Should fictional posts be allowed to stand?

September 25, 2002 11:05 AM

It's not a hoax, it's fiction. Marquis has apologized for any potential offense, and hey, it was cleverly done. Going forward, is a "fictional" post more appropriate for a blog? Does this exploit the membership for one's own purposes, however artistic? (But don't all posts do that?) Or is it a question of trust?

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
posted by onlyconnect to Etiquette/Policy at 11:05 AM (33 comments total)

sorry I deleted your last post about this, it was an accident. It's a worthy topic for discussion here.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:29 AM on September 25, 2002

So there is no MeTa graveyard in the sky!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:30 AM on September 25, 2002

No, but there is a graveyard somewhere. Matt, what's going on?
posted by yhbc at 11:33 AM on September 25, 2002

Well, all I know is it was better than 80% of the front page posts I've seen lately. But I understand this is probably more a matter of letting this set a precedent.
posted by konolia at 11:36 AM on September 25, 2002

no; it's a beautiful post. metafilter needed some well-authored absurdity.

of course, i can how this may set precedent for some really disgustingly bad news posts.

anyhow, i thought it was lovely. thanks again, marquis.



posted by fishfucker at 11:54 AM on September 25, 2002

It was a great link, attached to a great joke, and it was a pleasure to fall for it.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:56 AM on September 25, 2002

of course, i can how this may set precedent for some really disgustingly bad news posts.

Exactly. As I said in the deleted thread, it lowers the bar in a dangerous way.

It's been shown over and over again that precedent is a powerful tool here. I wish folks would be more thoughtful of it when they try something new. I'm all for innovation, but please, please think about those who will follow.
posted by frykitty at 12:01 PM on September 25, 2002

This place is too damn cerebral! Just when I think that it's all straight links and to-the-point threads, somebody has to go shake things up.

Well okay then. Fab post, marquis, even if I didn't realize it was a hoax/fiction. I think that metafilter can use a lot more posts like that, altho more clues to hoaxism/fiction would be appreciated for us less-thinking types.
posted by ashbury at 12:12 PM on September 25, 2002

i think it was a great post. it was missing the words "what if" in front of the "gorey meets python" part of the story, but that seemed implied to me. it didn't occur to me that it was true, but rather the sort of fanciful meanderings that both gorey and monty python do so well.

unrelatedly, i feel no compunction towards a standard of truth for metafilter. we're all capable of doing our own due diligence. that said, i think there are places where deliberate misleadings would be inappropriate. this wasn't one of them.
posted by judith at 12:17 PM on September 25, 2002

Holy cripes, please don't apologize! (The Python quote was a reference to being exploited, not being deleted!) Thanks for saying the thread is okay, because I wasn't sure.

What konolia said. Also, I don't think a fictional post with a real link that is of interest breaks the rules in any direct way. But I suspect that if Miguel had done this, people would be after him with pitchforks and torches.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:17 PM on September 25, 2002

It was a great thread. Just when I decide MetaFilter is going to hell in a handbasket and I might as well read Reuters, I come along and the ghost of Jorge Luis Borges has made a front page post.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 12:37 PM on September 25, 2002

It's been shown over and over again that precedent is a powerful tool here. I wish folks would be more thoughtful of it when they try something new. I'm all for innovation, but please, please think about those who will follow.


i don't know, i'd be more inclined to lay the blame with those who used such a device tactlessly, than someone who's done it so well. Marquis, as far as i'm concerned, has set a wonderful precedent -- if someone posts a poor derivative, then it's not marquis who is at fault for "starting the trend".

True: we already have many many awful posts that have been derivatives of well-loved threads (how about the "What's your favorite X?" genre) -- but i'd rather still have people making original and interesting posts that cause "moron fallout" for the next month or so, then nobody making interesting and original posts. (after all, most folks really liked the few original : "what's your favorite X post").


also, judith: word.

posted by fishfucker at 12:40 PM on September 25, 2002

It's been shown over and over again that precedent is a powerful tool here. I wish folks would be more thoughtful of it when they try something new. I'm all for innovation, but please, please think about those who will follow.


i don't know, i'd be more inclined to lay the blame with those who used such a device tactlessly, than someone who's done it so well. Marquis, as far as i'm concerned, has set a wonderful precedent -- if someone posts a poor derivative, then it's not marquis who is at fault for "starting the trend".

True: we already have many many awful posts that have been derivatives of well-loved threads (how about the "What's your favorite X?" genre) -- but i'd rather still have people making original and interesting posts that cause "moron fallout" for the next month or so, than nobody making interesting and original posts. (after all, most folks really liked the few original : "what's your favorite X post").


also, judith: word.

posted by fishfucker at 12:40 PM on September 25, 2002

After posting this particular bit of fiction in the ocean sunfish thread, I ended up feeling extraordinarily guilty (even though I had admitted to its falsehood immediately) and questioned whether it was a ban-able offense. Luckily, most seemed to receive it well or ignore it entirely.

