# Linked from a Cracked article **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 11, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112 "2012-01-11T00:57:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/1 "2012-01-11T00:57:54Z")
I noticed a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=332652) from 2005 was linked to in a Cracked article: [8 Bad Drivers Nobody Complains About - Part 2](http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-bad-drivers-nobody-complains-about-part-2_p2/). It’s in the #1 section, and curiously the author bunches a bunch of posts from different Dopers in that thread together into one quote to make it seem like a single person being quoted in the article. I’m not sure what the fair use issue here is if there is one. If not, then…hey cool! We were linked from a Cracked article! ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/2 "2012-01-11T02:07:06Z")
The Cracked link does not work. ---
**Author:** ![cardinal\_fang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal_fang/32/15316_2.png) [@cardinal\_fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cardinal_fang)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/3 "2012-01-11T02:25:50Z")
[Fixed](http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-bad-drivers-nobody-complains-about-part-2_p2/). ---
**Author:** ![Library\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cab0a1/32.png) [@Library\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Library_Boy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/4 "2012-01-11T02:28:33Z")
Working link: [http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-bad-drivers-nobody-complains-about-part-2\_p2/](http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-bad-drivers-nobody-complains-about-part-2_p2/) ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/5 "2012-01-11T02:28:47Z")
Ah, thanks. I know one of the guys who writes these Cracked pieces, but this is not him. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/6 "2012-01-11T05:12:08Z")
Many of the Cracked articles are user-contributed, as with Wikipedia. You simply tell them you’d like to contribute, fill in a short application, give them a couple of samples and bingo, you’re on the user-contributor list. You then submit stuff and if it meets a certain standard (not particularly high) they run it. This one clearly wasn’t vetted properly. ---
**Author:** ![Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed655f/32.png) [@Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crown_Prince_of_Irony)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/7 "2012-01-11T05:36:34Z")
The link from Cracked to the SDMB thread was to the archive, and I think what happened is they copied the text right from the archive, where formatting tags are stripped out. Thus a quote simply looks like it’s part of the original. This is how it appeared in the original thread: > [@yerba buena](#): > > [Quote=dnooman] > > I usually get in front of the mook and leave my turn signal on (the same one they’ve left on). After a bout 40 seconds they think “look at that idiot, he left his turn signal…” Theirs goes off, then mine does. They know they were naughty. I feel vindicated. I did this once, but in a far more annoying fashion. (I was driving from MA to IL and got bored, okay?) The offender was in the middle lane of a three-lane highway. I passed on the left, flipped on my left turn signal, and merged right. Leaving my turn signal on for several seconds, I observed he didn’t get the hint, so I merged right again (still with my left blinker on) and slowed down so he could pass me. He passed and made no indication of having noticed in the slightest. I then pulled up behind him and repeated the entire scenario. Still no response. I passed him for a third time, and then got bored, and drove off, my left signal (and his) still visible for miles on the straightways of Ohio. > [@](#): > > But it’s usually the less perceptive ones that do this! Too true. [/quote] What’s interesting is that when they quoted **yerba buena** from the archive, the Cracked author took out the last quote (“But it’s usually…”), but left everything else in. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/8 "2012-01-11T13:16:02Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Many of the Cracked articles are user-contributed, as with Wikipedia. You simply tell them you’d like to contribute, fill in a short application, give them a couple of samples and bingo, you’re on the user-contributor list. You then submit stuff and if it meets a certain standard (not particularly high) they run it. This one clearly wasn’t vetted properly. Christina H may have gotten her start that way (I don’t know her history.), but she is a regular contributor, to the point that she actually has a hatedom. Clicking on her name at the top of the article reveals she’s been contributing since 2007. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/9 "2012-01-11T16:33:14Z")
I’ve reported this to Ed. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linked-from-a-cracked-article/609112/10 "2012-01-12T14:57:15Z")
Offhand I’d say this is fair use. It’s an excerpt from a longer thread (although it does quote most of one post), it links to the source, and it’s being used to make a point. It doesn’t portray the poster in a favorable light, but fair use doesn’t require that. So I’m inclined to let it alone.