Hi folks,
I've made a proposal on how we present the [[Main Page]] on April Fool's Day to address some concerns we had last year.
You can read the proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page
I'd appreciate any feedback that you may have.
Thanks!
That looks like a great suggestion. There has been some silliness in the past over April Fool's, so I like the idea of 100% true facts on the Main Page, just that they are as unbelievable as they can be presented to be. Good idea!
Gareth.
On 06/03/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've made a proposal on how we present the [[Main Page]] on April Fool's Day to address some concerns we had last year.
You can read the proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page
I'd appreciate any feedback that you may have.
Thanks! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd move the main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
On 3/6/06, Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]]) garzohugo+wiki@gmail.com wrote:
That looks like a great suggestion. There has been some silliness in the past over April Fool's, so I like the idea of 100% true facts on the Main Page, just that they are as unbelievable as they can be presented to be. Good idea!
Gareth.
On 06/03/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've made a proposal on how we present the [[Main Page]] on April Fool's
Day
to address some concerns we had last year.
You can read the proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page
I'd appreciate any feedback that you may have.
Thanks! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk
On 3/6/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd move the main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
LOL!
Ryan
It wasn't Main Page is Communism?
On 3/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd move the main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
LOL!
Ryan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:51:12 +0100, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
It wasn't Main Page is Communism?
On 3/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd
move
the main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
LOL!
Ryan
How about just "Main page is communism on wheels!" as a compromise :P
On 3/6/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd move the main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
Anyone trying to do that will be blocked within seconds I happen to be online.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 3/6/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd move the main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
Anyone trying to do that will be blocked within seconds I happen to be online.
/me makes a note to use his AOL account.
- -- Sean Barrett | Give a person a fish and you feed them for sean@epoptic.org | a day; teach a person to edit Wikipedia | and they won't bother you for months.
I would've done it at school if I had it on Saturday. Stupid calendar *grumbles*
On 3/7/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
geni stated for the record:
On 3/6/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
I remember in IRC around Christmas where one of the users said he'd move
the
main page to "Main Page on Wheels!".
Anyone trying to do that will be blocked within seconds I happen to be
online.
/me makes a note to use his AOL account.
Sean Barrett | Give a person a fish and you feed them for sean@epoptic.org | a day; teach a person to edit Wikipedia | and they won't bother you for months. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEDc2dMAt1wyd9d+URAkQ1AJ42+LN3nzbqaQPfj237E/roRCCopQCfUZQf OX+K78VL3Mc6zdr6lYj2HrY= =9Z+q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk
On 3/6/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've made a proposal on how we present the [[Main Page]] on April Fool's Day to address some concerns we had last year.
You can read the proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page
I'd appreciate any feedback that you may have.
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Steve
On 3/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Probably not: but what we can do is announce some spurious change to Wikipedia policy or governance.
What would REALLY mess with people's heads would be announcing some dramatic change in policy like the abolishment of Articles For Deletion on April 1, and then sticking with it.
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the
year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Probably not: but what we can do is announce some spurious change to Wikipedia policy or governance.
What would REALLY mess with people's heads would be announcing some dramatic change in policy like the abolishment of Articles For Deletion on April 1, and then sticking with it.
# '''Support''' ~~~~
Guettarda wrote:
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Probably not: but what we can do is announce some spurious change to Wikipedia policy or governance.
What would REALLY mess with people's heads would be announcing some dramatic change in policy like the abolishment of Articles For Deletion on April 1, and then sticking with it.
# '''Support''' ~~~~
If Wikipedians are so foolish as to believe that AfD would be abolished, they nre more gullible than I give them credit for.
Ec
On 3/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If Wikipedians are so foolish as to believe that AfD would be abolished, they nre more gullible than I give them credit for.
Ec
I has been proposed quite a few times
-- geni
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What would REALLY mess with people's heads would be announcing some dramatic change in policy like the abolishment of Articles For Deletion on April 1, and then sticking with it.
Done by google.
-- geni
Allow political userboxen? *runs* --NSLE
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What would REALLY mess with people's heads would be announcing some dramatic change in policy like the abolishment of Articles For Deletion on April 1, and then sticking with it.
Done by google.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/7/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Allow political userboxen? *runs* --NSLE
Don't need a policy change for that. Created, speeded then undeleted through DR and you have a political userbox.
