http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiright

Will need some changes though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiright

Will need some changes though.


Especially since it's off by about 360,000 parodies.

why do people keep trying to add sites into wikipedia? only sites that are in the top 1000 sites get added, and even then, not too many stay in there

I read up on the wikipedia guidelines for notability, and I don't think amiright would qualify.  If the site was frequently mentioned in the press, or part of some sort of controversy it might qualify. 

I do have a list of newspaper articles and some news mentions, but I don't think they would be enough to qualify it in the editors minds.

Especially when it's pretty much obscured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiright

Will need some changes though.


Definitely. Apologies to the author, but that is one of the lamest write-ups I've ever seen. "..written by users who wants to parody certain songs for certain reasons and certain events."

Was the author certain about that?  ::)


Especially since it's off by about 360,000 parodies.



Paging John Barry!

I actually stumbled upon this yesterday and I figured there needed more and more to add to it, and I wrote up a new preamble for the article, but the other preamble can't be deleted, so I just added and clarified stuff that the other author had said and then added everything else. There are now subsections for: SOTM, Inthe00s, Nickelodeon Idiot, Whatfreaks, and references/citing sources. And I added to the "Event Sweeps" section a list of many of the Dick-Cheney-quailing-accident parodies. And I think I hit the hammer on the nail. Check it out!  :)

I just got done with some more edits. It took me a while to find that TV mention of Amiright on ABC 49, but I was lucky enough to find it and the video is still there, too.  :) Looks like Amiright might possibly stay on Wikipedia with all of the sources I cited and the different links I found from outside websites, etc.

I just got done with some more edits. It took me a while to find that TV mention of Amiright on ABC 49, but I was lucky enough to find it and the video is still there, too.  :) Looks like Amiright might possibly stay on Wikipedia with all of the sources I cited and the different links I found from outside websites, etc.


wow.... that's a lot of work, looks real good so far.

wow.... that's a lot of work, looks real good so far.


Indeed, much work there and it's looking great.

Cool!

Now we just need sections on certain AmIRight parodists...like, oh, I don't know...*cough*Spaff.com*cough*

I read up on the wikipedia guidelines for notability, and I don't think amiright would qualify.  If the site was frequently mentioned in the press, or part of some sort of controversy it might qualify. 

I do have a list of newspaper articles and some news mentions, but I don't think they would be enough to qualify it in the editors minds.


Wikipedia in itself shouldn't be viewed as a pinnacle of reliability. I take online college courses and I used to use Wikipedia as a research source...UNTIL...one of my instructors notified the class that Wikipedia is NOT reliable due to the fact that basically ANYONE can post to it. It doesn't matter if it's fact or fiction. The site won't catch ALL of the falsified information. Of course...you may be well-aware of this also. If you are, then just completely disregard this statement.  ;D

well, it's no longer flagged as being no noteworthy.  Now it's flagged as reading like an advertisement, and needing more incoming links within the database.

Tons of improvements there.

Tons of improvements there.


yeah, very, very improved, and no longer flagged as bad... not sure how long that will last, but I commend the work!

Wikipedia in itself shouldn't be viewed as a pinnacle of reliability. I take online college courses and I used to use Wikipedia as a research source...UNTIL...one of my instructors notified the class that Wikipedia is NOT reliable due to the fact that basically ANYONE can post to it. It doesn't matter if it's fact or fiction. The site won't catch ALL of the falsified information. Of course...you may be well-aware of this also. If you are, then just completely disregard this statement.  ;D


i no lol, on a wreslting forum i post on, when duscussing that a wrestler had been suspended from wwe,  a foprum user changed  the wrestlers profile as saying, 'on (date), (wrestler) was suspended for posting spoilers on (forum name)' lol

Could use a picture.

I suppsoe we need to do work on the Recordings section and certain other parts (even though an article hasn't been written for nigh on two years, the section deserves a mention.)

I suppsoe we need to do work on the Recordings section and certain other parts (even though an article hasn't been written for nigh on two years, the section deserves a mention.)


Ok... I signed up a new account (never got email with my forgotten password, and I could have sworn I had a wiki account).  I updated a few things, like the traffic stats (the page on chuckyg hadn't been updated in a year, so I fixed that, and then fixed the entry).  I also corrected the founding date, I registered the domain in 1999, but it wasn't launched until March 2000.  I also registered amiwrong.com in 1999, but that site won't go live until later this year, so I guess there's a lesson there about relying on the domain registry for a website launch date >grin<

I'll add in the recordings section.

