--- Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
> In the interests of adding to instruction creep :-), we ought to have
> some ground rules for April Fool's, maybe make a contest out of it,
> for instance the winner is the hoax that goes the longest without
> being detected. For instance:
This is the type of utter and complete nonsense that I'm talking about. How
does this help us create the encyclopedia? How can you justify *encouraging*
people to create bogus entries?
Wikipedia is NOT A PLAYTHING! This project is not here for your enjoyment - we
are here to create an encyclopedia. If you happen to have fun while helping us
toward *that goal*, then great. If not, then let others work and be free of
this type of distracting nonsense.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I love it!
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
> For immediate release:
>
> Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, was de-sysopped today by a coalition
> of rogue admins (the Troll League) and his account blocked indefinitely.
> The new GodKing, Rickk, immediately reinstated
>
> RK weds Helga! The long-awaited wedding will feature mav147 wearing the
> traditional Muslim headscraf (click here for picture).
>
> Kim Jong-Il brings peace to Palestine. The leader of the world's
> remaining Hermit Kingdom outlawed both Judaism and Islam throughout the
> Middle East, replacing all forms of religious worship with the playing
> of old Beatles records.
>
> (I was saving these, but ... )
>
> Uncle Ed
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
wrote:
> Daniel Mayer said:
> > --- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
> wrote:
> >> You're being unreasonable by demanding that a
> tradition cannot apply
> >> to Wikipedia unless it also applies to "respected
> encyclopedias."
> >> There are no encyclopedias like Wikipedia.
> Britannica and Encarta
> >> don't change from one day to the next.
> >
> > You are the one that said this was a tradition. I
> called you on that.
>
> Clearly you misunderstood me. April Fools is a
> longstanding tradition.
> The fact that "respected encyclopedias" do not have
> the opportunity to
> indulge in it is neither here nor there.
> [...]
Britannica is online. Does their online version
indulge in foolishness?
> > That is not an article. If I find it or any other
> hoax in the article
> > namespace, then I'll delete it on sight (might
> move it to BJAODN).
> >
>
> Then the joke is on you. Lighten up.
Fooling our readers is not "lightening up", it's
perpetrating a hoax on them.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
> April fools jokes are traditional.
And what evidence do you have that respected encyclopedias have done this? I
see no tradition there but please prove me wrong. Given the controversial
nature of our reliability, this stunt will likely harm us more than it is
worth.
Again I defer to Jimbo.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Viajero <viajero(a)quilombo.nl> wrote:
> > Although I realize this isn't the proper channel for doing so, I'd like
> > to nominate the following for Featured Article this coming Friday:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/European_toilet_paper_holder
>
> That is not a featured article. In fact it is not even an article - it is a
> hoax. It will be removed as would any other sneaky vandalism masquerading as
> valid content.
Equally, if there is a consensus that the hoax should go ahead, it will be
restored.
-- Matt
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> A few people have hoped that I would weigh in with an opinion.
>
> I'm torn. I think it's really fun, but we're also a very serious
> project. So I gave it some thought and I have this idea...
>
> Just for fun, why don't we have a game on Friday to create an
> alternative main page, linked from the main page? "Click here to see
> our April Fool's Page."
I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but it's unfortunate, because the sine
qua non of April Fool's Day is hoax, not just spoof. This would be like
explicitly inviting someone to their own surprise birthday party -- it's just
missing the point. I'd heartily support a hoax, but I would find a watered-down
"happy fun page" to be just embarrassing.
Anyway, one thing I've become convinced of: it's certainly not worth all this
debate!
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Lots of us want let loose one day a year and figure a few jokes will
boost morale enough to pay for the clean-up time.
A few of us think April Fools should be more subtle: you score points by
how broad a hint you can give right at the start, while STILL hooking
the unwary.
No one wants a long-term hit on our credibility.
Some feel it's inevitable and just wonder how best to deal with it.
A few think, what's the big deal?
Uncle Ed <-- slightly miffed that his well-laid plans are now moot
--- Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Obviously not. This is the only encyclopedia in which it's possible for a
> random editor to create an article with the name "Daniel Mayer needs to
> remember that this is a Wiki". I don't know how long you expect to get
> away with this odd pretense that Wikipedia is like other encyclopedias.
It is more up to date and has a great deal more content. It also has a much
better hypertext format (lot's of links esp) and IMO, its articles simply looks
a lot nicer and are easier to use. Other than that, to the reader, it is pretty
much like any other encyclopedia - a place to get quick facts on topics.
However, it's reliability has also been questioned due to the way it is
created. Making it fun to purposely deceive readers does not help either that
perception or the kernel of truth behind it.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Viajero wrote:
>
> > Phil Sandifer a.k.a. Snowspinner wrote:
> >
> > > A lot of people still see us as Fox News.
> >
> > Does anyone else find this a deeply disturbing suggestion? I for one
> > would disassociate myself from this undertaking sooner rather than
> > later if I thought this assertion was true. Can Mr Sandifer cite any
> > evidence to support this exceedingly provocative statement?
>
> Did Wikinews plan to run a story about such a merger for April 1? :-)
Now that would be funny. :)
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- Seth Ilys <seth.ilys(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There are several examples of this in [[nihilartikel]].
I didn�t see any examples of respected encyclopedias doing this. I did notice
this:
�It is not always simple to recognize a Nihilartikel. It is especially
difficult when the same fictitious entry is reprinted and adapted by multiple
reference works. In such cases, the multiple sources serve to bolster the
entry's authenticity, so that many come to believe that they are reading a
factual article.�
This is certainly not something we should be encouraging.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/