-- geni
Good point. Damn. Can't we put flaccidpenises on the mainpage? :P
--NSLE
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Allow political userboxen? *runs* --NSLE
Don't need a policy change for that. Created, speeded then undeleted through DR and you have a political userbox.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think we could get [[Donkey punch]] up to FA status by April Fool's, especially now that we have that reputable, published source.
Ben
On 3/6/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Good point. Damn. Can't we put flaccidpenises on the mainpage? :P
--NSLE
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Allow political userboxen? *runs* --NSLE
Don't need a policy change for that. Created, speeded then undeleted through DR and you have a political userbox.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
Good point. Damn. Can't we put flaccidpenises on the mainpage? :P
--NSLE
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Allow political userboxen? *runs* --NSLE
Don't need a policy change for that. Created, speeded then undeleted through DR and you have a political userbox.
No they belong on the page that warns the user that the project is down and suffering from erectile dysfunction.
Ec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheely_Willy
Includes fair use image of book cover called "How Willy Got His Wheels". Legitimate article!
I suggest making the fair use image Featured Image, Communism the Featured Article, and having other links relating to...pelicans?
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:54:38 +0100, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Allow political userboxen? *runs* --NSLE
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What would REALLY mess with people's heads would be announcing some dramatic change in policy like the abolishment of Articles For Deletion on April 1, and then sticking with it.
Done by google.
We could re-format the Main Page to list all information in userbox format, and declare that due to popular demand all articles should henseforth be made up of a series of userboxes instead of all that tiresome text... Although that whole issue might be too touchy to toy with even on April 1.
On more serious note I'd just like to ask people to *please* limit themselves to free licensed images when doing the compulsary photoshopped Jimbo images and what not (or at least have them all deleted the next day). There are enough copyvio images to clean out on a regular wikiday as it is without ending up with long fights over "parody" fair use claims for months or even years afterwards, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki-gonzales.jpg from last year. Sure it's fun, but it gives people the wrong idea about fair use on Wikipedia if we start keeping a lot of these patody pictures around in project space.
On 3/7/06, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
On more serious note I'd just like to ask people to *please* limit themselves to free licensed images when doing the compulsary photoshopped Jimbo images and what not (or at least have them all deleted the next day). There are enough copyvio images to clean out on a regular wikiday as it is without ending up with long fights over "parody" fair use claims for months or even years afterwards, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki-gonzales.jpg from last year. Sure it's fun, but it gives people the wrong idea about fair use on Wikipedia if we start keeping a lot of these patody pictures around in project space.
-- [[User:Sherool]]
Hmmm I suspect the fair use claim on [[Image:AdParody-anti-gaySlogan.png]] may also be open to question.
-- geni
On 3/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Steve
No. Dare to be different.
-- geni
Steve Bennett wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Well, I've been proposing this idea since last year, and I have to say that I think both of you will come around to my perspective on this once you reflect on it a bit.
There is *nothing* clever about having fake articles on the homepage for the day. This isn't about "Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously" it's about being deliciously clever. Fake stories on April Fool's day? *yawn*
But *real* stories, carefully sourced, which people *think* are fake... now *that's* clever. It's a second-order trick, a meta-trick. Surely I'm not the only one around here geeky enough to consider that kind of hack to be infinitely more amusing than doing what everyone else does.
--Jimbo
On 3/7/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Well, I've been proposing this idea since last year, and I have to say that I think both of you will come around to my perspective on this once you reflect on it a bit.
There is *nothing* clever about having fake articles on the homepage for the day. This isn't about "Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously" it's about being deliciously clever. Fake stories on April Fool's day? *yawn*
But *real* stories, carefully sourced, which people *think* are fake... now *that's* clever. It's a second-order trick, a meta-trick. Surely I'm not the only one around here geeky enough to consider that kind of hack to be infinitely more amusing than doing what everyone else does.
Some might consider the above argument to be a solipsistic defense of being stuffy and taking oneself too seriously.
Especially considering the source.
It's much like a parent telling their rebellious teenager:
"You think drugs and rock and roll are punk? What would be REALLY punk would be to eat vegetables and do your homework and go to Sunday School! That's how to REALLY break expectations!"
If Willy on Wheels spent April Fool's making serious edits, that would be clever.
