I agree with Pete's point - I'd very much like to avoid the major fight which seems brewing over this (quite frankly, I regret ever taking this to a poll in the first place)
After seeing what some people have said WRT other major media orgainzations doing April Fools hoaxes (the NYT and BBC) I've softened my position a bit. I'll go along with it if Mav does -- I'm still wary of putting a hoax article up, but as long as it is subtly marked as such, I'm OK with it (someone suggested putting it up as 'Today's featured [[nihilartikle]]")
I'd also like to hear Jimbo weigh in on this.
--Mark
Isn't there a non-hoax version in the main article space now following the hoax' discovery which resulted in the Signpost article?
Mgm
"csherlock-4JpCh0KsSjUQrrorzV6ljw@public" == csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock-4JpCh0KsSjUQrrorzV6ljw@public.gmane.org writes:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Isn't there a non-hoax version in the main article space now following the hoax' discovery which resulted in the Signpost article? Mgm
I don't believe so... if there is will someone speedy it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_holder
Why should that be deleted?
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini@comcast.net) [050330 04:33]:
After seeing what some people have said WRT other major media orgainzations doing April Fools hoaxes (the NYT and BBC) I've softened my position a bit. I'll go along with it if Mav does -- I'm still wary of putting a hoax article up, but as long as it is subtly marked as such, I'm OK with it (someone suggested putting it up as 'Today's featured [[nihilartikle]]")
That would be perfect! Don't forget to make the previous article links clear indicators: [[Spaghetti tree]] - [[Hitler Diaries]] - [[Fur-bearing trout]]. The archive link should go to BJAODN.
- d.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:32:27 -0500, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
After seeing what some people have said WRT other major media orgainzations doing April Fools hoaxes (the NYT and BBC) I've softened my position a bit. I'll go along with it if Mav does -- I'm still wary of putting a hoax article up, but as long as it is subtly marked as such, I'm OK with it (someone suggested putting it up as 'Today's featured [[nihilartikle]]")
Seems the consensus on Talk:FAC is to have the European Toilet Paper Holder be the April 1 article. Personally, the idea of planned disinformation in Wikipedia gives me the creeps (I'm with Mav and Raul), but if it's time limited, it could be tolerated.
HOWEVER, I would beg folks not to make it "subtly marked" but rather *obviously marked* at the end.
An April Fools joke is only fun when you can blame the reader for missing an obvious doozie that gives it away. Right now, it does not have such a kicker or punchline to let people in on the secret. If we do not, it would amount to devious and malicious intent, which would do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation.
As an aside, the EPTH article takes way too long to get to the joke.
{{spoiler}} Other media outlets do partake of this tradition. Scientific American did a piece this year for April 2005, and at the end they made it very clear at the end of the piece by saying they'll start something "April 1." If you want to see it: http://tinyurl.com/3kf3e. Otherwise, don't.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
PS: /me goes to add the obligatory, "But of course, the Chinese invented it first" line to the EPTH article, regardless of whether I believe it being a FA
I'd also like to hear Jimbo weigh in on this.
--Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Andrew Lih wrote:
HOWEVER, I would beg folks not to make it "subtly marked" but rather *obviously marked* at the end.
An April Fools joke is only fun when you can blame the reader for missing an obvious doozie that gives it away. Right now, it does not have such a kicker or punchline to let people in on the secret. If we do not, it would amount to devious and malicious intent, which would do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation.
Wow, this is an amazingly cautious attitude. You are saying we should take into account that on *April 1* some naive soul might read the text, miss all the inconguities and jokes, arrive at the bottom, not be explicitly told it is a joke, and blame Wikipedia for deceiving them?
I'm ...ah... speechless.
V.
Viajero said:
Andrew Lih wrote:
HOWEVER, I would beg folks not to make it "subtly marked" but rather *obviously marked* at the end.
An April Fools joke is only fun when you can blame the reader for missing an obvious doozie that gives it away. Right now, it does not have such a kicker or punchline to let people in on the secret. If we do not, it would amount to devious and malicious intent, which would do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation.
Wow, this is an amazingly cautious attitude. You are saying we should take into account that on *April 1* some naive soul might read the text, miss all the inconguities and jokes, arrive at the bottom, not be explicitly told it is a joke, and blame Wikipedia for deceiving them?
