unforum

[VoidCaste]

Holy hell I think I just had an epiphany on how to really make this slenderman wiki thing perfect!

Let's have Phenom make ANOTHER pointless thread (Hell, five) about it ...and then have the wiki page link back to them as references and in every thread Phenom can gush and go on about how he didn't know, and other forums, and why unfiction is tearing him apart and...

Then phenom was Troll relevant

[Phenom]

[SickSlickMan]

VoidCaste- What sucks about our having clashed in the past is that we agree on too many points. This is an issue. We should probably resolve this.

Phenom- When your idea of editing is removing sections of the wiki that SHOULD be there and putting up things that SHOULDN'T be there, that's not a problem of bad editing, that's a problem of you not taking you Ritalin. I don't even give enough of a shit to work on this page and you're already proving me right that we shouldn't have it.

[SolDL]

Okay, ignoring everyone getting butthurt and whipping out their e-peens and whatnot: I just read through the article quite critically, and it has a long, LONG way to go before it'll be notable or of a scholarly standard. So, let's be critical.

Yes yes, congratulations, Slender Man was in a newspaper. The Biggest Newspaper in ALLLLL of Minnesota. You know what else was in the newspaper?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8499955/Mad-hatters-gang-of-middle-aged-women-blamed-for-Detroit-crime-spree.html

Does that make them notable? I'd say 'no', the only people who give a shit about this newspaper article are folks who watched too much Monty Python at a dark moment in their lives.

I will also point out the fact that this was in the Telegraph, which is a little more scholarly (well, a little more publically accepted as scholarly) than the Star Tribune. You also know fully well that the Star Tribune's article on Slender Man was inexpertly researched, unfortunately executed and frankly, an affront to journalism as a whole due to the complete triviality of it all. So there's that.

The rest of the citations are barely worth discussion at all: for one, you're referencing Something Awful as a scholarly source. For two, you're referencing the same Something Awful forum topic three separate times. You might as well reference 4chan's /x/ boards as well, at least the mainstream media KNOWS about Anonymous as opposed to the Goons.

On a more nitpicky note, the Youtube interview was not done by a credible media source either, and Wikipedia, ironically enough, frowns on new media and self-published deals. Speaking of self-published, that little Yahoo store reference isn't scholarly either. The way they are presented is similarly un-scholarly, but it's pretty hard to do a decent reference for something that is already un-referencable.

Your "In Popular Culture" section is, for one, wrongly titled, and for two, completely irrelevant. "20 Dollarz" is practically a meme within a meme, known by a fringe group of the fringe group that actually watch this Slender Man stuff. Hardly my definition of popular culture. It'd be more accurately described a "trivia" section, which is pretty worthless, considering how already irrelevant most of this information is.

And onto the main body of the article. You are stating fanbase opinion and nuance as actual fact throughout the majority of the body, which is unacceptable if you were intending to actually do this article right by the standards of the Wikipedia administration. You are also listing without providing proper citation several theories and adaptations of the Mythos. I went through and marked them all, but realized I had marked basically everything on the page that wasn't in the blog section.

Even more laughably? The dryad stuff and the 'multiple Slender Men' theory...Isn't that Breaker? To provide a serious dichotomy of the Slender Man meme, you are citing Breaker of all things? And I've never even HEARD of Let Us Keep Living. It's got a grand total of 66 followers. A book which is being read by 66 people, do you really feel that is academically relevant? Yes, sure, a lot of people don't subscribe. But really, how many more people do you feel actually read it? A hundred? Two hundred? A book that is being read by 266 people. Popular culture this ain't. At most, this is an internet meme, albeit one that is a little more highbrow than the average picture of a cat. (That said: The article on lolcats has more scholarly references than this article has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat Just thought you ought to know.)

If this is getting to the highest standard it could possibly be for this internet meme, then the gun was well and truly jumped when it came to producing this page. Now all we have is an article which can't support itself with any sense of scholarly integrity, instead acting as a personal little account of a community. It provides an insight into the quirky little moniker of "Slendy" that has been applied to the man in black, it talks about how Jay doesn't like the whole wifin' deal, the poor dear.

We might as well post up that EMH slash fiction as a reference and stop pretending that this page is for any sort of reason other than our collective egos.

[SickSlickMan]

Lolcats...has five scholarly cites...and we barely have one...

Phenom, Draven, pack it in. We can't beat this. We're just beating a decapitated, disemboweled dead horse.

[SolDL]

[SickSlickMan]

[Phenom]

[SoulHammer]

It baffles me why you want to make slendy mainstream anyway.

Do you want a big movie company to find out about him and come up with a huge production that would basically kill the original spirit of vlogs? You know hollywood can't do anything right.

[Cougar Draven]

[Cougar Draven]

[Phenom]

[SickSlickMan]

Phenom, just admit you need special help already so we can go about our days.

We already know it, we just want to hear you say it.


EDIT: Alright, I decided to throw you guys a bone. Let Us Keep Living has been replaced with The Tutorial. Again, if you're really serious about this thing, you've gotta go with what the majority of the blog readers will know.

[Cougar Draven]

[VoidCaste]

Sickslick you have an excellent point there sir, how is it we end up agreeing on so many issues???

Anyways, at the risk of being seen agreeing with a giant douche like cougardraven I have to say the thought that "a big Hollywood production" might be made of Slender Man due to a wiki article is pretty ridiculous

I can just see Hollywood movie execs pouring through Wikipedia now trolling for the next big thing lmfao I believe lolcats has a better chance at a movie deal, sorry.