Sorry, but when Jimbo advocates making serious, well-sourced, informative articles on Wikipedia, I don't see that as a big mind-fuck.
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Some might consider the above argument to be a solipsistic defense of being stuffy and taking oneself too seriously.
Especially considering the source.
Whoa, have your posts actually disintegrated into making overt ad hominems, rather than thinly veiled ones? Careful, your guard is down.
Ryan
On 3/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Some might consider the above argument to be a solipsistic defense of being stuffy and taking oneself too seriously.
Especially considering the source.
Whoa, have your posts actually disintegrated into making overt ad hominems, rather than thinly veiled ones? Careful, your guard is down.
Huh? I'm just saying that Jimbo is not exactly an anti-authoritarian figure in the world of Wikipedia. I'm criticizing the argument, not the man. I'm pretty sure Jimbo doesn't need others to fight on his behalf, particularly against me.
I hope you do understand my basic point, that the "let's be silly on April Fool's Day by being serious" argument does have some weaknesses.
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Some might consider the above argument to be a solipsistic defense of being stuffy and taking oneself too seriously.
Especially considering the source.
Whoa, have your posts actually disintegrated into making overt ad
hominems,
rather than thinly veiled ones? Careful, your guard is down.
Huh? I'm just saying that Jimbo is not exactly an anti-authoritarian figure in the world of Wikipedia. I'm criticizing the argument, not the man. I'm pretty sure Jimbo doesn't need others to fight on his behalf, particularly against me.
I hope you do understand my basic point, that the "let's be silly on April Fool's Day by being serious" argument does have some weaknesses.
Well, I'm actually not saying "let's be silly", at least not w.r.t. the [[Main Page]]. Rather, I'm proposing that we play a trick (meta-trick?) on our readers, a task which requires a bit of serious work, but not without applying a sense of humour. I know I can't edit some of these unusual articles without at least a drop of humour.
I'm not specifically advocating this, but silliness will likely occur within the Wikipedia-space, but the main articlespace, especially the Main Page, probably needs a little more restraint.
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you do understand my basic point, that the "let's be silly on April Fool's Day by being serious" argument does have some weaknesses.
This is about humor. What people find funny isn't something that is to be voted on. There is no "argument" in comedy. It's a joke. That's the point. Apparently, you don't find this idea funny. Others do. There isn't any way to resolve the discrepancy, whether in debate or in armed combat to the death.
Ryan
On Mar 7, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you do understand my basic point, that the "let's be silly on April Fool's Day by being serious" argument does have some weaknesses.
This is about humor. What people find funny isn't something that is to be voted on. There is no "argument" in comedy. It's a joke. That's the point. Apparently, you don't find this idea funny. Others do. There isn't any way to resolve the discrepancy, whether in debate or in armed combat to the death.
On the contrary. Armed combat to the death resolves all discrepancies, by means of exterminating all dissenters.
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 7, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you do understand my basic point, that the "let's be silly on April Fool's Day by being serious" argument does have some weaknesses.
This is about humor. What people find funny isn't something that is to be voted on. There is no "argument" in comedy. It's a joke. That's the point. Apparently, you don't find this idea funny. Others do. There isn't any way to resolve the discrepancy, whether in debate or in armed combat to the death.
On the contrary. Armed combat to the death resolves all discrepancies, by means of exterminating all dissenters.
My favorite weapon is the lance with a brick on the end.
On 3/8/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On the contrary. Armed combat to the death resolves all discrepancies, by means of exterminating all dissenters.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
Well I supose we could try and settle this by a vale tudo edit war.
-- geni
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/8/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On the contrary. Armed combat to the death resolves all discrepancies, by means of exterminating all dissenters.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
Well I supose we could try and settle this by a vale tudo edit war.
Yeep.
If we are going to take the "let's be fundamentally serious" approach to WIkipedia, it would be fun to be a little more baroque than just highlighting oddness. Like giving over the homepage to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Harry_Potter .
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you do understand my basic point, that the "let's be silly on April Fool's Day by being serious" argument does have some weaknesses.
It depends on who the audience for the silliness is. If the audience for the silliness is the Wikipedia community, than you're right in his argument having weaknesses. If the audience for the silliness is the larger Internet community that might visit Wikipedia during the day, than planning things out makes a whole lot of sense.
