In popular culture - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

In popular culture

Re: [WikiEN-l] "How to promote...

"How to promote your company in...

Judson Dunn

7 Jul 2008 7 Jul '08

4:34 a.m.

http://xkcd.com/446/ Another funny Wikipedia related comic from Randall Munroe on xkcd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd Looks like someone is trying to make this come true also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In_popular_culture Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

Reply

Show replies by date

Oskar Sigvardsson

7 Jul 7 Jul

5:14 a.m.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Judson Dunn <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote:

http://xkcd.com/446/ Another funny Wikipedia related comic from Randall Munroe on xkcd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd Looks like someone is trying to make this come true also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In_popular_culture

There's also been some shenanigans on [[Wood]] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood&oldid=224074261#In_Popul…

Reply

Ron Ritzman

1:06 p.m.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:

There's also been some shenanigans on [[Wood]] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodoldid=224074261#In_Popular_Cu…

Which lead one editor to add an HTML comment to the wiki code asking future editors not to re-add the joke "IPC" section. Another editor removed the comments with the edit summary "An article's source is not a place for messages to other users". Ia there any consensus/policy/guideline for this view? I wanted to add it back as I have used such comments before but didn't feel like getting into an edit war over invisible wikitext on an article I don't regularly edit.

Reply

Sam Blacketer

1:33 p.m.

On 7/7/08, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Which lead one editor to add an HTML comment to the wiki code asking future editors not to re-add the joke "IPC" section. Another editor removed the comments with the edit summary "An article's source is not a place for messages to other users". Ia there any consensus/policy/guideline for this view? I wanted to add it back as I have used such comments before but didn't feel like getting into an edit war over invisible wikitext on an article I don't regularly edit.

Where on earth do people get these ideas? It's certainly appropriate to use hidden messages to dissuade editors from making a common error, or from vandalising. -- Sam Blacketer

Reply

Gwern Branwen

1:44 p.m.

On 2008.07.07 09:06:04 -0400, Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com> scribbled 0.7K characters:

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:

There's also been some shenanigans on [[Wood]] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodoldid=224074261#In_Popular_Cu…

Which lead one editor to add an HTML comment to the wiki code asking future editors not to re-add the joke "IPC" section. Another editor removed the comments with the edit summary "An article's source is not a place for messages to other users". Ia there any consensus/policy/guideline for this view? I wanted to add it back as I have used such comments before but didn't feel like getting into an edit war over invisible wikitext on an article I don't regularly edit.

I think removing comments is ridiculous. In the past, a few users have removed my comments from an article and (sometimes) put them on the talk, and it was just as silly every time. I devoutly hope that consensus is still where it was when I started: that lengthy comments sometimes belong on talk, but comments in general are fine and have many useful roles (such as the warnings you mention.) -- gwern Hillal nailbomb Ufologico DSS EO intelligence Cell bank morse supercomputer

Reply

David Gerard

2:05 p.m.

2008/7/7 Ron Ritzman <ritzman(a)gmail.com>om>:

Which lead one editor to add an HTML comment to the wiki code asking future editors not to re-add the joke "IPC" section. Another editor removed the comments with the edit summary "An article's source is not a place for messages to other users". Ia there any consensus/policy/guideline for this view? I wanted to add it back as I have used such comments before but didn't feel like getting into an edit war over invisible wikitext on an article I don't regularly edit.

God I hope there isn't. I've often left comments in the wikitext when appropriate (e.g. ""), perhaps a note on talk would be good as well. - d.

Reply

Judson Dunn

2:50 p.m.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:05 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

God I hope there isn't. I've often left comments in the wikitext when appropriate (e.g. ""), perhaps a note on talk would be good as well.

Agree, I don't see why there would be. Unless the comment text is unwieldy, or there is a *discussion* going on in the comment tags. Things like "This is not a spelling error" are by far *better* in comments than in the talk page. (what happens when that gets archived?) Assuming people are going to read the sometimes thousand-word talk page before they make an edit they think is a simple spelling mistake is ridiculous. :) Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion

Reply

James Redmond

8 Jul 8 Jul

3 a.m.

New subject: In favor of HTML comments (was Re: In popular culture)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of brief, well-placed inline HTML comments: our year and date articles used to be vandalized several times a day by newbies adding themselves (or their friends, or their enemies, or the unpopular kid at school, et al.). When we added HTML comments like "Please do not add yourself" to the end of the "Births" sections, the rate of these silly additions dropped considerably. HTML comments haven't eliminated the problem, but they've curtailed it. HTML comments are also very helpful on some project pages. On [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]], for example, there's an HTML comment on each of the "Alerts" sub- sections. These comments help newbies report all the information an admin might need to respond to vandalism. In any case, I haven't seen any community consensus against HTML comments. If anything, I've seen one in favor of them. Jim Redmond jim(a)scrubnugget.com

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkhy2EIACgkQilQRlfzHGEE+eACglLUgyQ6DD6Gbt5FLWQwAYwTo F/UAnA7ZYrv8xmphWoFVY6MhMXobuoq4 =WhKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply

Kat Walsh

3:22 a.m.

New subject: In favor of HTML comments (was Re: In popular culture)

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:00 PM, James Redmond <jim(a)scrubnugget.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of brief, well-placed inline HTML comments: our year and date articles used to be vandalized several times a day by newbies adding themselves (or their friends, or their enemies, or the unpopular kid at school, et al.). When we added HTML comments like "Please do not add yourself" to the end of the "Births" sections, the rate of these silly additions dropped considerably. HTML comments haven't eliminated the problem, but they've curtailed it. HTML comments are also very helpful on some project pages. On [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]], for example, there's an HTML comment on each of the "Alerts" sub- sections. These comments help newbies report all the information an admin might need to respond to vandalism. In any case, I haven't seen any community consensus against HTML comments. If anything, I've seen one in favor of them.

I agree... I've seen them most often used in places where the popular wisdom is wrong (and even where the error is explained later on in the article text, it doesn't stop people from "correcting" the information), and it's helpful. -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat(a)wikimedia.org * Personal: kat(a)mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

Reply

Ron Ritzman

7 Jul 7 Jul

1:11 p.m.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson

There's also been some shenanigans on [[Wood]]

Happens a lot when a particular article is mentioned in the popular media such as the Cobert Report or a music video. Perhaps it's time for a new essay "Do not disrupt Wikipedia for the sake of humor". (or would this be better as an addition to wp:point?)

Reply

5793

days inactive

5794

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

David Gerard
Gwern Branwen
James Redmond
Judson Dunn
Kat Walsh
Oskar Sigvardsson
Ron Ritzman
Sam Blacketer