I feel that fiction has its place on MetaFilter but, unless it's made obvious, you can probably expect some level of negative reaction.
posted by Danelope at 12:50 PM on September 25, 2002

ack. double. sorry. you'll notice, however, i hope, the second one uses "than" rather than "then", which, is rather correct, then, i hope.
posted by fishfucker at 12:58 PM on September 25, 2002

fiction in a thread isn't necessarily bad. if someone's lied, you should say so in the thread comments; and then people can draw what conclusions they may. if the fiction was more interesting than malicious, what's the harm? i say let people judge the content of a thread as they have. definitely, though, if someone's trying to lie to make money, or hurt people, that person should be punished.
posted by moz at 1:01 PM on September 25, 2002

Edward Gorey's passed on! 'E's no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile! This is an Ex-Edward Gorey!
posted by ChrisTN at 1:06 PM on September 25, 2002

The thing about fiction is, usually the audience is in on the joke. Here, we didn't have very much to go on except an autobiography that doesn't exist and the suspicion that it was all too good to be true.

If what we post is a lie -- however fun and however well-intentioned -- aren't we be obligated to divulge that information? It isn't the poor derivatives and cheap, easily seen through imitations that worry me; it's the potential for imitations that are not easily seen through and about topics a little more important than whether or not Edward Gorey met Monty Python in Tunisia.

Isn't there enough misinformation out there, and on MetaFilter, already?
posted by UnReality at 1:08 PM on September 25, 2002

Exactly.

I passed on the thread because I am not a huge Python fan.

However, I'd be pissed if I had looked into it.

I keep coming here because I trust the overall intelligence and honesty of the group more than any other group on the web, including CNN and NPR.

[quote]"unrelatedly, i feel no compunction towards a standard of truth for metafilter. we're all capable of doing our own due diligence. "[/quote]

Maybe I am in the minority, but this kind of "shitting where you eat" will go a long way to erode the things that I just mentioned.



posted by Irontom at 1:49 PM on September 25, 2002

I'm not as bothered by the "truth" angle as I am by it being a gimmick. If you strip away the fictional aspect of the post, does the content itself hold up? In this case, for me, it didn't.
posted by machaus at 1:53 PM on September 25, 2002

" I'm all for innovation, but please, please think about those who will follow."

Personally I would enjoy Metafilter much more if we were allowed to present, as fact, total fictions and outright hoaxes. I love making up facts. I love deceiving people. Try doing a Google search on "peruvian grey bear" or "giant killer penguins". Is it open season on this stuff now? We can fool people in posts and comments and call it art? Woohoo!!! This *will* be fun.

But I think for most members this would get very old very fast.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:15 PM on September 25, 2002

[D]oes the content itself hold up? In this case, for me, it didn't.

I agree, machaus; that's what it all comes down to. Personally, I found the cartoons to be absolutely delightful - funny, inspired, different, cared-for.

I appreciate those who come to my defense, and also those who took the time to explain why my post rankled them so very much. I've got a couple of things to say.

First of all, my explanation in-thread was poorly worded. I had been unpleasantly surprised by the way things had turned ("Good trick!" "Bad trick!" "He's not dead!"), and posted without really considering what I wanted to say. Consequently, my dribble about "fiction" and capital-A "Art" comes off as presumptuous, pretentious, holier-than-thou and a little absurd. These are attributes I try to decry, and I very much regret "going there" in my response.

The germ of my post was simple: I felt I had a good link. While in the process of writing it up, however ("It's Gorey meets Python..."), I grew frustrated. I didn't want to just say "Look, some neat Flash!" - the content required a sense of whimsy, and I too wanted to engage the imagination. From there, I suppose, it spiralled somewhere else - but I by no means intended to genuinely trick people. I linked to the Guardian obituary, for Tlon's sake, and cited only a picture of the word 'HOAX' as proof that he was not dead.

It worries me that some people look to MetaFilter for "intelligence and honesty", and see my post as a contradiction thereof. This place is full of lies - and the sites that are linked to are full of lies. The community's intelligence is demonstrated not by the way it reads Internet-postings as truth, but by its critical, independent thinking. MetaFilter's members identified my (absolutely absurd) fiction as just that. I, in turn, did not attempt to truly mislead. What's more, some of MetaFilter's strength comes from a different sort of intelligence - the way we play with ideas and entertain silly concepts. I, for one, would be sad to see such whimsy excised from the site; I was trying only to elicit some wonderful, strange images in peoples' heads, if but for a moment, and although some might think that self-indulgent, I was - more importantly - sharing a link of what I felt had considerable merit.
posted by Marquis at 2:41 PM on September 25, 2002

When I got to the part about Gorey's death being a hoax I immediately decided it wasn't true. I didn't think it was a lie or a hoax or anything, I just thought it was a not-even-that-unusual style of writing. Haven't you ever seen a music review that went on about "so-and-so rising from the dead"?

