After the big discussion regarding http://www.wikihow.com/Embarrass-Your-Ex-on-Facebook
I didn’t think we’d see another FEATURED Facebook article in poor taste for a while. But the very next week I go to the main page and see this: http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Hot-People-to-Be-Friends-on-Facebook
. First things first, I’m not campaigning for the article to be deleted (although some of the comments already on the talk page are “The only thing that will make this page better is to delete it. What a waste of space.” and “This whole article is satire, right? Please tell me it is.” and “Is this for real?? Are people really this shallow and stupid?” and the article’s only just gone up), but I am going to say that it is 100% completely irresponsible and promotes one of the worst habits on Facebook. Aside from the fact that the article almost completely satire - if you look at the pictures, it is obvious as a slap in the face (and almost exactly along the same lines as the Embarrass Your Ex on Facebook article) - and completely shallow (it basically promotes people judging one another based solely on their looks) but it is very dangerous as in the warning section, you will not find one sentence about how it plain stupid and dangerous for anyone to send someone you don’t know a friend request on Facebook! The article DOESN’T go into how to consider Facebook privacy for people you haven’t met, it DOESN’T tell the reader about the number of pedophiles that lurk Facebook, placing enticing pictures of “hot” boys and girls on their profiles to attract young members of the opposite sex. In fact, just last year in New Zealand where I live a young girl was raped and murdered by a man posing as a girl, and in a very public case an older woman used the site to lure young boys, have sex with them and extort money, by posing as a sexy teenage girl. And I’m sure there will be hundreds more cases worldwide of the same thing. The article’s only concern is that the reader doesn’t come off as a “creepy lurker”, which leads me to think the article is written by a younger person who has not yet considered the impact and consequences happening across a sexual predator online might incur - and we have to ask ourselves, do we want this article written from this point of view, speaking to other youths? Most of the established editors here are older, and mature, but we have to know that children and younger people read this site too and I’m 100% NOT comfortable that an article promoting adding people you don’t actually know to your FB account, WITHOUT a proper warnings section, has made it to the main page for maximum publicity. I’m not pointing fingers as happened with the last discussion of this nature (this article probably was already highlighted to be an FA back then anyway) but this seriously should have been rejected as an FA based on the lack of a proper warning section considering the dangerous topic it was dealing with. Considering what has happened in the world with rapes and murders, we cannot say to ourselves that this isn’t dealing with fire without an extinguisher. I really would like this bad trend of sarcastic, dangerous Facebook articles filtering their way to the main page to stop. Before someone actually takes the poor advice these articles are dishing out and gets hurt or hurts someone else. Spawn Man.
^ I was wanted to post a forum about that…Too late, but I do agree with this, and about the next FA, this can’t happen. June Days
Hate to think how many more people are thinking this: “Unfortunately this is not the first wikiHow to insult human intelligence. This drivel decimates the earned respect for any ‘Wiki’ reference on the entire Web. A more appropriate placement would be in “The Onion”, or if indeed it is to be construed as realistic would be much more appropriate as an article in “Teen Beat”. Does anyone seriously monitor this crap? This is the end of this site for me.” : (
Ttrimm
5
No matter how rude you think they are, there are many more that want to readthose kind of articles.
system
6
For reals… this particular article was placed on the RSS feed two weeks ago. When it was said to place the feed on an editor’s watchlist, it really helps. It’s not there on the watchlist to watch the most recent additions whenever you have a chance to look at it - but just saying that if the link was on there for that long, it should have been alerted - not when the article is literally live like this. 2 cents from piggy bank.
