Comments:YouTube user gets instant fame for video defending Britney Spears

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Bah. Not news. Just because MSNBC has an article on it, doesn't mean Wikinews should, we can actually have better standards. 89.27.17.162 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just MSNBC, but over 30 other news sources. Matt | ^userpage | ^contribs 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Extremely unimportant and the world would do better not knowing that such an event even happened.

Agree, but it does meet the Wikinews:Style guide standards. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

<tongueincheek>Those earthquakes happened because we didn't leave Britney alone!</tongueincheek>. I don't think it deserves an article on WP but it deserves a story, sadly. TheCustomOfLife 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironic

Well done. By complaining about how the media explot Britney, you have yourself acieved fame by using her name on Youtube.

Respect...

This was first headline I clicked on RSS Feed. Good story. -Edbrown05 09:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Matt | ^userpage | ^contribs 09:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah

What a steaming pile of crap! Some attention whore on youtube gets zillions of hits and we have a story on it?

Why didn't someone do a story on this YouTube clip when it came out? A damn sight more entertaining than some idiot with a bit makeup and a sheet bitching about people criticising the worst comeback effort since I don't know what. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are not interested, don't read it. -Edbrown05 09:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews had a decent article, then administrators realized that OMG, this is news, then it never had anything to do with news. -Edbrown05 10:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This kind of self-generating news in my opinion only undermines Wikinews as a serious news outlet. The only reason this is news is that this is news. (If there's any news here, it's the phenomenon of how this kind of stuff gets perceived as news, but the article is written as if the YouTube clip somehow were news.) 89.27.17.162 11:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not reading it isn't an option. Personally I'd just like to replace it with "Here is a sad and pathetic video. Millions of people have watched this and emailed a link to their friends saying 'here is a sad and pathetic video'." --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You actually watched the video? If the article was allowed to pass as it was orginally reported, there would be no need to load the video (and be disqusted). That was clear from the beginning, sadly, it did not end that way. The existing article is so devoid of reporting that it invites the interested reader to pursue what is not worth pursuing... because its original content was ripped out. -Edbrown05 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking is a good thing. Is there any trust around here? -Edbrown05 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, he sure enjoys her music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.18.197 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)