Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Sorry, Wil

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 02, 2001
We really upset Wil's feelings.

No shit comments about him here. I'm an editor and I will just delete them.

He's a person with a skill trying to get into the industry hard core. He has two children and a wife and works his ass off. How would you like to sit by the phone waiting for work?

There is a difference between being funny and being inhuman to a real person. How would you like it if somebody did it to you?


More diaries by perdida
Me the crack whore.
Penis Cheese
Hi Catfish!
Hey Nobby
worthy link
I don't like the OSM story on the front page.
This is a message for anyone in CLEVELAND.
Got a great scoop
I try to get this site a celebrity interview because I give a shit about it. He liked the questions and thought they were funny, and was funny back. He, and I, overestimated the maturity of people on this site.

I won't do interviews with people like that over here again, I don't think. Wil is a SAG board member, that was a USEFUL contact which is now fucked for any future research I may do. I won't be using my good contacts over here again.

Users, what do you want this site to be? If you want the same stupid joke over and over, go to Geekizoid. You aren't wanted here.


My dear lost one: (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by RobotSlave on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 08:03:55 PM PST
The adequacy is not a democracy. So when you say "We really upset Wil's feelings," then by "we" you mean "we, the editors."

You don't want hurtful comments? That's reasonable. It's your site. But then why didn't you delete the hurtful comments that were posted in response to the interview?

If you want this to be a site where celebrity interviews are taken seriously and accorded a degree of respect by the users, then you and your fellow editors are going to have to completely rethink the tenor of the stuff that you put on the front page. That's what determines what sort of users you're going to get, after all.

If you want the site to really reflect the desires of its users, then open up the queue and be done with it.

And if you want the site to remain largely as it is, only a little better suited to your particular journalistic interests, then you're going to have to take responsibility for failing to use your Editorial Powers appropriately, learn from the experience, and move on.

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Never deleted comments much (none / 0) (#2)
by perdida on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 08:35:58 PM PST
and the stuff on the wil article couldnt really be considered trolling.. It would be hard to know what to delete.

I guess that posting that diary there is a form of "doing something." I dont want to change the front page content either. When there's a real person involved, people who want the site to prosper should think about what they post a bit.

Next time we do an interview, though, I will delete stuff that I think will cause the interviewee to say negative things about us in his/her own forum. At least 'till we are a little bigger and more powerful.

This is what democracy looks like

Well, guess what? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by FreemoreJohnson on Fri Nov 2nd, 2001 at 08:53:17 PM PST
Wil's interview was funny. But it was also sexist. So is it that suprising that someone was going to comment on it?

As is mentioned in the mission statement, this is a place for controversy. I understand having crappy days, and being depressed, believe me. However, you have to take bulletin boards with a grain of salt... Inevitably, some people are not going to get it.

Sorry if you were offended Wil, personally I thought the interview was hilarious. And, I don't think you are a sexist. I don't have an opinion on that. But, some of the jokes were. But, they were also funny. Life is not black and white.

Could you repeat the question? (3.00 / 2) (#6)
by tkatchev on Sat Nov 3rd, 2001 at 04:31:17 AM PST
Can someone explain to my why the fuck should I care?

Is there something important about this "Wil" person? (Whom I have never heard of, and don't really want to.)

Peace and much love...

To quote "Banditos" by the Refreshments (none / 0) (#14)
by seventypercent on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 12:11:33 AM PST
"Everybody knows .. that the world is full of stupid people .."

I love, but I often get the feeling that our intended target audience is the Internet as it existed five years ago, not as it exists today.

People have a difficult time "getting it" these days, methinks.

Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

Five? (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 02:32:02 AM PST
If only you had known the network twelve years ago, when it was in its prime. The inter-netly web-world never needed protocols beyond smtp, ftp, and nntp, in that order. Everything from "gopher" to the present has been a debasement of an otherwise worthy social experiment.

12? (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 03:53:30 AM PST
Twenty five years ago, we didn't need protocols at all! You couldn't reach very many people on the net then, though, but the experience was way more personal than it is nowadays.

How to more directly reach your target audience. (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 04:02:17 AM PST
You haven't really been direct enough, and you should probably confer with your marketing department about this.

In order to accurately target the netizens of 1996, you should probably spend more time bemoaning all the aol users who are invading the net these days. Also, if anyone admits to having an aol account, you should deride them, and call their intelligence into question. These steps should bring everyone who was on usenet in '96 to the site in a wet, nostalgic rush.

Your post was a step in the right direction, but you need to mention aol directly.

Wow (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 03:44:54 AM PST
So Alan Cox and Donald Knuth aren't real people?

Learn something new everyday.

exactly... (none / 0) (#22)
by error27 on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 10:39:56 AM PST
You people here seem to forget that communists have feelings too.

I can't believe you guys are such pricks.

And you even have the audacity to call yourselves "news for adults." You should change the name to "news for little wankers."

You people make me sick.

Condolences (none / 0) (#23)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 11:37:42 PM PST
I'm given to understand that both you and Elby take this site and its mission seriously. From the first moment I started reading, I wasn't so sure. Various posts, articles and viewpoints expressed helped to cement that feeling. I mean, I understand there are some very extreme and, dare I say it, controversial opinions. By and large, people believe what they say. And yet...

I've been coming to Adequacy for a while, a fact which has not made some people happy. I keep coming back because I'm more amused than anything else. I don't take Adequacy seriously, and I'm curious to watch the cycle of new readers who come in, can't believe their eyes, post as such, and realize they've been t****ed. Some of them go away. Others stick around and do the same thing I do. It happened to me, now I'm watching it happen to others.

Elby, Perdida, I'm very sorry. Adequacy is not a serious site. You probably intend for it to be so, but the majority of your vocal editors and especially your readers aren't cooperating. The interview with Wil Wheaton is just one example.

A troll's true colors.

What the hell (none / 0) (#24)
by perdida on Thu Nov 8th, 2001 at 04:38:02 PM PST
does serious mean, anyway?

Adequacy is an interesting site, and it's not a copy of another site, and who knows what it will turn into?

I'm serious about it -- I'll get interviews for it whenever I can, and try to be creative about what I put here.

I sure hope the editors don't agree on everything. That is what makes sites -- like, say, Slashdot -- suck.

As I often say, the way to alter Adequacy's content is to produce some.


This is what democracy looks like


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to