Forum:The Bard, Illogicomedia Foundation and What His Deal Is?

<<< Back to The Administrator's League • <<< Back to Forum

User:The Bard has long been operating a web site that he calls the "Illogicomedia Foundation" at illogicomedia.org without any approval, consent or real interaction with Illogicopedia staff, or as far as I know, any other Illogicopedia users besides himself. On Friday, he ran a story on his blog that seems to be intended as some sort of attack piece on me personally, and not even me right now, but me from like four years ago regarding issues we all talked through and seemed to have resolved before his trying to open up that whole can of worms again for no good reason.

We pretty much decided to ditch the whole, "we are not persuasive" rule at that time, or at least that was my understanding anyway, (apparently it's still there which indicates nobody's helped keep the page updated) which is why a few of my more recent articles have gotten a little more ideologically pointed, as in Richard Dawkins (cult leader). This accusation of hypocrisy is really not fair. I think we should've kept that rule but if we're not going to have it, then I should be able to express my opinions with persuasive writing just like anyone else.

Even if this isn't intended as an attack piece, it does raise wider issues about what the hell this 'Illogicomedia Foundation" project has to do with anything. If it's part of Illogicopedia then why aren't the Illogicopedia admins invited to be a part of it? In that case, we should combine it with the IllogiBlog. If it's not a part of Illogicopedia then The Bard needs to quit saying it is when it's actually just a personal project of his (and apparently a platform for critiquing other Illogicopedians he disagrees with) and not affiliated with us. Whatever the deal is, we need to get this straightened out.

BTW, we actually do have a semi-official embassy/consulate on UnMeta, run by "Illogicopedia ambassadors" User:Hindleyite, User:CartoonistHenning and myself. I think that's the closest thing we have as a community (or at least supported by multiple Illogicopedians including staff instead of just one guy) to an IllogiMeta or Illogicomedia group until and unless we can work out some kind of arrangement to officially work with TheBard's "Illogicomedia Foundation" which is something I am still open to doing, despite his apparent unprovoked hostility toward me. --Nerd42 (talk) 04:00, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

From the perspective of someone who has until recently had little to do with this site, is a Foundation actually even necessary? I mean, if it's the same idea as UnMeta which I'm assuming it is at least similar in premise, I don't think Illogicopedia needs one. The english version has a userbase of not that many? I guess maybe 10 at most and most of the other languages are either smaller or non-existant. Whats the point of having a foundation to co-ordinate something that isn't big enough to require co-ordinating? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:46, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

Like Uncyclopedia, part of the purpose of Illogicopedia is to parody Wikipedia projects, including Meta-Wiki and the Wikimedia Foundation. A secondary purpose might be to have a spot for regrouping if the main web site every goes down. --Nerd42 (talk) 14:24, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's cute that you keep the Policy both in the Commandments and on your user page (just so you can later link to it and say, "See, I told you so."). If the Nerd42 of the past isn't the Nerd42 of you today, it's not easy to tell. =) Geek43 is affectionate homage to that person, whether he still exists or not.

The Foundation serves no purpose whatsoever, which is to say that it is slightly less useful than this website. It could be a cooperative project with input and content from users here, but few are interested in helping. Not then (as a wiki) and not now (as a CMS). Cheers! ~ The Bard of Illogicopedia 11:31, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, if you're going to parody a non-celebrity individual then some kind of note of explanation might be good. Otherwise it looks like an attempt at trolling.

I'd be interested in helping with the Illogicomedia Foundation stuff actually. I think we should move the IllogiBlog there, or somehow collapse the distinction between the Foundation blog and the IllogiBlog. --Nerd42 (talk) 14:24, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea, although I also think it's useful to have the blog where it is. Blogger isn't a bad platform, it's not likely to experience any outages or technical problems, and is likely to remain absolutely free forever. Plus, it's under Dan's control. Good hands to be in.