As someone who has worked on many "April Fools" editions of newspapers, there is a lot of planning that goes into those.
To add my two cents into the mix, I think doing things like changing up the logo or even adding silly titles on things is great fun. However, I do think there needs to be care taken in any purely fake news that people may choose to publish. The line between parody and libel can be very thin.
Sue Anne [[user:Sreed1234]]
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
Kind of have to agree there. If major newspapers allow themselves to print non-factual stories on that day, I think we can forgive ourselves as well. Can we fudge up a hoax, new information on the flat earth theory, etc etc?
Well, I've been proposing this idea since last year, and I have to say that I think both of you will come around to my perspective on this once you reflect on it a bit.
There is *nothing* clever about having fake articles on the homepage for the day. This isn't about "Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously" it's about being deliciously clever. Fake stories on April Fool's day? *yawn*
But *real* stories, carefully sourced, which people *think* are fake... now *that's* clever. It's a second-order trick, a meta-trick. Surely I'm not the only one around here geeky enough to consider that kind of hack to be infinitely more amusing than doing what everyone else does.
Some might consider the above argument to be a solipsistic defense of being stuffy and taking oneself too seriously.
Especially considering the source.
It's much like a parent telling their rebellious teenager:
"You think drugs and rock and roll are punk? What would be REALLY punk would be to eat vegetables and do your homework and go to Sunday School! That's how to REALLY break expectations!"
[[Straight edge]]
-- geni
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It's much like a parent telling their rebellious teenager:
"You think drugs and rock and roll are punk? What would be REALLY punk would be to eat vegetables and do your homework and go to Sunday School! That's how to REALLY break expectations!"
[[Straight edge]]
Right. Straight edge is about self-empowerment -- being that way not because of your parents, but because of self-determination.
It's not so much the message, as the messenger.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The Cunctator stated for the record:
On 3/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
It's much like a parent telling their rebellious teenager:
"You think drugs and rock and roll are punk? What would be REALLY punk would be to eat vegetables and do your homework and go to Sunday School! That's how to REALLY break expectations!"
[[Straight edge]]
Right. Straight edge is about self-empowerment -- being that way not because of your parents, but because of self-determination.
It's not so much the message, as the messenger.
That's the Cunctator approach in a single sentence. Anything said by anyone with any positive reputation, or, God forbid, actual authority, is prima facia wrong, regardless of content. If it were said by someone else, it might not be, but if Jimbo says it, it is to be dismissed out of hand.
- -- Sean Barrett | Give a person a fish and you feed them for sean@epoptic.org | a day; teach a person to edit Wikipedia | and they won't bother you for months.
On Mar 6, 2006, at 6:43 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
Not any slur against you, but I consider this basically lame. Being willing to post News of the Weird is not the same thing as Not Taking Ourselves Too Seriously.
Being willing to act like Uncyclopedia for 24 out of 8765 hours of the year is.
The problem with April Fool's Day is and has always been that on a project of this size you A) Get lots of unfunny, and B) Get a sufficient volume of unfunny that the site stops being usable. c.f. the massive banners people were dropping into the mediawiki namespace last year.
I would personally say the main page is good, and that we should also restrict other hijinks to the Wikipedia namespace.
And ban them from the template namespace.
-Phil
Yes, some unbelievable yet factual featured stuff on the main page and some shenenigans in the Wikipedia namespace is enough. The last of which shouldn't involved deleting something or mass nominating something.
Mgm
On 3/6/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I've made a proposal on how we present the [[Main Page]] on April Fool's Day to address some concerns we had last year.
You can read the proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fool%27s_Main_Page
I'd appreciate any feedback that you may have.
Thanks! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 06:50:27 +0100, you wrote:
Yes, some unbelievable yet factual featured stuff on the main page and some shenenigans in the Wikipedia namespace is enough. The last of which shouldn't involved deleting something or mass nominating something.
I'm sure we can come up with a hilarious spoof on userboxes if we try. Or not. Guy (JzG)
If there's nothing that proves that Wikipedia's culture has become too stuffy and serious for it's own good, it's the existence of serious pseudo-policy discussions concerning what we'll do on April Fool's Day.
How else would non-admins get involved?
Steve
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
If there's nothing that proves that Wikipedia's culture has become too stuffy and serious for it's own good, it's the existence of serious pseudo-policy discussions concerning what we'll do on April Fool's Day.