I think it's a completely reasonable post. It's like the satirical pieces that sometimes fool people. And for those who disagree, I think it's a bit excessive to lump something like this or other satire or really any writing that isn't intended or expected to deceive with "lying".
posted by Wood at 3:36 PM on September 25, 2002

"I had been unpleasantly surprised by the way things had turned . . ." I really liked the flash. I think the associations you made with the flash and the story you told are fairly brilliant -- a sort of A.S. Byatt Possession for the mordant comedy genre, but . . . if you didn't expect people to be tricked (which I believe), then what would surprise you about people starting to ask whether or not the post was for real? And why not say something after the first dozen people were in fact clearly tricked? (There were questions about Gorey's death, but not about any of the rest of it.)

I'm sorry if I offended you by calling it a "hoax" -- I thought your hoax link was meant to be a clue, but I see that you meant something different. I do feel that if you didn't intend to truly mislead, something could have been done sooner when it was clear that that's what was happening.

If misleading had been part of the intent, this would be like War of the Worlds. No small feat.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:08 PM on September 25, 2002

I might read Metafilter more often if there were more posts like Marquis'. And I completely agree with his take here:

It worries me that some people look to MetaFilter for "intelligence and honesty", and see my post as a contradiction thereof. This place is full of lies - and the sites that are linked to are full of lies. The community's intelligence is demonstrated not by the way it reads Internet-postings as truth, but by its critical, independent thinking.
posted by Big Fat Tycoon at 4:21 PM on September 25, 2002

[quote]"unrelatedly, i feel no compunction towards a standard of truth for metafilter. we're all capable of doing our own due diligence. "[/quote]

Maybe I am in the minority, but this kind of "shitting where you eat" will go a long way to erode the things that I just mentioned.

see, i don't see it as "shitting where you eat" at all.

here's the perfect example: earlier today we had a post about the 1895 eighth grade test. collective due diligence showed us that this was not, in fact, real. and it's not the first time something has been posted on metafilter that later turned out to be a hoax, deliberate or not. we're smart enough, individually and collectively, to figure it out.*

*admittedly, the kaycee nicole thing took us a few extra days...
posted by judith at 4:22 PM on September 25, 2002

what would surprise you about people starting to ask whether or not the post was for real?

Oh - nothing! But by the time the thread had slowed down, there was little more than the most superficial "it's a hoax/Marquis is mean/no he's not" sort of discussion. This surprised me, as I had (foolishly) thought there was some meat for a real conversation. Tough beans, I guess; I'll try harder next time.
posted by Marquis at 4:29 PM on September 25, 2002

I found the intent of the post interesting but ultimately inappropriate and "noisy." But I must say I liked the resulting thread much better than Miguel's Farky sex thread.
posted by rushmc at 6:10 PM on September 25, 2002

The difference for me is the intent. There's a big difference between 1) someone posting something they believe is "true" (the 1895 thing being an example) that later turns out not to be so; and 2) someone making something up they know isn't true (whether it's called a hoax or fiction or creativity or whatever).

As was mentioned above, precedence is important. Even if this was a great example of creative writing and really amazed everyone here, it's still a bad precedent because there will be others who feel entitled to do same kind of thing, either to be creative or to be disruptive.

One of the reasons I trust / respect the group here is that the "collective due diligence" judith mentions is so good. However, in her original post that I quoted, I thought she was talking about due diligence being required of each and every individual on each and every thread. This would require that I come to the conclusion that Mefi/MeTa is no better than some l3375pe4k bulletin board, which would violate my preconceptions about this community.
posted by Irontom at 7:16 PM on September 25, 2002

Our own mathowie created his own hoax and we all still abide his antics, don't we?
posted by readymade at 11:44 PM on September 25, 2002

There was already precedent there. It was April 1st.
posted by UnReality at 4:24 AM on September 26, 2002

Danelope: Please don't apologize for the arpado comment -- it was one of the best comments ever, and I'm glad you linked to it so I could enjoy it all over again. Whimsy is far too rare here, and you certainly weren't trying to deceive anyone. Keep it up!
posted by languagehat at 8:33 AM on September 26, 2002

In my perfect world (a strange place, filled with both whimsy and gravitas, and also an inordinate number of brainy, muscular rugby players, but I digress), Marquis would have done this in the same way Danelope did: with a small confession at the end, e.g., ("Wait, wait. This is a lie. Gorey and Python didn't meet in Tunisia, and the Flash has nothing to do with either. But it should. Enjoy."). That way people would still go into the Flash with these thoughts in their heads, but no one would feel gullible and taken for having a "trick" played on them. And the post would be, in the strictest terms, "true."

Would the resulting commentary have been about the Flash or about the post itself? Dunno. But if done this way, there shouldn't be any hoax chatter, and maybe more people would talk about the Flash, and it's would-be lineage.

My own vote is, I don't want there to be a possibility that posts on MetaFilter might be intentionally made up stories where people who read them go away thinking they're true. I can deal with spinning and posturing in the news posts, and the possibility that a link is a fraud. But this seems different. May be a matter of degree, though, as I was fine with outright satire in the posts re flooding in India and The MetaFilter Proposal without it being explicitly spelled out for me.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:48 AM on September 26, 2002