I agree with you on almost everything Ttrimm, but I’m sorry, show me one person who has placed a positive comment on the article’s discussion page thus far. Show me anyone that thinks this articles does more good than harm. It’s nothing to do with rude. Like I said, regardless of the fact the article is sarcastic, it’s the danger and recklessness it promotes which is the real problem. I would take a harmless joke article over one which could put a child in the arms of a pedophile ANY DAY. : |
system
8
Not a problem - It’s explained at the very bottom of Krystle’s post here from the other thread - http://forums.wikihow.com/discussion/comment/57071/#Comment\_57071
system
9
Teresa has summed it up for me. Articles of this type are here for the enjoyment of some readers, just as other articles suit other readers - a mix is aimed for. Since I have grown a tad weary of reading several threads claiming the moral high ground about FAs, I’d like to make a few points: 1. There are human beings at the end of the FA choices. You may not like all of the choices but some commentators in recent threads are managing to be what I feel is rude and hurtful towards realpeople. Regardless of the fantasies of assuming readers are all so daft that they’ll go off and hurt themselves without applying common sense or their own moral values, civil discussion isn’t helped by inflammatory comments. As a detractor, if you wish to assume the role of moral gatekeeper of the possible-terribles-that-could-happen, you also carry responsibility for careful reflection and for looking at the bigger picture. Panic-mongering is not helpful to resolving issues on this site. 2. When such single articles are criticised, I have seen this several times turn into an opportunity to open slather attack everything featured, which then extends to the whole site. Which is catastrophising and generalising at its absolute worst. It’s venting and it’s an unfair summary of the site’s value. I fail to see how that helps move forward our project in any constructive way. 3. I am truly puzzled about the “perfection” that certain detractors appear to be wanting in the FA line-up. Nobody in the FA team chooses only articles they’d read personally and nothing else. This is because out there in Reader-land are many people whose tastes, interests and inquiring minds are not the slightest bit like those in the FA team or perhaps even in the community-that-is-around-at-the-time. As I said, we aim for a mix and whether or not I or you like it, it is a simple fact that the funnier, quirkier topics get most of our high readership levels because they amuse, titillate and entertain. And such articles are NOT the only articles getting featured but the commentary I read on these forums seems to unfairly suggest so at times. 3a. An aside but important to me: Over the years I have read again and again how we have to “jump to” and give undue weight to negative comments appearing on discussion pages. In most cases, this is not warranted. On those occasions where it is, staying calm and rational matters above all. Discussion pages on wH are traditionally negative because we’ve never really bothered to constrain that aspect and in some ways have encouraged it; moreover, negativity is contagious once one person opens the floodgates. It does fascinate me how the negativity is rarely balanced with noticing that an article has wide likes and shares in social media; most shares are because of an interest in the topic, not a dislike! As for blog commentary, well, hello to the soap box without constraint… but again, why only tell us that bloggers have negative things to say? I’ve seen plenty of positives too! 4. Selections of FAs are done with great care to balance recognising authors, ensuring readers get a variety of topics across many areas, introducing readers to things that are new, picking up on topical items and other reasons targeted at increasing wikiHow’s presence and enjoyment. It’s a process that isn’t easy and is constantly under assessment but it is a labour of love and it is done thoughtfully, with the occasional (very human) slip-up when we try to push a boundary to test some topics. It isn’t done callously, stupidly or with the intention to upset the community. When asking others to never slip up, please do apply that same standard to yourself. This article? Of course it’s tongue-in-cheek because it’s a silly, light and fun topic with reason. We don’t do the “doom and gloom, FB is coming to get you” every time we feature FB. While that topic slant is valid and clearly the one some people prefer, so is finding a few ways to actually enjoy that overrated, narcissistic networking site, taking a lighthearted approach. We feature many serious FB articles too, don’t forget that. One last point. I appreciate that there are media stories about terrible things that happen because X, Y and Z occurred on FB/online, but I am not sure why sensationalistic journalism of one-off incidents means we have to err on the side of being dull and assuming readers are incredibly thick or wicked. We skate very close to self-censorship if we believe that people are nothing but fragile. And after last week, we agreed that this is a community matter as much as anyone else’s. Please check in advance here: http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:RSS-feed
Yeah I just remembered and edited my comment out lol. I’ll admit I’ve never seen that page though. So the question is, what is going to be done about this article? Is simply adding a comprehensive warnings section going to be enough? And if so, why wasn’t it noticed before that that it was lacking one and removed from being a potential FA? I would’ve imagined that all the articles on that RSS thread would have been thoroughly checked and vetted after the last discussion, just to make sure. Obviously this did not happen. Since it was listed before the last discussion, and now that we’ve all decided that articles such as this are detrimental for wikiHow, will it be dealt with also?
Should I be concerned enough to call for a “vote of no confidence”? For God’s sake, we are a how to manual, not an instruction book for trolls or pedophiles. Like I said, these featured articles are rushing in kind of fast. Can’t a bit of caution be exercised here? It doesn’t hurt to slow down and look for articles that really do deserve to be featured (like a few of what we have up already). I know things might be hectic. But it is not advisable to feature articles that could turn off our viewers and guests.
system
12
How was it rushed? It’s been in the feed for 2 weeks already.