I'm ...ah... speechless.
I've been watching this conversation with mounting disbelief. Somebody please tell me that the seeming loss of sense of humor on the part of a number of Wikipedians is all part of a prolonged jape, to be brought to a hilarous conclusion this Friday. No? April fools jokes are traditional. People reading a joke article on April 1 will not feel unduly put out. Most of them. We can just laugh at those who are. That's the whole point of the exercise--to puncture pretensions, confound expectations and--dare I say it--have a laugh!
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Viajero said:
Andrew Lih wrote:
HOWEVER, I would beg folks not to make it "subtly marked" but rather *obviously marked* at the end.
An April Fools joke is only fun when you can blame the reader for missing an obvious doozie that gives it away. Right now, it does not have such a kicker or punchline to let people in on the secret. If we do not, it would amount to devious and malicious intent, which would do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation.
Wow, this is an amazingly cautious attitude. You are saying we should take into account that on *April 1* some naive soul might read the text, miss all the inconguities and jokes, arrive at the bottom, not be explicitly told it is a joke, and blame Wikipedia for deceiving them?
I'm ...ah... speechless.
I've been watching this conversation with mounting disbelief. Somebody please tell me that the seeming loss of sense of humor on the part of a number of Wikipedians is all part of a prolonged jape, to be brought to a hilarous conclusion this Friday. No? April fools jokes are traditional. People reading a joke article on April 1 will not feel unduly put out. Most of them. We can just laugh at those who are. That's the whole point of the exercise--to puncture pretensions, confound expectations and--dare I say it--have a laugh!
Indeed, there seems to be a po-faced faction who delight in removing any vestige of humour from Wikipedia, even though it is appropriate in many places, [[Official Monster Raving Looney Party]] for example. Does anyone remember the argument about the minor joke in a picture caption in [[London Congestion Charge]] a year or two ago?
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:48:23 +0100 (BST), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
I've been watching this conversation with mounting disbelief. Somebody please tell me that the seeming loss of sense of humor on the part of a number of Wikipedians is all part of a prolonged jape, to be brought to a hilarous conclusion this Friday. No? April fools jokes are traditional. People reading a joke article on April 1 will not feel unduly put out. Most of them. We can just laugh at those who are. That's the whole point of the exercise--to puncture pretensions, confound expectations and--dare I say it--have a laugh!
Like many, I would not object to having an April fool's article on the main page this Friday. I am against the idea of a contest that involves inserting fake articles into the main article space. Even with all good intentions, the potential for mistakes is just too great.
However, I would also suggest some very obvious indicator of some sort, such as a banner at the top of the article reading: "This is Wikipedia's Featured Article for April 1, 2005" -- something that inherently identifies the article as special for April Fool's day. Remember that this may find its way into mirrors or onto printed page.
When I first saw the article, as a result of Viajero's original post, I was not thinking about April Fool's. I *glanced* at the article, and saw what appeared to be a very detailed, well-documented article about a very obscure subject -- just the sort of thing we want Wikipedia to have. Had I known someone with an interest in this arcane topic, I might have pointed them to the page, or printed a copy and handed it to them. Would they have immediately known this to be an April Fool's joke? On reading it, they would conclude that it was not a serious article, but would they know it was intentionally included in Wikipedia as a joke for all to see? Or would they assume that some knucklehead had added the article and no one had yet discovered it to remove it?
Let's have some fun -- it helps to keep people motivated -- but let's do it wisely.
-- Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
Richard Holton said:
When I first saw the article, as a result of Viajero's original post, I was not thinking about April Fool's. I *glanced* at the article, and saw what appeared to be a very detailed, well-documented article about a very obscure subject -- just the sort of thing we want Wikipedia to have. Had I known someone with an interest in this arcane topic, I might have pointed them to the page, or printed a copy and handed it to them. Would they have immediately known this to be an April Fool's joke? On reading it, they would conclude that it was not a serious article, but would they know it was intentionally included in Wikipedia as a joke for all to see? Or would they assume that some knucklehead had added the article and no one had yet discovered it to remove it?
If you care to read the article in question you'll see that it's a pretty blatant joke article. It wouldn't be a joke if it wasn't superficially serious with absolutely ludicrous innards.