I was thinking something about the implied mission statement of the site should be in there... the "making fun of music, one song at a time."  The goal of the site isn't strictly song parodies or misheard lyrics, it's a broader mission of making fun of pop music.  Not sure how to state that without sounding "spammy"

I already got a message from someone keeping an eye on the section, and I guess they frown on page subject editing their own page, so I probably won't touch it any further (makes sense).

Anyways, I happen to agree the page is too long, and I think it needs to be arranged more like the site is.  There should be four main sections (Parody, Misheard, Names, Real Lyrics) with a quick one sentance description of each section contained.

Someone should add apicture of an altered album cover there.

If you check it out today, you'll notice the article is significantly shorter.  It doesn't need a huge amount of stuff.  It should be more related to the overall site mission, and where it's been discussed, etc.

That guy who got kicked out of his school board for instance, might be something that could be mentioned as controversy raised as a result of the site.  If the USA Today story was still available, that would be a good add too.

Sounds good.

also sohuldnt the title of this thread be AmIRight ON wiki

If you check it out today, you'll notice the article is significantly shorter.  It doesn't need a huge amount of stuff.  It should be more related to the overall site mission, and where it's been discussed, etc.

That guy who got kicked out of his school board for instance, might be something that could be mentioned as controversy raised as a result of the site.  If the USA Today story was still available, that would be a good add too.


No luck so far.

No luck so far.


the USA Today story is still online...

http://www.amiright.com/mentions.shtml

none of these are mentioned in the article.  I think the USA today article was a front page item, I'd have to dig out the copy I saved to verify that first though.

the press page seems to be lacking the most recent stuff

Sure been a while.

Sure been a while.


There haven't been any major changes to the site. 

That guy who got kicked out of his school board for instance, might be something that could be mentioned as controversy raised as a result of the site.  If the USA Today story was still available, that would be a good add too.
...because he found thhe Claude Prez lyrics? That guy?

...because he found thhe Claude Prez lyrics? That guy?


yeah

yeah


The dude in charge of the parody contest?

The dude in charge of the parody contest?
Claude? Yeah, he started the Song of the Month contest in 2004.

Claude? Yeah, he started the Song of the Month contest in 2004.


Was the kid trying to enter the contest?

Was the kid trying to enter the contest?


no, he reposted a parody with a questionable viewpoint in it.  something not politically correct, and he was on some student government thing and someone got their panties in a twist about it.  So the kid resigns his post, only to find out he wasn't going to lose it, but then they wouldn't honor him going back or something.

see... this is why someone needs to go back and find this stuff before we forget... even if it ain't in wikipedia.  Actually, it's probably better if we don't now that I think about it.  The kid already suffered enough, no need to bring out his name again.

no, he reposted a parody with a questionable viewpoint in it.  something not politically correct, and he was on some student government thing and someone got their panties in a twist about it.  So the kid resigns his post, only to find out he wasn't going to lose it, but then they wouldn't honor him going back or something.

see... this is why someone needs to go back and find this stuff before we forget... even if it ain't in wikipedia.  Actually, it's probably better if we don't now that I think about it.  The kid already suffered enough, no need to bring out his name again.


Steve Bartman?

no, he reposted a parody with a questionable viewpoint in it.  something not politically correct, and he was on some student government thing and someone got their panties in a twist about it.  So the kid resigns his post, only to find out he wasn't going to lose it, but then they wouldn't honor him going back or something.

see... this is why someone needs to go back and find this stuff before we forget... even if it ain't in wikipedia.  Actually, it's probably better if we don't now that I think about it.  The kid already suffered enough, no need to bring out his name again.


http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=13656.0
Start with reply #33

It's, like, the best Amiright story EVER. You could always summarize it without naming the guy.

xoxox
Spaff

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=13656.0
Start with reply #33

It's, like, the best Amiright story EVER. You could always summarize it without naming the guy.



yeah, but the Wiki people want references to stuff now, because they're such a highly regarded site, so I'm guessing his name would have to get mentioned in there.

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=13656.0
Start with reply #33

It's, like, the best Amiright story EVER. You could always summarize it without naming the guy.

xoxox
Spaff



That's for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiright

Will need some changes though.


How come you guys don't seem to like that thing? Obscurity may be a barrier, but I believe Chucky's site deserves this encyclopedic recognition - besides, AmIRight will prosper, right?

How come you guys don't seem to like that thing? Obscurity may be a barrier, but I believe Chucky's site deserves this encyclopedic recognition - besides, AmIRight will prosper, right?


it's fine as it is now... initially it had some issues, but it's been taken care of.  For me, it's just one more thing to check every week.  People tend to add junk to wikipedia all the time, so I really don't want misleading or incorrect info on it if I can help it.