Date-specific vandalism - Wikinews-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Date-specific vandalism

Re: [Wikinews-l] Date-specific...

Mailing list downtime and...

Nicholas Moreau

3 Jan 2007 3 Jan '07

7:50 p.m.

I think there should be a policy immediately adopted for all language Wikipedias, against non-legitimate articles on any day of the year, including so called "April Fools Days". While I'm not against humour, they stand to serve no purpose to the project. This is in regards to hoax news stories on the Catalan and Spanish Wikinewses. Nick

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 372 bytes)

Reply

Show replies by thread

James Hare

3 Jan 3 Jan

7:56 p.m.

While I am a big fan of in-jokes for April Fool's Day, they should stay off articles and official Wikipedia-related documentation. On 1/3/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I think there should be a policy immediately adopted for all language Wikipedias, against non-legitimate articles on any day of the year, including so called "April Fools Days". While I'm not against humour, they stand to serve no purpose to the project. This is in regards to hoax news stories on the Catalan and Spanish Wikinewses. Nick _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

Reply

Oldak Quill

8:01 p.m.

On 03/01/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I think there should be a policy immediately adopted for all language Wikipedias, against non-legitimate articles on any day of the year, including so called "April Fools Days". While I'm not against humour, they stand to serve no purpose to the project.

April Fools Jokes do serve a purpose: they make Wikipedia seem like a more friendly environment to work in. It demonstrates that users can have fun while working on Wikipedia and develops a sense of community. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Oldak Quill

8:02 p.m.

On 03/01/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/01/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I think there should be a policy immediately adopted for all language Wikipedias, against non-legitimate articles on any day of the year, including so called "April Fools Days". While I'm not against humour, they stand to serve no purpose to the project.

April Fools Jokes do serve a purpose: they make Wikipedia seem like a more friendly environment to work in. It demonstrates that users can have fun while working on Wikipedia and develops a sense of community. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

By "Wikipedia", I meant "Wikinews". Apologies. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Reply

Jimmy Wales

8:15 p.m.

Oldak Quill wrote:

On 03/01/07, Nicholas Moreau <nicholasmoreau(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I think there should be a policy immediately adopted for all language Wikipedias, against non-legitimate articles on any day of the year, including so called "April Fools Days". While I'm not against humour, they stand to serve no purpose to the project.

April Fools Jokes do serve a purpose: they make Wikipedia seem like a more friendly environment to work in. It demonstrates that users can have fun while working on Wikipedia and develops a sense of community.

What I always propose for Wikipedia, but we have never actually done it, is this: Let's have an absolutely 100% true front page, but filled for the day with things that SEEM impossible or outrageous. We get extra points if we manage to fool any journalists into thinking that we were running an April Fool's day joke front page. What I love about this: 1. It stays true to our commitment to sharing knowledge and being NPOV and truthful with the world 2. It can be really interesting and quirky 3. It is a meta-joke of far more intelligence than what most outlets would do... I mean, any moronic publication can make up fake stories for a day to try to fool people... only the absurdly clever wikimedians could add a new twist on top of it. Perhaps something like this could be planned for wikinews? Or perhaps, given that wikinews is NEWS, it would be inappropriate as compared to Wikipedia. What I mean is: at Wikipedia, the front page is mostly varied each day anyway... the featured article *could be* just about anything. --Jimbo

Reply

Benjamin Massey

10:29 p.m.

Nicholas Moreau wrote:

I think there should be a policy immediately adopted for all language Wikipedias, against non-legitimate articles on any day of the year, including so called "April Fools Days". While I'm not against humour, they stand to serve no purpose to the project. This is in regards to hoax news stories on the Catalan and Spanish Wikinewses. Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

"Date-specific vandalism"? Bit of an inflammatory term, don't you agree? At any rate, plenty of well-respected journalistic and news authorities aren't above celebrating April Fool's Day. I don't see why we should hold Wikinews to different standards.

Reply

Robin Shannon

11:51 p.m.

On 04/01/07, Benjamin Massey <me(a)benmassey.ca> wrote:

"Date-specific vandalism"? Bit of an inflammatory term, don't you agree?

No.

At any rate, plenty of well-respected journalistic and news authorities aren't above celebrating April Fool's Day. I don't see why we should hold Wikinews to different standards.

Because others hold wikimedia projects to higher standards than traditional media. If the NYT or britanica gets something wrong, then that just shows that no one's perfect. If we get something wrong it proves that this damned new-fangled wiki stuff shouldn't be trusted. paz, -rjs. -- Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> Jab me: <FIRSTNAME(a)LASTNAME.id.au> "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." --- George Bush

Reply

James Hare

11:53 p.m.

My thoughts exactly. On 1/3/07, Robin Shannon <robin(a)shannon.id.au> wrote:

On 04/01/07, Benjamin Massey <me(a)benmassey.ca> wrote:

"Date-specific vandalism"? Bit of an inflammatory term, don't you agree?

No.

At any rate, plenty of well-respected journalistic and news authorities aren't above celebrating April Fool's Day. I don't see why we should hold Wikinews to different standards.

Because others hold wikimedia projects to higher standards than traditional media. If the NYT or britanica gets something wrong, then that just shows that no one's perfect. If we get something wrong it proves that this damned new-fangled wiki stuff shouldn't be trusted. paz, -rjs. -- Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> Jab me: <FIRSTNAME(a)LASTNAME.id.au> "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." --- George Bush _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

Reply

Benjamin Massey

4 Jan 4 Jan

12:02 a.m.

