From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Links: Thanks for doing that. I typically don't do that stuff on the first run. When writing, I typically have several browser tabs open for my research, and I don't want to make things more complex by opening even more tabs to track down what should be linked.

Pejorative: When I first saw that, it struck me as a rather odd place to use that word. I think of "pejorative" to mean a word with negative connotations to describe something that can also be described with positive or neutral connotations. For example, one might say that "n----r" is a pejorative term for African-American. But if the thing itself is bad, it isn't pejorative to say so. So one wouldn't say that "holocaust" is a pejorative term for what the Nazis did. Since the fourth word of this article is "deceptive", it's clear where we stand.

But the real problem came when I happened to look at the Wikipedia page for clickbait. (Can't be bothered to give you a link; you can find it.) The article starts with the same six words. This set off my plagiarism alarm, of course. (The author was not one of the usual suspects.) With all the recent fighting over plagiarism and originality, I decided that that word had to go. By the way, I looked at the WP page only to check that I wasn't describing the completely wrong phenomenon. I always do my own writing. SamHB (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. I don't mind removing the "pejorative" term if there's a good reason for doing that. My problem with removing it was that it was one of the few CP links in the article.
By the way, would you please cite the sources that you used to edit this article? It would be nice if we could see the sources you worked with (I don't disbelieve anything that you wrote, but it's always nice to cite sources; also, there's CP Commandment #2). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (EDT)
I'm not sure what kind of sourcing you want. I may have misled you by my reference above to keeping "tabs open for my research". I wasn't looking for lots of things that could be cited; I was just looking at, in this case, news sites for how they use the disclaimers "sponsored content" or "paid partner content". Stuff like that. Could we have a reference to that? Well, yes, but keep in mind that pages on news websites change from one minute to the next. I could make a screenshot of such a thing, but I don't have upload rights.
But more generally, I don't think of this article as the sort of thing that needs to be filled with references the way political pages (for example) do. I was mostly saying things that, individually, are completely obvious. Everyone knows that print newspapers cost money—we don't need a screenshot showing the price on a newspaper front page. And everyone knows that running a news organization costs money for the reporters and other people. And everyone knows that advertising is the way content providers typically finance their operation. And anyone can look at a news site and see the "sponsored content" stuff. And I would hope that everyone knows that deceptive links are unethical.
There are lots of pages here at CP that aren't full of the kinds of references that are needed for the kinds of pages that you mostly write. The Liberal denial page is one that comes to mind.
Now I do want to put in some examples of clickbait that don't depend on a screenshot of something that will be gone in five minutes, but are in actual semi-permanent web pages. And there are lots of those. The example in the existing article ("Woman out of appeals ...") is a correct example, but it is terribly convoluted. I had to read a lot of it before I figured out just where the deception lies. There are much more straightforward examples out there in cyberspace.
SamHB (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2017 (EDT)