The Foundation wasn't supposed to be a blog at all, although the recent stories have strayed into the politics of the site (which I find much more interesting than the site content these days). Since the original wiki version, the Foundation has actually endeavoured to create content that mocks/mirrors the MediaWiki Foundation's policies and fundraising initiatives. The Illogicomedia version of those documents characterizes us (or, more accurately, the underlying management) as unscrupulous and opportunistic. Machiavellian. I just got a bit bored with the policy sporking and was instead more captivated by the wrangling here.

Anyway, people are more than welcome to login to IM and lampoon me in editorials about what a scheming bastard I am, how I am fundamentally untrustworthy and a tyrannical admin. I'd quite like that. But it hasn't happened so far and I doubt it will. Even with the long server outages on this site, IM never really found an audience. This is the most reaction I've seen in 9 months (since the switch to Drupal). I'm shocked/pleased to see a post was read (most traffic is spambots, but Drupal keeps the accounts and posting under tight control). ~ The Bard of Illogicopedia 14:46, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I really know enough to get involved, but I do want to say that I have had nothing but good experiences with both the Bard and Nerd42. Whatever is going on I hope can be worked out because I think both of you have done a lot to make this site great. --marbury (talk) 23:21, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

in regard to the Commandments thing

I made this edit which seems to more closely match what we settled on. If anyone disagrees then we could revert that and discuss it more or whatever. --Nerd42 (talk) 14:34, 13 Aym 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I do share Nerd42's view that the site shouldn't take a side on an issue, and I say this well-aware that I am very much the polar opposite of Nerd42 when it comes to religion and politics. I am the Keith Olbermann to his Glenn Beck.

As just a personal rule I try to never be persuasive in my edits. For example when I wrote the page for L. Ron Hubbard I tried to not portray Scientology in a positive way nor a negative way, simply a illogical way. I didn't do this because I respect Scientology (I don't) but because the reader didn't click the link to read some didactic rant, they clicked the link to read a funny article on a stupid website.

I guess even if we got rid of the We Are Not Persuasive rule the We Are Not Mean rule would still cover any articles that were simply trollish hatchet jobs designed to offend as many people as possible. I just don't want to see a bombardment of articles that are nothing more than glorified flamebait masquerading as comedic satire. --marbury (talk) 00:12, 14 Aym 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck has a strong tendency to oversimplify complex issues, ignoring all nuances and fine distinctions. He is often guilty of too much brute force "Hulk smash!" thinking. On the other hand, he is an idiot that other idiots love to hate, which makes me want to just say, "Screw it, I like Glenn Beck" just to piss people off.

I could easily be one of these conservative talk show hosts myself more than actually listening to them much anymore these days, as they operate in easily predictable patterns once you've listened to them enough, but I prefer Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin over Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. Levin does a good job of trying to educate people on the history of the United States and our Constitution while Limbaugh is just funnier. Limbaugh ought to be understood more as a social gadfly and satirist than an entirely serious political analyst. That said, I do plan on reading Beck's new novel. "The Overton Window" was actually quite a good book, although obviously it had to have been ghostwritten. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:32, 30 Yoon 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I ought to write a series of Illogicopedia articles on conservative talk radio personalities from a perspective of actually knowing something about them, as most of the current articles on this subject seem to be simple political opposition to the conservative movement in America. I've tried to do better than blatant political hackery in my articles such as "Liberals." Course, I did go a bit overboard with this edit. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:39, 30 Yoon 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest that you are like Glenn Beck (nor am I like Keith Olbermann, for that matter), simply that you and I are probably polar opposites of each other when it comes to politics and yet somehow we still manage to work together in civil harmony. Because, you know, professionalism and respect and whatever. --marbury (talk) 18:37, 30 Yoon 2013 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in (late)

I think it needs to be made clear on the Illogicomedia site that it isn't actually affiliated with the administration of ?Pedia, and is rather the side project of an individual. The bit where says it "operates Illogicopedia" should probably be removed too. Concept is nice though. -- Ben ^Blade 15:41, 30 Yoon 2013 (UTC)