Robin Shannon wrote:

At any rate, plenty of well-respected journalistic and news authorities aren't above celebrating April Fool's Day. I don't see why we should hold Wikinews to different standards.

Because others hold wikimedia projects to higher standards than traditional media. If the NYT or britanica gets something wrong, then that just shows that no one's perfect. If we get something wrong it proves that this damned new-fangled wiki stuff shouldn't be trusted. paz, -rjs.

And there is an epidemic of people writing "Wiki[blank] carried an April Fool's Day joke, ergo, Wiki[blank] is hopelessly unreliable"? While I don't pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the Internet, the scuttlebutt does not seem to head in that direction to my knowledge. While our errors are certainly overcriticised from time to time (and our inclusions more so!), our jokes are, to my knowledge, not. Reversing the bad rap Wikinews and its ilk get is a good thing, but this seems to be barking up the wrong tree to me.

Reply

Robin Shannon

1:27 a.m.

On 04/01/07, David Speakman <david(a)speakman.com> wrote:

They do endanger hard-fought-for credibility of Wikimedia projects and do nothing to further the goals of the foundation. This type of behavior is counter to the mission of Wikinews and the parameters as to why the Wikimedia Foundation approved the project. Basically: Wikinews is not in the business of publishing fiction.

But they do help to form a sense of wikimedian community which is good for the wikimedia projects and helps further its goals. Sorry, you may have noticed that I am arguing both sides of this issue. I'm not trolling, I just see the arguments of both sides and can't decide on a position. But then i'm like that on most issues. paz, -rjs. ps. Jimbo's idea is awesome, though may be too hard for wikinews. Still I think it would be soooo cool for wikipedia. -- Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> Jab me: <FIRSTNAME(a)LASTNAME.id.au> "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." --- George Bush

Reply

David Speakman

1:27 a.m.

Creating the possibility of posting something, like my boss is prone to saying, that may well go "over like a fart in church".... April Fools-type stunts have many problems - but the basic problem is this: They do endanger hard-fought-for credibility of Wikimedia projects and do nothing to further the goals of the foundation. This type of behavior is counter to the mission of Wikinews and the parameters as to why the Wikimedia Foundation approved the project. Basically: Wikinews is not in the business of publishing fiction. Furthermore, there are several logic errors in justifying "April Fools'-type temporary lapses in any of the *.Wikinews projects, in particular by comparing the project to newspapers, tabloids, magazines, etc.: Wikinews is not a commercial media newspaper: (Newspapers have opinion pages, gossip columns, editorial cartoons, want ads, etc.) -- David Speakman http://www.DavidSpeakman.com 501 Moorpark Way #83 Mountain View CA 94041

Reply

David Speakman

3:13 a.m.

But they do help to form a sense of wikimedian community which is good for the wikimedia projects and helps further its goals. Sorry, you may have noticed that I am arguing both sides of this issue. I'm not trolling, I just see the arguments of both sides and can't decide on a position. But then i'm like that on most issues. paz, -rjs.

==Who/what gets mocked?== Let's say we say go for it and allow the creation of spoof news on April 1. I honestly cannot imagine the depth of the flame wars when someone attempts to spoof such news stories as Iraq, Bush, same-sex marriage, Christianity, Islam, the execution of Saddam Hussein, sex crimes, tsunamis, 9/11, fake obituaries, illegal immigration, female circumcision... Of course the community would have to decide was is appropriate and was is inappropriate humor - and why.. I'd rather somersault blindfolded through mine fields while juggling hand live grenades than participate in any of those messes. ==Wiki-myopia== In my near 2-decades as a professional journalist, one of the main problems news teams had was of being too myopic in that they forgot that they were creating product for use by others who didn't understand - or even disagreed with - the prevailing opinions and attitudes within the newsroom community. I think we need to remind ourselves that as Wikinewsies and Wikipedians we are making something to be used by other people more so than by ourselves. Are people really coming to Wiki* to read original fiction by amateur humorists? I wouldn't bet money on it. ==Building vs. unnecessary strife== In addition, I am not sure that the end result will be community-building more than community harming inasmuch as "foolery" requires that there be intentional mockery, insult or disrespect to some established cultural norm. In my experience with writing humor, unless *all* of the participants are of a similar culture/nationality or have similar socioeconomic/political experiences, there will be negative conflict and much in-fighting and fragmentation. We've seen all-out wars among on high-profile entries when there is fact against opinion. Imagine the battles of opinion against opinion when we endorse the mockery of others. -- David Speakman http://www.DavidSpeakman.com 501 Moorpark Way #83 Mountain View CA 94041

Reply

bawolff

5 Jan 5 Jan

8:46 a.m.

I really wish that they did what jimbo said for wikipedia, that would be halarious. I don't see how we could do it on wikinews. Failing something like that, I think the most we should do is an article like the Wikinews aquired by CNN/Wikipedia aquired by britcanica etc in project namespace, linked only from recentchanges. -bawolff

Reply

6328

days inactive

6330

days old

wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

12 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

bawolff
Benjamin Massey
David Speakman
James Hare
Jimmy Wales
Nicholas Moreau
Oldak Quill
Robin Shannon