http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/11/24/dl...
Article on Any Questions Answered, a text message trivia answering service.
(I know a few people who work for AQA.)
- d.
This brings up an interesting point about Wikipedia that I was discussing at length with some non-wiki literate friends of mine. One person complained that we "don't like trivia anymore", and that it pissed them off because they enjoyed it so much. My response was that the popular conception of trivia isn't in line with Wikipedians generally see trivia. Of course, the funny part is that Wikipedians have a more precise understanding of the correct definition of trivia.
Most people think of sitcom synopsis and sports records as being trivia. But that's confusing the definitions of important and trivia. Trivia is not just about how important something is, the key word is "*pieces* of information of little importance or value". Trivia is independent details cobbled together in a list. In other words, the bulleted "Trivia" or "Popular culture" sections.
Wikipedia might contain a lengthy article on an unimportant subject. But that doesn't make it trivia.
On Nov 24, 2007 1:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/11/24/dl...
Article on Any Questions Answered, a text message trivia answering service.
(I know a few people who work for AQA.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steven Walling wrote:
This brings up an interesting point about Wikipedia that I was discussing at length with some non-wiki literate friends of mine. One person complained that we "don't like trivia anymore", and that it pissed them off because they enjoyed it so much.
That should tell you something about what interests the public. He's right to be pissed off.
My response was that the popular conception of trivia isn't in line with Wikipedians generally see trivia. Of course, the funny part is that Wikipedians have a more precise understanding of the correct definition of trivia.
Only the self-righteous ones. If Wikipedians generally had that precise understanding we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Most people think of sitcom synopsis and sports records as being trivia. But that's confusing the definitions of important and trivia. Trivia is not just about how important something is, the key word is "*pieces* of information of little importance or value". Trivia is independent details cobbled together in a list. In other words, the bulleted "Trivia" or "Popular culture" sections.
How about the kind of things that make the Guinness Book of Records such a best seller. They don't lack for people trying to put the stupidest imaginable records in there. A trivia section is good in and for an article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the article. The importance or value of the information depends more on the reader than the editor. Sure a lot of crap gets into these sections, but that's a reason for getting rid of the crap, not the whole section.
Wikipedia might contain a lengthy article on an unimportant subject. But that doesn't make it trivia.
I didn't think we were talking about whole articles, only about a specific section in some articles.
Ec
I didn't think we were talking about whole articles, only about a specific section in some articles.
You missed my whole point. What I meant is that readers view articles on relatively unimportant subjects as trivia regardless of their quality of coverage, while Wikipedia does not.
On Nov 24, 2007 11:49 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
This brings up an interesting point about Wikipedia that I was
discussing at
length with some non-wiki literate friends of mine. One person
complained
that we "don't like trivia anymore", and that it pissed them off because they enjoyed it so much.
That should tell you something about what interests the public. He's right to be pissed off.
My response was that the popular conception of trivia isn't in line with Wikipedians generally see trivia. Of course,
the
funny part is that Wikipedians have a more precise understanding of the correct definition of trivia.
Only the self-righteous ones. If Wikipedians generally had that precise understanding we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Most people think of sitcom synopsis and sports records as being trivia.
But
that's confusing the definitions of important and trivia. Trivia is not
just
about how important something is, the key word is "*pieces* of
information
of little importance or value". Trivia is independent details cobbled together in a list. In other words, the bulleted "Trivia" or "Popular culture" sections.
How about the kind of things that make the Guinness Book of Records such a best seller. They don't lack for people trying to put the stupidest imaginable records in there. A trivia section is good in and for an article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the article. The importance or value of the information depends more on the reader than the editor. Sure a lot of crap gets into these sections, but that's a reason for getting rid of the crap, not the whole section.
Wikipedia might contain a lengthy article on an unimportant subject. But that doesn't make it trivia.
I didn't think we were talking about whole articles, only about a specific section in some articles.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
imaginable records in there. A trivia section is good in and for an article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the article. The importance or value of the information depends more on the
What kinds of trivia do you think are best in their own section? I think we can distinguish between:
1) Generally pertinent information that could be integrated somewhere. e.g., someone's childhood best friend was the famous author xxx. 2) Real trivia that simply isn't that interesting, e.g. the fact that someone won some event on whatever day was only the 3rd time that's happened since blah blah blah. 3) Trivia that's only trivia for ignorant teeny boppers (there was a reference to this extremely well known painting in whatever episode of the simpsons, or there was a character named after this extremely well known 17th philosopher in whatever computer game). 4) ...you're proposing a category of trivia that is interesting but can't or shouldn't be integrated?
(Personally, I hate 3) the most. They make me grind my teeth.)
Steve
Quoting Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
On 11/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
imaginable records in there. A trivia section is good in and for an article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the article. The importance or value of the information depends more on the
What kinds of trivia do you think are best in their own section? I think we can distinguish between:
- Generally pertinent information that could be integrated somewhere.
e.g., someone's childhood best friend was the famous author xxx. 2) Real trivia that simply isn't that interesting, e.g. the fact that someone won some event on whatever day was only the 3rd time that's happened since blah blah blah. 3) Trivia that's only trivia for ignorant teeny boppers (there was a reference to this extremely well known painting in whatever episode of the simpsons, or there was a character named after this extremely well known 17th philosopher in whatever computer game). 4) ...you're proposing a category of trivia that is interesting but can't or shouldn't be integrated?
