Talk:Jimmy Carr/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Awards, text

Re the below (which was rejected) - the 1st line I just reworded slightly (the poll name was slightly wrong) and moved down the page (from stand up) and the 2nd one I added new. Any thoughts, please?

In 2003, he was listed in the Observer as one of the 50 funniest acts in British comedy. In 2007, a poll on the Channel 4 website for 100 Funniest Stand-Ups of All Time, Jimmy Carr was 12th.

In 2022 TicketSource.co.uk looked at comedians, from both sides of the pond, to try and decide who was the most influential. They ranked them for estimated net worth, number of TV specials, Twitter (X) and Instagram followers, the cheapest ticket for their shows, number of Google searches and the average number of YouTube views their content gets. In the UK Jimmy Carr ranked number 1, just above Ricky Gervais (2^nd) and Jack Whitehall (3^rd).

Citation - https://www.ticketsource.co.uk/blog/the-worlds-most-influential-comedians SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, we should not be using informal phrases like 'the pond' - this is an encyclopaedia, are articles should be written in formal standard English. As for whether the stuff about ticketsource should be included, ask yourself whether the source is reliable. It is on ticketsource's blog. It has no byline. There is no indication that there was any editorial control, independent oversight or fact checking. Ticketsource is a commercial organisation that sells tickets for events; it is not any kind of authority about who is and is not 'influential'. YMMV, but that source looks to me like a bit of clickbait that was thrown together on the back of an envelope by an office intern who knows how to use Google, and should not be used to support any assertion in any article about any subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That is fine - that is the kind of direct feedback I'm looking for. I've written web copy (work and personal) for years and years but different industries /platforms have different language and I'm trying to settle mine. Thank you.

Re Ticketsource as a story (playing Devil's Advocate) - the Sunday Times Rich List is on Wikipedia and this is the comedy version of that (it caused a kerfuffle among comedians who are sensitive bunch at times and highly competitive). From a comedy perspective I'm not sure it's any less valid than the awards voted for by the public. For every poll that votes 1 comic as their favourite - another one will hate them.

Personally I don't think Rich Lists should be validated in the press or anywhere else as they are also clickbait and guesswork. I know people who know people and many of the figures are way, WAY out - and yet that list has a page all of its own.

PS - had to look up YMMV. And kinda wish there were emojis on these discussion boards so I could show that I'm not having a rant here. SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Sunday Times Rich List has far more traction/ general respect than does a ticketSource.co.uk blog. That's why it has a whole series of long-standing Wikipedia articles. You might have to spend more time explaining how the comedy result was calculated than there is value in giving the "result". It's much easier to count dollars than it is to count comedy? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is nothing like the Sunday Times Rich List, except in the sense that they are both lists. One of them is written by a widely respected news organisation with a reputation for fact-checking, while the other is written by god-knows-whom for the blog section of a ticket vendor's website; they are not comparable. It would only be worth mentioning if independent secondary sources picked up on the story, for example if the BBC or the Guardian ran an article about the Ticketsource list - that would be an indicator that people other than ticketsource took their poll seriously. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we do need emojis! I mean, I nearly completely missed the sarcasm in Girth Summit's comment at first glance! "a widely respected news organisation with a reputation for fact-checking", for an organ of Rupert Murdoch! Nicely played, GS, nicely played! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say the reputation was deserved... Seriously though, The Times and the Sunday Times are, according to WP:RSP, considered 'generally reliable', and have been discussed often enough to warrant their own shortcut: WP:THETIMES. I don't believe that ticketsource enjoys the same level of standing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it does have more traction (and my tongue was firmly in my cheek) - but I still think it's a load of old... SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I was glad I wasn't drinking at the time or it would have been a keyboard needing a deep clean. SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

BBC or Guardian....those bastions of truth and accuracy! (i need emojis....).

I think that Ticketsource thing has a value in, some ways, of showing how our culture changes. The comedians on there understand how to use Social Media (and Netflix) and are trailblazing how to build a huge career. There are marketing businesses that study Kevin Hart's methods, for example. SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As Girth Summit says, we are stuck with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If your political scruples don't allow you countenance such sources, WP may not be the place for you, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you got there, Martin. I didn't mention politics and was merely carrying on the joke from User:Bastun . Perhaps it's not the place for him either???

My slant is very much that the Guardian LOVES Stewart Lee and very few other comedians. Some of the comedy articles on there have been shockingly bad. But from the perspective of FACTS, not politics.

But my main problem with using those papers for sources is that they are behind paywalls.

Which I suppose is another question - where there is a choice, is it better to choose sources that are open? SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The main consideration should always be is the source reliable. Assuming it is, then it's somewhat better to have a source that isn't behind a paywall, but that's very much a secondary consideration. Sources don't even have to be online; books, old (pre-internet) magazines, etc., are all still very much reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for facts and accuracy so I would always hesitate to use a source that I haven't been able to read and so many of our papers are behind paywalls now. It's not like you can trust the clickbait-ified links either.

I am making a note of all the advice you are giving me, btw. But it's month end and i really should get my head back into a spreadsheet! :o)) SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

e/c How did I get there, Secret? Possibly because, yes, you need emojis. (They are available if you search...) I always try to use accessible free sources, but officially WP seems to have no preference - we even still use those archaic sources called ye olde printed book. But by all means, go ahead and root out any Grauniad mis-truths over at Stewart Lee. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Are they? Will have to look - but supposed to be doing some admin.

I think to bore on about the original topic (because i thought about it on a walk) - I don't "like" the Rich List because they look at income and then pretty much make a guess (I know it's a bit more involved than that). But with comedians / singers etc., they look at how many gigs they have done and what the ticket prices are and work out what they think the person has earned. But they cannot know for certain what they are worth as they don't know how much they have spent / lost in bad investments / given away etc. And I doubt anyone corrects them.

So they pretty much do the same thing as TicketSource. Data mine publicly available information and publish an opinion, dressed up as facts. IMHO. :o) SecretSquirrel9 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)