Anti-Jock Movement

[Ray]

I didn't know there was a formal movement but apparently the backlash against sports is widespread and increasing. Wikipedia defines it as "... marginalized youth [who] constructed and sustained anti�jock websites, where they articulated 'dissatisfaction with and anger toward institutions that uncritically adulate hyper�masculine/high contact sport culture..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-jock_Movement


Now all we need is GUNS. ; )

[Millhouse]

Very interesting. I do not have a wikipedia account, but if someone does they should go to that page and add sportsuck.org under the external links. I welcome more anti sports folks here, and I welcome more pro sports folks here.

[Ray]

Anybody can have a wikipedia account. You just register --like you do here. And it doesn't even require an e-mail address to receive a password with. I spent about an hour yesterday adding what I thought were appropriate links and references to that page and someone named osiris deleted it all!

I don't know why. Maybe their definition of an anti-sports movement is ONLY what the cited author states. Which is a pretty narrow definition in my opinion.

I added a reference about the social networking sites, MySPace and FaceBook and their growing anti-jock themed groups and that was deleted too! &^%$#@!

[Indurrago]

Thanks for posting this Ray. The links of the page are also interesting as well. It seems we fit the 2nd category as a personal website according to Professor Wilson than what the article said. Oh nice, we're in wikipedia. Somebody likes or doesn't like us(I'm happy either way).

[Millhouse]

Anybody can have a wikipedia account. You just register --like you do here. And it doesn't even require an e-mail address to receive a password with. I spent about an hour yesterday adding what I thought were appropriate links and references to that page and someone named osiris deleted it all!

I don't know why. Maybe their definition of an anti-sports movement is ONLY what the cited author states. Which is a pretty narrow definition in my opinion.

I added a reference about the social networking sites, MySPace and FaceBook and their growing anti-jock themed groups and that was deleted too! &^%$#@!

Ray,

Sounds like this osiris character is some standalone douchebag that doesn't want you touching his precious work. Some people are like that, on wikipedia and on imdb.com. They think they own the right to one specific title or page, and will go in and undo everything you did. I'll see what I can do by creating my own wiki account. The definition of 'anti-sports movement' is 'loosely based', so it's not like one person can keep us willfully from making our site's name known on the same page.

[Ray]

You're welcome, Indurrago. And thanks for the back-up, Millhouse. I kind of thought the same thing but I wasn't sure if I was right or not.

[CG1]

I'm the writer of the Wikipedia entry for "Anti-jock movement." I registered so i could respond to some of the concerns mentioned in the previous postings.

First, this site (Sportssuck.com) is actually mentioned, and linked to, in the Wikipedia article. I cited it as the "International I Hate Sports Club." I decided to use this title because thats the name given in the first page of the site, and because I was concerned that using a title with the word "Suck" in it would cause the wikipedia editors to scrutinize it too much, which could lead to their deleting the site from the article, or even to their deleting the whole article.

Second, I dont know who osiris is, or who it was who deleted anyone's edits of the article. It wasn't me. After making the original article, and making a few minor edits, I pretty much left the article alone. There is, however, any number of people involved with Wikipedia who could have taken it upon themselves to edit and re-edit articles. Sometimes, this is the result of their following some Wikipedia policy on articles, and other times its just their following their own opinion either as to how an article should be done or as to what the content of an article should be. In any case, I didnt do it. (However, let me acknowledge that at least one of the re-edits was justified. Someone who edited the text in the article also edited the text included in a quote which I cited from another article. Editing a wikipedia article is fine, as wikipedia is intended to be an open encyclopedia for people to contribute to. But editing a quote turns it into a misquote, which then makes the article innacurate on that point. Not good.)

Third, I note that there is concern that the article defines the "Anti-jock movement" too narrowly. There is a reason for the narrow definition. Wikipedia has certain standards for their articles which, if not met, could cause one of their editors to delete the entire article. One of those requirements is that the subject of an article needs to "notable." This means that it has to be about something that is worth mentioning, and can be substatiated. This requirement keeps people from forming a band with their friends in their garage one day, and then going onto Wikipedia and creating an article about it the next day, without that band ever having played a single gig or having otherwise existed outside of someone's garage. In order to substantiate "notability," I had to cite some reputable source that references what the article is about, and mentions why its worth noting. Thankfully, there just happened to be a very good article by a college professor which referred to the "anti-jock movement," ("The â??Anti-Jockâ? Movement: Reconsidering Youth Resistance, Masculinity and Sport Culture in the Age of the Internet", by Professor Brian Wilson in the 2002 Sociology of Sport Journal), which was then quoted in several other articles and books. Referencing these articles and books satisfied Wikipedia's requirement for notability. However, to avoid being deleted, I also intentionally adhered closely to the article's definition of the "anti-jock movement," and indeed, cited their definition.

I think this is an important point. I wrote the article because I have the same views expressed by the sites mentioned in those articles. But to keep the article in existence is needs to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. One of those requirements is notability, and another one is that they would prefer articles to be as unbiased as possible. I felt that having an article which recognizes the exitence of the anti-jock movement (a movement of people who are motivated to oppose sports excesses), and which gives people access (via the links) to more information, is worthwhile enough to work hard to make the article fit into all the rules of Wikipedia. In carefully crafting the article, and then editing it to better adhere to these requirements, the article survived a few efforts by some of the editors to delete it. (One of those efforts was on the basis of "notability," which I defeated by pointing to those articles I mentioned. I also added links to and from other Wikipedia articles so that my article wouldn't be what they call an "orphan article.") Anyway, I think that all this effort was worth it, because now a major online resource recognizes the anti-jock movement, and Googling "anti-jock movement" or "anti-jock" brings it up as one of the top results. Getting people to be aware of a movement of people, online or elsewhere, who oppose sports excesses, is part of getting the movement to succeed. And getting them to a location (the Wikipedia article) which then gives them access to further information (these anti-jock sites) is part of informing the public.

One last suggestion: Wikipedia does indeed allow people to register and to edit articles. Thats whats so great about Wikipedia. But please be careful with your editing. I've seen perfectly good articles get messed up by people who, with good intentions, tried to "help" the article by editing it to include some point of view they thought would help. I've seen one edit turn into "edit wars" with other people, which in the end turned the article into a mess. Right now, the "Anti-jock movement" article is conicise, fairly informative, and lead people to several anti-jock sites, and this article places very high in google searches. Please be careful that any edits are carefully considered.

[Ray]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand that you have to stick to certain guidelines in order not to have your article deleted and that's OK. The most important thing is that there is recognition of another point of view (ours). Thanks for writing the article and for linking to us. We need all the help we can get!

Ray