Richard Holton wrote:
Like many, I would not object to having an April fool's article on the main page this Friday. I am against the idea of a contest that involves inserting fake articles into the main article space. Even with all good intentions, the potential for mistakes is just too great.
However, I would also suggest some very obvious indicator of some sort, such as a banner at the top of the article reading: "This is Wikipedia's Featured Article for April 1, 2005" -- something that inherently identifies the article as special for April Fool's day. Remember that this may find its way into mirrors or onto printed page.
Agree with above. I think having a *very* obvious link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (with a section "Anything you see on April 1st could be a joke", or similar") would be a good idea.
Alphax said:
Agree with above. I think having a *very* obvious link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (with a section "Anything you see on April 1st could be a joke", or similar") would be a good idea.
Too broad. Just pop a datestamp at the top of the article and protect it from editing. The nonstandard appearance may also help to distinguish it from real articles.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Alphax said:
Agree with above. I think having a *very* obvious link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (with a section "Anything you see on April 1st could be a joke", or similar") would be a good idea.
Too broad. Just pop a datestamp at the top of the article and protect it from editing. The nonstandard appearance may also help to distinguish it from real articles.
Good point. I'm late and it's tired.
Richard Holton wrote:
When I first saw the article, as a result of Viajero's original post, I was not thinking about April Fool's. I *glanced* at the article, and saw what appeared to be a very detailed, well-documented article about a very obscure subject -- just the sort of thing we want Wikipedia to have.
I purposely didn't mention that this coming Friday was April 1, for this very reason. ;)
V.
Richard Holton (richholton@gmail.com) [050331 01:37]:
When I first saw the article, as a result of Viajero's original post, I was not thinking about April Fool's. I *glanced* at the article, and saw what appeared to be a very detailed, well-documented article about a very obscure subject -- just the sort of thing we want Wikipedia to have. Had I known someone with an interest in this arcane topic, I might have pointed them to the page, or printed a copy and handed it to them. Would they have immediately known this to be an April Fool's joke? On reading it, they would conclude that it was not a serious article, but would they know it was intentionally included in Wikipedia as a joke for all to see? Or would they assume that some knucklehead had added the article and no one had yet discovered it to remove it?
Some say we have this problem with some of our [[Wikipedia:Unusual articles]] already. When [[Xenu]] was featured (Feb 19th), there were quite a few people who thought it was a particularly creative piece of vandalism, rather than the painstakingly referenced and fact-checked article on an ... unusual ... subject that it is.
(For Xenuphiles: http://static.rocknerd.org/david/xenu-2pp.pdf - how's that for reuse of Wikipedia content. We handed out 500 of those in front of the Church of Scientology, Tottenham Court Road, London on Saturday, just before the London meetup. The police found it quite acceptable. After all it's a proper objective neutral encyclopedia article, with references!)
- d.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:48:23 +0100 (BST), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
I've been watching this conversation with mounting disbelief. Somebody please tell me that the seeming loss of sense of humor on the part of a number of Wikipedians is all part of a prolonged jape, to be brought to a hilarous conclusion this Friday. No? April fools jokes are traditional. People reading a joke article on April 1 will not feel unduly put out. Most of them. We can just laugh at those who are. That's the whole point of the exercise--to puncture pretensions, confound expectations and--dare I say it--have a laugh!
Mine was also a nice way of saying that the article is just not that funny and not even close to being hilarious.
-Andrew
Viajero wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
HOWEVER, I would beg folks not to make it "subtly marked" but rather *obviously marked* at the end.
An April Fools joke is only fun when you can blame the reader for missing an obvious doozie that gives it away. Right now, it does not have such a kicker or punchline to let people in on the secret. If we do not, it would amount to devious and malicious intent, which would do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation.
Wow, this is an amazingly cautious attitude. You are saying we should take into account that on *April 1* some naive soul might read the text, miss all the inconguities and jokes, arrive at the bottom, not be explicitly told it is a joke, and blame Wikipedia for deceiving them?
I'm ...ah... speechless.
Computer experts are very serious people. They often can't tell the difference between a picture of a hat and of an elephant hidden under a blanket. If you deviate from the literal Word of God to make a joke or to add a little irony you need to forewarn them so that they will know when it is appropriate to laugh. :-)
Ec