Talk:Adequacy.org

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Untitled

Please add new messages to the bottom of the page

Some might describe Adequacy as a free-er version of The Onion. They, unlike the Onion, took reader submissions openly. But they were much subtler than the Onion, for one has to be incredibly narrow to find the Onion believable, while one was never sure if the Adequacy was pulling your leg or showing you the way to eternal salvation. Furthermore the Onion rode a one-trick-pony of satirizing the writing style of newspapers and magazines in the pseudo-intellectual pop culture pinnacles of Time, Newsweek, or one of the dozens of "local" rags that were really owned by Multinational newspaper conglomerates like Gannnett, made largely of reprints off the newswire services. This pony was 'furious victorious', for generations of US kids had grown up under the cage of the money-controlled poverty of information brought about by the conglomeration of the newsmedia in the 20th century. As the internet finally opened daybreak on the souls of millions, they cheered the ravages the Onion placed on their jailkeepers as birds might cheer a cat being smashed on the road.

However this focus limited the onion, its authors unable to branch out sometimes, forced to keep churning away fake horoscopes (an idea perhaps stolen from The Bug), stat shots, or any number of other satires on US Today or the New York Times. Adequacy authors did not share this limitation. They could do anything. Some parodied public service announcements, editorials, or most especially, parodying enthusiastic web board posters, or simply writing crazy rants. A better description of Adeuquacy might be comparison with the work "A modest proposal", a satirical 18th century work that suggested eating babies: the satire of said work being often lost on many readers who from it recoil in disgust.

Recoil in disgust might be a frequent reaction among Adequacy readers, except that a much much more frequent reaction would be to take the story absolutely seriously, log on, and post several dozen paragraph-rants about how horrible the story was, how reprehensible the morals of the author, how devoid of even the most basic ability to reason, etc etc etc. This was often considered by the Adequoids to be a mark of high honor and success. I must point out, however, that many of these posts were probably fakes too, designed to illicit "oh you idiot" diatribes from people who felt superiorly "in" on the original satire (but were in fact, out on the second.) But how could one really tell? That was the fun of it. Or maybe the horror.

Theoretically one such story, about how AMD processors are a favorite of 'hackers' for their low cost: a low cost brought about by hand-manufacturer by child laborers in sweatshops, brought the wrath of the actual AMD people, as the last quote posted on adequacy.org before its total demise was something akin to "we will destroy you and put your editors in jail", signed by an AMD official.

On the other hand, that may very well have been a joke too, for one can never be sure on Adequacy what is reality and what is illusion. Often the notion of "reality" had gotten a little boring for the authors, as they frequently decided that no matter how horrible it was, just pointing that out to people would not accomplish anything. So why not twist it so oddly that people had to notice?

A few pages of adequacy can be found on 'the internet archive'. For example: http://web.archive.org/web/20010924214222/http://adequacy.org/

What's going on? This is far better than the version published.

(207.189.98.44)

My first thought was that the text had been moved from the article for some reason - but it appears it was never part of the article. So I would guess that it's been put here by mistake. You might be able to incorporate the info here into the article (without loosing anything already there that is useful). Look out for any problems of style and "point of view" - I'm too fuzzy headed to read it carefully and check it. -- sannse 23:45, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The adequacy archive, in full, is now up at www.adequacy.org

first of all, it was part of the article, if i remember correctly.

second of all, it is really poV and full of speculation, faulty logic, bias, artsy language, and everything else that makes life worth living.

third of all, the wikipedia 'editors' hate my natural style of writing. even though they have no way to track what ive edited because i do it from various computers, the style i have makes the average wikipedia editor want to throw up.

removed some outright falsehoods

In particular, the following text is not true at all:

Many respondants to Adequacy used the point by point rebuttal format for raising their objections. Adequacy responded by deleting their comments and replacing them with a "copyright violation notice" for having reproduced each line of the contested article in order to object to it.

