CWCki:General

Community Portal
Forum	News	Policy
Help	Technical	General

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

For discussion that doesn't fit into the other community pages - though do keep it related to the CWCki.

"No shit is too minor"

This is something that's been on my mind for a while and I feel like getting it off my chest now. It's about our motto "No shit is too minor." I get this impression that people think it means "We have a duty to document every facet of Chris, we must know everything about Chris, if Chris takes a shit we need to document it and keep track of his bowel movements." I think that isn't the case.

First off, "no shit is too minor" is something someone just came up with one day and I thought it suited us well. It's not something I came up with or anything, but I've liked it because what I've always interpreted it as is "We shouldn't overlook things about Chris." At times, people can be like "Oh, we don't need to worry about this recording, we've looked over it before," that is that they will overlook material about Chris or not think it's important. I think the "no shit is too minor" in that as wiki editors we should dig through the content we do have and try and find new insights about Chris in it. For instance, when I first watched the The 24th Wedding Anniversary Special I didn't think much of it. I was like "Okay, Chris is rambling on and doing Animal Crossing shit, who cares?" But then I watched it another day and noticed that he talks a lot about his parents and how they met, that's some pretty significant information. It doesn't mean we have to analyze his choice of font in the video, or we need to do a Freudian analysis of his music choices, but merely we shouldn't overlook things.

Anyways, I could go on but what I think we need to do is not to overlook the little things, that's how I've interpreted, rather than "Chris has a bowel movement, we need to document it and we need to know Chris's regularity" which is how I see a lot of people interpret it as.--Champthom 05:25, 27 January 2012 (PST)

• I agree completely, and encourage you to consider getting a new motto. I think the current one brings out people's spergy side. --Old meme 06:28, 27 January 2012 (PST)
  • as i have said before, once you start leaving out details its like cancer. its all or nothing eventually. Either include everything because you never know what is or is going to be important (Elvis died on the crapper), or just dont include anything. if chris is irregular, well that sounds unimportant, but down the road that simple detail could help someone figure out something else. Logic requires detail for extrapolation of facts. more detail, more extrapolation, more facts....-~ Slimz ~-. 07:03, 27 January 2012 (PST)
  • a possible new motto would be "Just the facts" or "The devil is in the details"
  • No, cancer would be filling up the CWCki with too many pointless details. Champ's rant was all about how we DON'T need to write about every little trivial aspect of Chris's life. It's fine to leave stupid shit out, and that's what we're trying to do. And, that is also why we are having this discussion about a possible new motto. That said, I think you have some good ideas for possible alternate mottos, and I highly encourage Champ if he's reading this to consider them. Also, you have to sign all your posts, not just your first one. --Old meme 07:55, 27 January 2012 (PST)
    • Define what is 'stupid' clearly... What facts should be left out? COnjecture, that should be left out.. Opinion, that should be left out... But NO FACT no matter HOW MINISCULE should ever be left out, lest it be gone forever. The simple things, the details, the minutia, thats where the truth of Chris really lies....-~ Slimz ~-. 09:12, 7 February 2012 (PST)

Linking quotes

Ok so i was reading the PS3 article over and notices that chris is quoted saying 'I'd throw away the cure for autism' where the word autism is linked to the autism page. well on the Pixelated_PS3 page (where the video lives that the quote comes from) autism is is also linked to the word autism.. ok here is the issue, when quoting chris on a page other then the one that has the original video, should we link the quote to that page directly? i mean we seem to link all kinds of stuff to all kinds of stuff but a barely see any quotes linked back to the source of the quote. Just asking what the protocol is for that?

• We usually do link back the quotes in the article text around them or in the quote description. I don't think that there is any set in stone policy about it, but I can't really think of any instance where a quote's source has not been linked in the article somewhere. If you can though, by all means show me where. --Old meme 07:55, 27 January 2012 (PST)
• if i run across it i will rectify it, the source is linked in the citation on the page i was talking about so there is a link, Chris is obviously quoted often so im sure there are quotes on pages with no back links. i guess creating citations for quotes is the best way to go.

Megaupload and Filesharing sites

I've noticed that in quite a few articles that include things for download the link that lead to recently shut down file serving sites have been closed. Is it a priority to fix these? Granola 06:42, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Chris an violence

Chris and violence have a long relationship. He has not only threatened violence, but also responded to threats of violence. He has performed tasks under the threat of violence and requested that tasks be performed with violence as an alternative..

The point here is that anger is one thing and violence is another. Chris has enough of a relationship with different areas of violence, that i believe that it deserves an article in the Chris and series.

Violence itself should not be lumped with anger. Anger is an emotion where as violence is an act (or in many cases the threat of an act) anger deals with how chris feels toward a specific situation where as violence deals with how Chris acts. im not a great christorian but i know enough to understand that 'Chris and violence' is a subject that deserves a page on this wiki... slimz - ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ 05:31, 9 March 2012 (PST)

• First, we already have the Death Threats article, so that kind of counts. Second, Chris is pretty much incapable of violence anyway (unless he gets his hands on a gun, but why would he buy a gun when that can go into vidya?), so anger and threats are all he's going to get. While I agree that he does seem to resort to violence pretty often, I have to say that he often channels that anger into various things we already have articles on, whether it be the Curse-ye-ha-me-ha or the death threats previously mentioned. Boriki 20:42, 22 March 2012 (PDT)
  • Im not entirely convinced. The article i was thinking about is not just focused on chris DOING violence, but how he perceives violence, his bigotry regarding violence, and how he reacts to threats of violence. Basically chris is a bully, a pussy and generally has no empathy.slimz - ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ 05:01, 23 March 2012 (PDT)
    • Sounds rather pointless to me. The Chris and series in general just seems to be a way to take potshots at Chris nowadays, but they do have their place and they do cover a lot of things that would be hard to place into other articles. Chris and the law for instance I think is a page we needed to have. It could have maybe been placed into the Jerkop article, but it would have been wildly out of place. Now Chris and Violence on the other hand is something that very easily folds into articles like Death Threats and Curse-ye-ha-me-ha, or even Chris and anger. Really, if you want to go into Chris's perception of violence, most of what you'd come up with would be ninety percent speculation anyway. You can try to write up the article yourself, and if anything is salvageable and CWCki appropriate we could make it into a Chris and anger subsection, but it's hardly appropriate for its own article. --Old meme 06:38, 23 March 2012 (PDT)

A-Logging

I've been thinking, what would you all think of a page covering "A-Logging", that is thinking that Chris is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combine and deserves to be punished? I think this issue is sort of the opposite extreme of White knighting which we deal with. Now, I bring this up here because I ask - do you think we should have a formal article about it, ala the White knighting article, or perhaps we should make a policy about it to elaborate on NPOV? I think we get a lot of grief that we tend to foster A-Logs, that people will read the CWCki and think Chris is an awful person who has committed crimes against humanity (which really isn't the case). Or perhaps we should do both? My concern with an actual article on it is that A-Logging hasn't really impacted Chris trolling the same way white knighting has. A-Logs don't really fuck things up, they just make normal trolls look bad.

I think we should try to be more neutral towards Chris, critical yet fair, as I believe that ideally we should be presenting information about Chris as "This is what we know about Chris" rather than "Chris is x, y, z (and they're all bad things"). So, what do you all think? --Champthom 04:59, 29 April 2012 (PDT)