I understand your reasoning, but the defoliation of the article -- er ... fills me with deep sadness? It really was a nice, entertaining article, with plenty of examples, even if all of them weren't the platonic ideals of jokes. Now it's dry and uninteresting, difficult to skim, and gives no indication of the incredible volume of content in the humor pages it links to.
There was a wikipedia guideline that I can't remember the name of -- something like "show, don't just tell": if you're writing an article about trees it's good to have a photo of a tree; if you're writing about music, it's good to have a sound clip. This is the same principle. Should we remove all the photos at [[Tree]] because they're not totally reprentative of all trees? It seems like the solution for [[Joke]] is to get an expert review, not to bulldoze a shabby but vibrant public space.
On 7/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
I removed the jokes. Mikka reverted. My reasoning:
- no reliable sources for these being considered representative of the
classes of joke discussed
- this is about the concept of the joke, it is not [[List of jokes]]
(and most especially not [[List of randomly selected and generally abysmal jokes]])
- several are gratuitously offensive. It should be possible to read
the article on joke, be told that racist jokes exist, but not be subjected to them unless you visit a separate article
- WP:NOT a joke book
- cruft, cruft, cruft and more cruft. Most are drive-bys.
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