Thanks for the reply Flickety. I agree with most of what you said. I in fact agree with your first point, and if you read my post in the previous discussion, I was not happy with how fingers were pointed and how blame was lumped on Krystle. It was not civil and I did not approve, which is why I didn’t blame anyone in my OP. As for media sensationalism. I always roll my eyes when an elder relative of mine warns me to be wary of weirdos online and that they’re “out to get me”. But the thing is, that girls ARE still raped. Teenagers HAVE been murdered. Whether it’s front page or sensationalized, they are still dead and altered for life. And the article does not have any warnings for that. It has not said ANYTHING about the danger of strangers online. Not one sentence. And this article made it to the front page. I’ve written many articles (honestly not trying to brag) and when I post one, I try to make sure every possible danger, tip, step and alternative is listed. For an article to completely omit this warning whilst also promoting seeking out strangers online is most disturbing. I know that everyone is very sensitive about the subject of substandard articles on the main page after the last huge discussion, but IMHO I think this article is far more dangerous than the last. It sounds as if it’s been written by a young person, for young people and without any credence to the consequences. I’m pretty shocked that yall are not at all disturbed by this fact. Would you let your kids meet up with a hot girl or guy they met online without telling you? No? Well that could very well be the outcome for some family as a result of this article. I’m not talking about the 100s (or 10 people) who may want to read the article (opposed to the 100s or more who don’t), but about the one who may actually end up dead because of it. All I’m saying is that if this article doesn’t have warnings, it isn’t complete (and very dangerous). And if it isn’t complete, WHY is it on the main page when dealing with such material?
system
14
Okay, what sort of warnings can we insert now, and fast that would meet your approval? We seem to be at a point where this overlooked aspect (yes, it is a good point) can be properly summed up? Please do insert it! The thing that I am getting is that everyone is concerned about teens. The article was not supposed to be aimed at teen level; indeed, that is a conscious decision with all relationship articles but what I am hearing from feedback is that people are reading it in this way. Am I right?
I think the “rushing” is perceptive. I think the real problem lies that it was on the RSS feed BEFORE the big discussion we had, and nobody cared to check it.
Most of the articles on here in regards to dating or facebook or relationships seem to be written by and for teenagers (much like, heaven forbid, EVERY club penguin article is written by a 12 year old
). This article with its phrases such as “creepy lurker” and excessive “hot” uses, is obviously written by someone who has not thought of the ramifications of introducing a stranger to your personal information. And it’s not written for adults, because any adult would (hopefully) be wise enough to know this is a bad idea. The only people who will suffer from this will be youths. So yeah, I am concerned about it. I have no problem adding warnings and revamping the article except for the fact that 1) I’m not sure it should be featured if it needs a revamp 2) it’s obviously been overlooked since the last big discussion we had about articles of this kind, the last of which was removed from the main page 3) I’m not even sure it’d be a good article to promote even if it was full, complete and well written - we’ve removed the danger from the article, but we’re still left with the completely shallow husk article it began as and 4) Is it good form to do major renovations on an FA on the main page??
system
16
Anyone can rework an article to improve it, including featureds, any time and we’ve always encouraged enhancements to FAs at any time. The terms you’ve cited “hot” and “creepy lurker” are used beyond teen years, at least in young women’s mags… which is why the terms were left in. But do feel free to replace.
This is awesome. Since you are bringing me into this whole thing by mentioning a previous thread in which I had opposed a featured article, the reason I opposed the previous featured article was that it endorsed bullying and stalking. It’s a whole different class of “poor taste” to the last one in roughly the same way that two kittens fighting is not the same thing as World War II. It’s kind of a lame article, for sure, but it’s pretty light-hearted, and doesn’t involve actually ruining lives. Carry on.
Lewis, it is a FA. It’s on the main page. And this doesn’t endorsed stalking and possibly falling into the hands of pedophiles? I think you are putting the blinders on to the possible consequences - it may very well ruin lives if a kid does this and instead falls victim to a predator. Just because you didn’t bring the issue to light, doesn’t mean you should just command “Carry on”. Well if everyone is quite happy to sit back and not give a damn, then I don’t give a damn either. But when the negative comments continue, our credibility continues to decline and a kid gets raped and murdered, don’t blame me. I shouldn’t have to clean up the article when no one else seems to give a flying f*ck.
Ttrimm
19
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That’s why we do what we do.
system
20
Uh, from my point of view in life - some of my neighbours were on the geeky, ragged-look side when it came to looks and everything and now, 15-20 years later, they’re pretty damn gorgeous. Who said every ‘love’ related wikiHow article was for teens and kids? This is the basically the exact same reason why people go to bars and clubs in person - to try to hook up with hot people. Carry on.