No such thing ever happened, because the editors never, ever altered the contents of a comment. (It is possible that something of this sort may have happened to a diary or a story submission; but that's a different story.)

I don't know if that ever happened. Someone more familiar with Adequacy should duke this one out, although I suspect there'll never be a trustworthy answer to the question of whether comments were ever deleted. As for the info about localroger's article, it does belong here and I've replaced it. How is its mention self-promotion? Rhobite 03:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Scoop engine doesn't include a mechanism for editing comments. That's why Ed's modus operandi was to delete a comment (or "editorialize" it, making it invisible to non-editors), then post a "Deletion Notice" at the same place.

For the background to it, google within adequacy's archive for "war on copyright violation" and "deletion notice"

209.204.160.47 seems to be of the opinion that I'm Roger Williams, thus it would be self-promotion to link to his article. Hey, I have my own article on teh AQ that I specifically chose not to link to.

Kyz 06:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When did I ever say such a thing? I said you're promoting yourself, Mr. ICI. I can tell perfectly well who you are, and which axes you're trying to grind by mucking around with this article. --209.204.160.47 01:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rhobite:

"Kyz" is a harassing stalker. He goes around online fora, posting personal attacks on former Adequacy editors, and posting personal information about them like their names and places of employment, with full knowledge of the problems that this causes them; Adequacy editors were used to receiving death threats under their pseudonymous contact information, and Kyz apparently would like this to extend to their real-life identities. I would wager that content like "[Mr. X] spends his spare time in a drug-induced haze rather than defending Christian values" (from a recent version of this article), naming Mr. X by name, are illegal in the country in which both Mr. Kyz and the Mr. X in question live.

It is my opinion that the article by "localroger" doesn't belong here. That article does not say anything about Adequacy specifically; the author is merely using the name to promote himself by association. The author does not bother to support his argument by illustrating it with examples from Adequacy. The author paints a picture of Adequacy to suit his own personal agenda. The article does not convey any information about Adequacy, and given its author's agenda, its inclusion is a mockery of the Neutral Point of View. --209.204.160.47 01:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs 209.204.160.47, I apologise for referencing Mr Skinner's public statements regarding his drug abuse, and agree with their removal. However, his method of promoting Adequacy stories is relevant. The site did not exist in a vacuum, and its contributors used the deceitful and/or hypocritical methods stated to draw an audience. I have added to the section on localroger's article with statements about its tone and position, so that readers do not mistakenly believe the external link is itself NPOV. Despite the moral position of the author, localroger's article remains a valid summary of many Adequacy stories. If lack of examples aggrieves you, I can certainly add them.

While I am neither qualified to practice Scottish or English law, nor well-read in English libel law, I understand that libel prosecution is a civil matter, rather than "illegal" as you put it. If Mr Skinner wants to drop me a line, we can certainly arrange court dates, etc.

For the record, I have no desire to see anyone harmed, least of all Adequacy editors. Having posted thousands of comments on K5, I have occasionally mentioned editors names or their jobs at vastly disparate times. At no time have I prepared or published a list of names and addresses, which would befit the title of "harassing stalker". Kyz 14:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This stuff is amusing in the talk pages, but let's just try to stick to the facts in the article, OK? I agree with the mention of localroger's article, no matter who added it and for what purpose. Agenda means nothing as long as the information is presented fairly.

I don't know what the official policy is about naming names, but I don't think they're really necessary here, although all names in this article are already common knowledge. As someone whose last name isn't tied to his online identity, I recognize that many people don't want their real names published. Rhobite 01:14, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

This is a most disingenious answer, one that ignores the core of what I said: that this article is becoming the playground of somebody engaged in stalking and harassment. (One may arguably add difamation, too. Or whichever of "difamation" and "libel" applies here.) Not to mention that if some of the names involved are "common knowledge", it is in a considerable part because of Kyz' zeal in publishing them. Yeah, brilliant argument there.

