I like this site, but I feel the meaning and purpose of KYM is not being shown if we post too many entries on certain controversies on issues such as what a celebrity said or if something racist or homophobic happened. Not every controversy big or small needs to be covered by KYM. I don’t want people to think we’re some news site with a certain political agenda. This is just my constructive criticism right now. Feel free to share your thoughts.
I don’t see where you’re coming from on the “political agenda” part. While the controversies themselves do often piss me off, the purpose of KYM is to provide knowledge of the Internet “goings-on” and controversies on popular sites like Tumblr count as such. The editors simply place the info there; it’s us users that make a big deal about them in the comments and such comments do not in any way reflect the opinion of the site or the article itself.
It says right in the about section that this site covers memes and viral phenomena, though.
Controversial issues are one of the things that spread most virally so naturally they’re going to see a lot of coverage here. Even the ones that seem less significant can become bigger (not that I don’t think people should wait to make articles until they do).
Controversional topics simply get a lot of attention on the internet, as should be expected on the internet when it contains the term “controversional”. We don’t decide what we’ll document in the future, we simply follow what the masses is talking and writing about at that moment. It just so happens then that certain areas and controversies get a lot of attention.
For example Republicans were a much greater source of mock on the internet during the last elections, resulting in us having a lot more Republican-related election entries than Democrats. Does that make us having a political agenda? No, as we just follow what the internet focussed their eyes on, and they decided it was a good idea to make fun of Republicans.
We document them as Event entries, because at the moment of documentation they are big business in the media and on social media, and we stay objective throughout the process. If it gets notable (online) attention, we document it, regardless of how disgusting or controversional it may be, end of story.
Do I then think we document events too quickly? Sometimes, yes, but mostly no. But at the speed certain information gets generated on the internet, it’s sometimes better to prematurely start the entries so we can keep them up to date as more information gets released. This can be backed up then by your heavily rushed Boston Marathon Bombing entry then, Chowz, because you rushed that one extremely fast.