As I read your message I really thought I was going to find "April
fools!!" at the bottom.
On 30 Mar 2005, at 9:32 pm, Snowspinner wrote:
OK. Here's the thing I think you may be missing.
People are not smart.
My students would not catch a link to Nihilartikle, or whatever the
name is. They would not think that it's April 1st. They would not
figure out the clues that you are suggesting we leave. They would miss
it. They would fall for the joke.
The problem is that they'd fall for misinformation in an article too.
They're not critical enough. They're not sharp enough to question
everything. And this isn't because they're stupid. It's because, well,
most people aren't smart enough to have well tuned bullshit detectors.
People think our articles have problems. People think Wikipedia is
full of misinformation, hoaxes, and lunacy.
Even if April Fool's articles weren't malicious vandalism, quite
frankly, it's not funny. It's too close to the perceived reality, and
it doesn't make any strides towards parody. of the perceived reality.
On Mar 30, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Christiaan Briggs wrote:
> Participating in April fools and the phenomena you describe below
> really couldn't be more divorced in my opinion.
> On 30 Mar 2005, at 8:48 pm, Snowspinner wrote:
>> I meant the suggestion in terms of reputability. I don't think we're
>> seen as having a neo-conservative agenda. But I think we're about as
>> trusted by a lot of people. In fact, I know we are. Five minutes
>> ago, sitting in my office, I heard another TA tell a student not to
>> use Wikipedia as a source because "anyone can edit it" so it must
>> not be reliable. She looked to me for affirmation, and I said that,
>> actually, it's very reliable and that false information gets removed
>> quickly. She wasn't convinced, and told the student not to use it
>> We can't afford to knowingly post false information. Too many people
>> think we do it already.