7. Barry Manilow
Usually, when there's an argument about Barry Manilow, it's between old-school rockists who think he sucks, and 55-year-old women who weepily ask why people have to be so hurtful. But on Wikipedia, the arguments mainly focus on one question: Is this dude gay, or what? Some, like Ladycascadia and VertigoXpress, think it smacks of homophobic censorship to leave out references to Manilow's years performing in gay bathhouses, and the widespread speculation on his personal life. But Wahkeenah vehemently disagrees. "You are trying to push your own personal agenda of 'outing' someone who has not stated publicly what his orientation is. I don't care if you have TEN books that say he's gay. Until HE HIMSELF says so, or until someone has published a verifiable photo of him making out with another man, it is irrelevant." And while one person points out, "I heard that he's with some new chick named Keely," another replies, "Keely Watson is a gay man." Meanwhile, some are sick of the whole debate. "Just to clarify, Barry Manilow is straight," an anonymous writer insists. "Married once, then in long term relationships with women. I think this person who keeps writing here about it is the gay one. One thing that should be outed though is his plastic surgery—he can hardly move his face."
8. Bonnie And Clyde
Somewhere in the annals of history, two rugged individualists pushed each other to greater and greater acts of violence and deceit as a way of defending their dignity in a time of trial. Depression-era bank robbers Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow? No, "old windy bear" and Mytwocents, the editors of Wikipedia's "Bonnie and Clyde" page, who spent much of May 2006 at each other's throats over how much of the article to cut and reshape under Wiki's "Neutral Point Of View" standard, to keep the entry from devolving into a pulpy True Crime story. Mytwocents' excisions were excised, restored, re-excised, then re-restored. Increasingly, old windy bear warned about "the 27 rules of engagement" that require editors to "work toward consensus," to which Mytwocents replied, "I will edit the Bonnie and Clyde page as I see fit… My changes have nothing to do with any editor, they are to make the page more NPOV. NPOV trumps consensus." Finally, by the end of the month, cooler heads prevailed, as old windy bear wrote, "The only constant in the universe is that there are none except God. I have been through chemo 3 times in the past couple of years, (had to stop twice, couldn't take the side effects) so you are more on the money than you may know that I at least may literally be gone tomorrow. I do wish a new start." The olive branch was accepted, because, "This page is really not about Old windy bear or Mytwocents, it's about Bonnie and Clyde." Really? Because the other page is way more fun.
9. 4Kids Entertainment
The company that distributes shows like Yu-Gi-Oh! GX is called "4Kids," but the people attacking its Wikipedia entry are grown-ups with an axe to grind, and have been referred to by their opponents as "racist asshole Otakus" and "anime fundamentalists [who] just won't give up their useless annoying crusade for cartoon riceballs." At issue? The way 4Kids alters Japanese cartoons to make them friendlier for pre-teen Americans. Or, as Tommy 11111 puts it, "They have sidestepped around death by throwing scenes around clumsily and paying little or no attention to continuity. They have changed religious symbols that would have no meaning to the audience at large and wasted money on paint edits. They have Made crappy writing and attempts to make stupid puns. They have given Don Krieg Poison suction cups that make no sense in their delivery. They have given Monkey D. Luffy an annoying voice, as was done to Sanji and Usopp. Thay have given Luffty Dumbass jokes. They have replaced the BGM and Opening with a stupid rap. They have onitted nearly 40 episodes in order to get to the chase of something. They have committed Racist edits. They hae put music in that has no point to the storyline. They have replaced Onigiri with cookies and ruined the oint of the salt/sugar edit. They have made Naval marines carry toy guns. They have blacked out writing on covers no one will read. They have removed shout and confusion marks from the characters. They have replaced technique names and confused them to hardcore fans. I could go on and on about this." And judging by the fervor on the discussion page, he isn't the only one.
10. Geordi La Forge
Star Trek in all its incarnations has given fans plenty of fuel for debate over the years. It's easy to see how Trekkers are rabidly split over J.J. Abrams' upcoming reboot of the franchise, but it's surprising that The Next Generation's blind, friendly, capable engineer Geordi La Forge (played by LeVar Burton) has become such a controversial figure. Okay, so this isn't exactly the rabid "Who's the best captain?" debate. Still, the discussion page of Geordi's Wikipedia entry sparks many galaxy-shaking arguments: Should his eye color be listed as "genetically brown" or "iris-free and milky white"? Was his trademark VISOR inspired by a hair accessory worn by Gene Roddenberry's wife, or by a girlfriend of ST designer Mike Okuda? Is Geordi more of a Magical Negro than Guinan, Whoopi Goldberg's Next Generation character? And if human beings can fly to the stars in the 24th century, why can't they cure blindness? One debater is particularly perplexed by the entry's assertion that Geordi "fails the standards of Afrofuturism." Clicking on Afrofuturism leads to another set of conundrums—including the eternal question of whether George Clinton and Sun Ra can truly be considered Afrofuturists. (What, no Dr. Octagon?)
11. Spam
Capitalize, or don't capitalize? Include a trademark symbol, or not? And shouldn't the search function be changed so that the canned meat comes up as the main article when someone types in "spam," rather than the slang term for junk e-mail? These are but a few of the questions that keep the guardians of the Wikipedia article for "Spam (food)" up at night. The other big arguments? How many of the popular joke "SPAM" acronyms to include. ("Salt Poisoning And More"? "Squirrels Possums And Mice"? "Stuff Posing As Meat"?) Also, whether the article is neutral enough. (It's "wholly filled, top-to-bottom, with SPAM-worship," complains Gspawn.) But there are petty squabbles as well, like whether people in non-SPAM-eating countries will understand what the article is talking about. Terence Ong writes, "I see SPAM is different from luncheon meat, but I suppose they are about the same. I prefer an aritlce about luncheon meat being created. It is very misleading to non-Americans like myself, as we all refer SPAM as luncheon meat. I'm confused, very confused indeed."
12. Truth
Wikipedia's entry for "truth" should be applauded for its cleanliness and concision; it touches on schools of thought like constructivist theory and philosophers like Kant, then directs users to those respective pages. But the battle behind the scenes is much uglier, running through 12 archived pages with subject headings that range from "truth in jurisprudence" and "the semantic theory" to "Oi! You SIMPLIFY!!!!!" and "Please Kill Me Now!" The behind-the-scenes discussion captures Wikipedia's tendency to collapse into autobiography. "When you trace out all availible information from science and experiences," Jiohdi says, beginning a long take on a personal approach to truth, "they all trace back to one core understanding, namely, that everything perceived is generated by the perceiver and is thus not a completely reliable guide to reality nor truths about reality." "These," Rick Norwood responds, "are beliefs discovered by most people in their sophomore year."
« Previous | 1 | 2
- Comments