, or at least there's plenty of non-toxic subreddits out there that actually do a decent job of serious media analysis. /SapphoAndHerFriend discusses LGBT+ erasure and r/MenWritingWomen talks about the overly sexualized portrayal of women in literature.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 6:27:13 AM

Interesting to know. My experience with Reddit was based around some very toxic subs that left a bad taste in my mouth for the whole site. Good to know there are some good parts too.

Anyway as I said on Absent people I won't be as involved with the site for a little while until I'm able to get my real life stuff to stabilize, so I won't be as active in this thread or other ones for a little while.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jan 23rd 2022 at 6:37:53 AM

That describes "prevailing opinion" very well, and is why "websites with a reputation to maintain" is preferred over engagement numbers.

Although we prefer fan opinion over "hater" opinion, we strive towards objectively describing the general audience, which includes people who picked up one book and said "forget it". This is a balancing act. In the case of Unfortunate Implications, I realize that we are losing out on examples where the creator is clearly sending some very immoral messages, but the restriction on who counts as a source is also being used to prevent very contorted opinions about works from every spectrum (obscure, to niche, to mainstream).

A switch to allowing engagement numbers will allow stuff like (forgive the analogy not being an UI) people praising the main character of Punisher for being a role model for cops. That's an opinion that has broad support, and may have more support than a specific claim about Warrior Cats. You can easily compare the number of people who support one Twit versus another, but how would you compare the relative sizes of their fandoms? Without that ability, the engagement numbers only shows how popular an idea is within the echo chamber of whatever algorithm created the distribution of the idea.

The goal of the restriction is to make it harder to make outlandish claims about a work's subjective experience because the editor has to do some research before adding examples. This means that controversies which fall below that standard will be lost. That is an unfortunate loss, but the proposed solution does not appear to fulfill the goal.

It doesn't help that an extreme polarization has set in in politics. You can easy get tons of people like with that Punisher example who will unironically spout stuff like that on social media. And you can cite actual "objective stuff" even f the works doesn't agree if you want to make that opinion.