(Personally, I hate 3) the most. They make me grind my teeth.)
Steve
3 isn't trivia, it is cultural references. May I ask what is wrong with letting as you put it "teeny boppers" know how what things are referring to? I've seen kids become more interested in history and other subjects after they learn how many references the Simpsons, Family Guy and similar shows make to elements of the Western canon. So what is wrong with such sections other than that you don't like reading them?
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
3 isn't trivia, it is cultural references. May I ask what is wrong with letting as you put it "teeny boppers" know how what things are referring to? I've seen kids become more interested in history and other subjects after they learn how many references the Simpsons, Family Guy and similar shows make to elements of the Western canon. So what is wrong with such sections other than that you don't like reading them?
I think he's talking about putting the trivia about Family Guy or the Simpsons into the article on the philosopher, rather than the other way around.
Ie, if there's a fictional character named Pascal on the cartoon Porcupine Commandos, we might quite reasonably put "Pascal is named after the French philosopher [[Blaise Pascal]]" into the article [[Porcupine Commandos]], but putting "The cartoon porcupine in [[Porcupine Commandos]] is named after this philosopher" into the article [[Blaise Pascal]] is the sort of trivia that even I think is probably a little too obscure to warrant inclusion.
On 11/26/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Ie, if there's a fictional character named Pascal on the cartoon Porcupine Commandos, we might quite reasonably put "Pascal is named after the French philosopher [[Blaise Pascal]]" into the article [[Porcupine Commandos]], but putting "The cartoon porcupine in [[Porcupine Commandos]] is named after this philosopher" into the article [[Blaise Pascal]] is the sort of trivia that even I think is probably a little too obscure to warrant inclusion.
Yes. But I wouldn't say it's too "obscure", I'd say it's too banal - it's simply not interesting or unusual enough.
Steve
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
3 isn't trivia, it is cultural references. May I ask what is wrong with letting as you put it "teeny boppers" know how what things are referring to? I've seen kids become more interested in history and other subjects after they learn how many references the Simpsons, Family Guy and similar shows make to elements of the Western canon. So what is wrong with such sections other than that you don't like reading them?
I think he's talking about putting the trivia about Family Guy or the Simpsons into the article on the philosopher, rather than the other way around.
Ie, if there's a fictional character named Pascal on the cartoon Porcupine Commandos, we might quite reasonably put "Pascal is named after the French philosopher [[Blaise Pascal]]" into the article [[Porcupine Commandos]], but putting "The cartoon porcupine in [[Porcupine Commandos]] is named after this philosopher" into the article [[Blaise Pascal]] is the sort of trivia that even I think is probably a little too obscure to warrant inclusion.
I'm going to have to disagree somewhat. If a kid say has to do a report on Pascal he won't find out that interesting tidbit that gets him to actually care about the subject if he reads the Pascal entry if we only have that in the entry on Porcupine Commandos.
And it's not as much that one game might use it. If multiple games use it, then there is almost certainly some interesting thinking going on--and that is usually the case--most of the challenged articles are one in which the cultural figure has dozens of references in later work--and such articles then get attacked as indiscriminate.
there are more things in the world than any one of us is able to imagine, let alone know about. That's why we have a common project, and include each others' hobbyhorses.
On 11/26/07, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
3 isn't trivia, it is cultural references. May I ask what is wrong with letting as you put it "teeny boppers" know how what things are referring to? I've seen kids become more interested in history and other subjects after they learn how many references the Simpsons, Family Guy and similar shows make to elements of the Western canon. So what is wrong with such sections other than that you don't like reading them?
I think he's talking about putting the trivia about Family Guy or the Simpsons into the article on the philosopher, rather than the other way around.
Ie, if there's a fictional character named Pascal on the cartoon Porcupine Commandos, we might quite reasonably put "Pascal is named after the French philosopher [[Blaise Pascal]]" into the article [[Porcupine Commandos]], but putting "The cartoon porcupine in [[Porcupine Commandos]] is named after this philosopher" into the article [[Blaise Pascal]] is the sort of trivia that even I think is probably a little too obscure to warrant inclusion.
I'm going to have to disagree somewhat. If a kid say has to do a report on Pascal he won't find out that interesting tidbit that gets him to actually care about the subject if he reads the Pascal entry if we only have that in the entry on Porcupine Commandos.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You apparently don't think its important that the writers of a contemporary computer game know something about some particular important philosopher, and expect at least some of the players to appreciate the reference.
Other people may think it quite significant. Those interested in the philosopher are generally interested in his further reception, and can be expected to find it fascinating that he has made his way into that part of our culture. Those interested in the games culture will be interested to know what sort of figures are used as referents--whom the authors assume they are writing for. I as an educator find it very valuable & heartening to know that at least in some superficial level there is a continuation of the intellectual tradition. As I don't have much direct familiarity with most computer games, I learn out most of what I do know about that aspect of things from Wikipedia.
