Author Topic: Wheel contestant rule (Read 10858 times)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #45 on:** July 23, 2010, 12:58:20 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'244829\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 12:47 PM\'][quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'244826\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 08:45 AM\']Dan Benfield pulling something out of his keester and claiming it's 100% fact?![/quote]
Is there a way to tell what, erm, "contributions" belong to what people?

Not questioning, just curious, and not willing to throw away the blood-pressure points to go look myself.

[/quote]
Doesn't look like it. Just has the editor's name at the top, and the specific edits made to each contribution.

The finished list is nothing more than numbered entries, with no attributions.

clemon79 · « **Reply #46 on:** July 23, 2010, 01:04:02 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'244831\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 09:58 AM\']Doesn't look like it. Just has the editor's name at the top, and the specific edits made to each contribution.

The finished list is nothing more than numbered entries, with no attributions.[/quote]
Okay. So the cited Letterman example, while certainly something Benfieldian in nature, is not necessarily his work, am I correct? (Again, just wondering.)

MikeK · « **Reply #47 on:** July 23, 2010, 01:05:19 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'244829\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 12:47 PM\'][quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'244826\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 08:45 AM\']Dan Benfield pulling something out of his keester and claiming it's 100% fact?![/quote]
Is there a way to tell what, erm, "contributions" belong to what people?

Not questioning, just curious, and not willing to throw away the blood-pressure points to go look myself.

[/quote]
For what Matt and I were referring? The link mentioned earlier, about 1/4 the way down the page. Danny Boy has since added "Turns out that nobody got fired for screwing up.." Again to the stage, the wacky duo of Seth and Amy.

For anything else, damn if I know. I avoid contributing to sites like TV Tropes and Wikipedia, pretty much because of duos like Peacock and Benfield.

EDIT: ...or what you and Brandon said up there while I was crafting my reply.

BrandonFG · « **Reply #48 on:** July 23, 2010, 01:11:05 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'244832\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 01:04 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'244831\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 09:58 AM\']Doesn't look like it. Just has the editor's name at the top, and the specific edits made to each contribution.

The finished list is nothing more than numbered entries, with no attributions.[/quote]
Okay. So the cited Letterman example, while certainly something Benfieldian in nature, is not necessarily his work, am I correct? (Again, just wondering.)
[/quote]
That, I'm not sure about. I got the impression that the name at the top referred to all edits made by the author on that page. I could be wrong.

And like Mike, crap like that is exactly why I hate contributing useful info to sites like Wiki or TVTropes. I understand the need for accuracy, but I'd prefer an IMDb or former Jump The Shark method, where someone can bring the mistake to my attention, or I can edit as needed. But don't turn around and delete my hard work because it's not up to YOUR subjective standards (the TRASH article comes to mind), at least not if it's factually and grammatically correct. That is just a slap in the face.

clemon79 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 23, 2010, 01:13:18 PM »

[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'244833\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 10:05 AM\']EDIT: ...or what you and Brandon said up there while I was crafting my reply.[/quote]
Well, I'm still confused, but I think it's clearing up. So it's a Wiki. Which means if you are willing to slog through the revision history, and the people who made those edits are willing to not be anonymous (fortunately for us, in the case of those two yahoos, ignorance truly is bliss), you can find out who wrote what, or at the minimum whether our own versions of Harry and Lloyd were involved.

Do I have it now?

MikeK · « **Reply #50 on:** July 23, 2010, 01:21:29 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'244835\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 01:13 PM\']Well, I'm still confused, but I think it's clearing up. So it's a Wiki. Which means if you are willing to slog through the revision history, and the people who made those edits are willing to not be anonymous (fortunately for us, in the case of those two yahoos, ignorance truly is bliss), you can find out who wrote what, or at the minimum whether our own versions of Harry and Lloyd were involved.

Do I have it now?[/quote]
If it looks like a Wiki and acts like a Wiki... I think you're spot on.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #51 on:** July 23, 2010, 02:44:22 PM »

[quote name=\'MikeK\' post=\'244833\' date=\'Jul 23 2010, 01:05 PM\']Danny Boy has since added "Turns out that nobody got fired for screwing up..."[/quote]
Clearly, that wasn't backpedaling.

Dan (since it's obvious you're reading this), the issue isn't whether anybody got fired, or even whether anybody screwed up. They weren't doing a documentary on the pricing game Master Key, they were doing a comedy bit. The issue is you completely inventing the notion that anyone got fired in the first place. You couldn't have had any evidence of that. You made it up, and posted it as if it was true. This is ther sort of thing that gets you in trouble, and posting somewhere where you don't have to prove anything isn't helping you break yourself of that habit.