All you're demonstrating by your reply is a willingness to tolerate somebody who, because of their previous actions outside this site, is known to be a stalker. And yet you would act like an authority, and arbitrate here? You would complain of people posting isolated "personal attacks", while tolerating systemtatic harassment? If you have any decency at all, Kyz should not have any right at all to edit this page. --209.204.160.47 16:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an authority, I'm not even an admin here. Don't count on me to do anything, I just removed an overt personal attack. Any wikipedia editor is allowed to do this. And I don't know or care much about AQ, beyond the exposure it's received on k5. If you want to question Kyz's behavior, you should register for a Wikipedia account and bring this issue up on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. Rhobite 19:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Having just read this talk section I was interested to find my name along with personal information on me in the history here. I'm not bothered about having my name here, but have no particular desire to see personal stuff about me that is irrelevant to the topic included.

But anyway, the editorial policy at Aq was simply to change any comments calling us trolls to an editorial one which only the editors could read. There was no actual deletion and certainly no post editing - after all Scoop didn't make it easy to edit comments. spiralx 14:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talking of axes to grind...

Ed keeps adding in snide remarks about Roger Williams, that keep getting edited out for irrelevancy. While I don't particularly care to get into Ed's petty arguments, is there any way of phrasing "omg localroger is a hypocrite!!!1" that it's not irrelevant to this article? Perhaps we should start a new article for Roger Williams and let Ed scrawl all over that? I don't think Roger would mind.

I'm not Ed. --209.204.160.47 03:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear 209, we know you're not Ed, sweetie. But then, it wasn't you that made the above-mentioned changes; it was edslocomb.net (216.254.50.6). Do try and keep up. Kyz 11:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

comparison with The Onion

I removed this text from the article:

The success of The Onion has been attributed to the money-controlled poverty of information brought about by the conglomeration of the news media in the 20th century.

I don't think unsupported speculation like this belongs in an encyclopedia. Neilc 30 June 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Shutdown

Why was Adequacy shut down? (and paticulary why on September 11?)

You have been trolled 24.85.197.194 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why was it shut down? --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 04:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder that too, but it seems to me that they chose that date intentionally in a trollish way when they were done with it and wanted to go out on a high note. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The site was featured on TechTV's The Screen Savers show, I've got a 14MB video file here of the segment. The computer hacker story originally had 9000+ comments when it crashed and there are plenty of sites still referencing adequacy.org today as a Google search which should show it was notable... or perhaps notorious is a better term. spiralx 11:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the article to establish notability, citing reliable sources. Thank you. -- Perfecto 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might try the Wayback Machine to get a feel for this defunct website.--Ancheta Wis 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Are there any reliable sources that have written about this website? Wickethewok 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't seem to be. I tried prodding this once, but I guess it got removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augmenting the content

Okay, in response for the call for deletion, I've done some work on this article, primarily in the form of a new section discussing the notable stories. I still have plenty of work to do, but this is a start. I'm still trying to track down reliable reference information about the television appearances (I've got an MPEG of the Screen Savers episode that spiralx mentions above, but there will be obvious copyright issues with that). I'm hoping that the information that I've added will help make this article meet WP:WEB and WP:V. Any and all comments are appreciated.

nice, remove all information about the end of adequacy

uhm, they did post a thing claiming the people from AMD had said they would crush them. thats what was on the page. whether it was true or not, who knows. but eliminating this from the article? thats just sad.

"Lunix"

I am also not a fan of the SA Goons, and I'd love for Adequacy to be able to take credit for "Lunix", but the parenthetical removed by Action Jackson IV is, in fact, correct. Adequacy did not go online until July of 2001. The archive of Jeff K.'s page on SA has references to "Lunix" as far back as August of 2000. [1] Seventypercent 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Adequacy.org Logo.jpg

Image:Adequacy.org Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adequacy.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]