It's easy to denigrate the importance of the part of the world we're not interested in. It's been decades since I've seen a televised wrestling match, and I intend to never see one in the future, but if I ever do want to know about them, they'll be in WP. I never expect to be on the Kuala Lumpur Monorail, but I might want see a news or fiction reference someday to something that happened there, and want to know about the stations.
On 11/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- Trivia that's only trivia for ignorant teeny boppers (there was a
reference to this extremely well known painting in whatever episode of the simpsons, or there was a character named after this extremely well known 17th philosopher in whatever computer game).
(Personally, I hate 3) the most. They make me grind my teeth.)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Nov 25, 2007 11:12 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
You apparently don't think its important that the writers of a contemporary computer game know something about some particular important philosopher, and expect at least some of the players to appreciate the reference.
Other people may think it quite significant. Those interested in the philosopher are generally interested in his further reception, and can be expected to find it fascinating that he has made his way into that part of our culture. Those interested in the games culture will be interested to know what sort of figures are used as referents--whom the authors assume they are writing for. I as an educator find it very valuable & heartening to know that at least in some superficial level there is a continuation of the intellectual tradition. As I don't have much direct familiarity with most computer games, I learn out most of what I do know about that aspect of things from Wikipedia.
It's easy to denigrate the importance of the part of the world we're not interested in. It's been decades since I've seen a televised wrestling match, and I intend to never see one in the future, but if I ever do want to know about them, they'll be in WP. I never expect to be on the Kuala Lumpur Monorail, but I might want see a news or fiction reference someday to something that happened there, and want to know about the stations.
Context is key. I don't see much use in a trivia section in [[Malaysia]] listing every film that's ever made a reference to it, even though someone might conceivably find it useful. Most trivia can find a useful home elsewhere. Information is not useful unless it is placed in the proper context.
Johnleemk
On 11/26/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
You apparently don't think its important that the writers of a contemporary computer game know something about some particular important philosopher, and expect at least some of the players to appreciate the reference.
I'm talking about when some kid thinks it's a crazy coincidence that the character Voltaire in their favourite computer game has the same name as an actual historical figure. Or when some level in a computer game is named after an actual place...omg!
It's easy to denigrate the importance of the part of the world we're not interested in. It's been decades since I've seen a televised wrestling match, and I intend to never see one in the future, but if I ever do want to know about them, they'll be in WP. I never expect to
They'll be in WP, tucked away in that dirty corner I don't go into it much. Do you really want to see links to wrestling articles from history articles because some wrestler decided to name himself Alfred the Great or something?
be on the Kuala Lumpur Monorail, but I might want see a news or fiction reference someday to something that happened there, and want to know about the stations.
it just depends how significant the reference is. If one single KL monorail station was the setting for an entire series of books that was a cult classic in Mexico, it might be worth noting. If that station was the first time that Joey and Sandy snogged after Sandy broke up with Jimmy in the two-bit anime series "The KL Klub", I don't want to hear about it.
Steve
On 11/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm talking about when some kid thinks it's a crazy coincidence that the character Voltaire in their favourite computer game has the same name as an actual historical figure.
That would belong at [[Voltaire (disambiguation)]], rather than in any "trivia" section. Think outside the box, damn.
Do you really want to see links to wrestling articles from history articles because some wrestler decided to name himself Alfred the Great or something?
Again this is a disambiguation issue.
it just depends how significant the reference is. If one single KL monorail station was the setting for an entire series of books that was a cult classic in Mexico, it might be worth noting. If that station was the first time that Joey and Sandy snogged after Sandy broke up with Jimmy in the two-bit anime series "The KL Klub", I don't want to hear about it.
A rambling rhetorical question I guess: Are you suggesting that, if the latter trivia is the basis upon which some half-serious contributor decides to create a short stub about this illustrious monorail station (to which information of more direct pertinence might soon be added, if even one non-rabid new-page patroller happens to be awake), because it's the only bloody reason he or she has heard of it, we'd be better off without it for the time being?
—C.W.
On 26/11/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/25/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm talking about when some kid thinks it's a crazy coincidence that the character Voltaire in their favourite computer game has the same name as an actual historical figure.
That would belong at [[Voltaire (disambiguation)]], rather than in any "trivia" section. Think outside the box, damn.
Well, not really.
The inclusion of "also by this name" things on disambiguation pages is well-accepted, and I know of a few cases where disambiguation pages have been created just to get a silly "see also" phrase out of an article.* But the presence or absence of a disambiguation page with the information won't stop people wanting to include it in a trivia section - different motives.
Headnotes/disambiguation are there for the cases where you want to take an incoming reader and direct them to the place they really wanted to go. Trivia sections - or at least this aspect of them - are for informing the reader who wanted to read about this particular topic about how it links to another unrelated topic.
If your goal is to make sure that people looking for Voltaire the wrestler get there, you use disambiguation. If your goal is to make sure that people reading about Voltaire learn this neat thing about there also being a wrestler, you use a trivia section.
And I think most of the additions are from people wanting the latter, not the former.