On Mar 7, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
If there's nothing that proves that Wikipedia's culture has become too stuffy and serious for it's own good, it's the existence of serious pseudo-policy discussions concerning what we'll do on April Fool's Day.
How else would non-admins get involved?
I think we had plenty of non-admins editing "Britannica takeover of Wikimedia" last year.
Heh, cool. Suggest we make it "Wikimedia takeover of Britannica" this year. Would probably be more accurate. :)
Steve
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 7, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
If there's nothing that proves that Wikipedia's culture has become too stuffy and serious for it's own good, it's the existence of serious pseudo-policy discussions concerning what we'll do on April Fool's Day.
How else would non-admins get involved?
I think we had plenty of non-admins editing "Britannica takeover of Wikimedia" last year.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Would you prefer that I did everything in my proposal without discussion?
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
If there's nothing that proves that Wikipedia's culture has become too stuffy and serious for it's own good, it's the existence of serious pseudo-policy discussions concerning what we'll do on April Fool's Day.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mar 7, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Death Phoenix wrote:
Would you prefer that I did everything in my proposal without discussion?
I'd prefer that discussion took place on IRC or some other place that serves as the online equivalent of "over beers at a local pub". The listserv is the online equivalent of "during a staff meeting at work" or, at best, "at the water cooler".
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Mar 7, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Death Phoenix wrote:
Would you prefer that I did everything in my proposal without discussion?
I'd prefer that discussion took place on IRC or some other place that serves as the online equivalent of "over beers at a local pub". The listserv is the online equivalent of "during a staff meeting at work" or, at best, "at the water cooler".
Sorry, but I don't frequent IRC. Some of the conversation I've seen on the listserv would definitely belong in the former category, and not in the latter two.
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
I'd prefer that discussion took place on IRC or some other place that serves as the online equivalent of "over beers at a local pub". The listserv is the online equivalent of "during a staff meeting at work" or, at best, "at the water cooler".
Ooh, them's fighting words.
But seriously, it's not fair to simply demand that a certain mode of communication be used. IRC is inconvenient for me. I can't use it at work, for instance.
So your analogy is quite apt - everyone can discuss at the water cooler, but only a certain cross-section, excluding non-drinkers, those with kids, and those allergic to smoke, can get to the pub in the evening.
:)
Though maybe a less serious alternative list might not be a bad idea?
Steve
Amen. If our April Fools' jokes are planned in advance and organized, we've defeated the purpose.
SCZenz
On 3/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
If there's nothing that proves that Wikipedia's culture has become too stuffy and serious for it's own good, it's the existence of serious pseudo-policy discussions concerning what we'll do on April Fool's Day.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/7/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
Amen. If our April Fools' jokes are planned in advance and organized, we've defeated the purpose.
SCZenz
Then the BBC defeated it years ago so we can ignore it and get on with editing wikipedia as normal.
-- geni
On 3/7/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
Amen. If our April Fools' jokes are planned in advance and organized, we've defeated the purpose.
Planning it is probably the only way to avoid the ridiculous edit war that happened last time.
Ryan
SCZenz wrote:
Amen. If our April Fools' jokes are planned in advance and organized, we've defeated the purpose.
SCZenz
Well, let it suffice to say that I doubt that an "official" hoax will make sure that there will be no additional, unplanned ones. But warring over the Main Page over which random joke is the funniest turned out not to be so funny last year.
grm_wnr
On 3/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 06:50:27 +0100, you wrote:
Yes, some unbelievable yet factual featured stuff on the main page and
some
shenenigans in the Wikipedia namespace is enough. The last of which shouldn't involved deleting something or mass nominating something.
I'm sure we can come up with a hilarious spoof on userboxes if we try. Or not. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I prefer not to. There's always going to be people who take it too serious and spark a big row again.
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 06:50:27 +0100, you wrote:
Yes, some unbelievable yet factual featured stuff on the main page and some shenenigans in the Wikipedia namespace is enough. The last of which shouldn't involved deleting something or mass nominating something.
I'm sure we can come up with a hilarious spoof on userboxes if we try. Or not.
Oh, you have to admit: The Great Userbox War of 2006 is already a hilarious spoof on itself. We've rarely been so absurd. :)
--Jimbo