Wikipedia Is Not Amused By Entry For xkcd-Coined Word 553
ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Today's xkcd comic introduced an unusual word — malamanteau — by giving its supposed definition on Wikipedia. The only trouble is that the word (as well as its supposed wiki page) did not in fact exist. Naturally, much ado ensued at the supposed wiki page, which was swiftly created in response to the comic. This article has more on how the comic and the confusion it caused have put the Net in a tizzy. It turns out that a malamanteau is a portmanteau of portmanteau and malapropism, but also a malapropism of portmanteau. All this puts Wikipedia in the confusing position of not allowing a page for an undefined word whose meaning is defined via the Wikipedia page for that word — and now I have to lie down for a moment."
Simple Solution (Score:5, Funny)
*puts blanket over his head and grabs a webcam* How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Wikipedia after all it has been through! It lost its father, it went through a fundraiser. It had two fuckin libel suits filed against it. Larry Sanger turned out to be a user, a liar, and now he's accusing it of hosting childporn. All you people care about is
LEAVE IT ALONE!
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Left to its own devices, Wikipedia would degenerate under the rule of deletionists until finally only one page--Wikipedia--remained on the site. This would then be nominated for deletion.
Actually, that sounds like a rather good outcome. Perhaps you're on to something.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Is bbcnewsamerica.com anything to do with the BBC? I'm guessing not.... My first reaction to this story was to wonder how the BBC had ever managed to produce such a fugly website to be honest...
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares about all that?
The most important thing about Wikipedia is that Old Uncle Lar's partner Jimbo Wales promised some wacky right-wing talk dame that he'd sanitize her (quite interesting) Wiki page if she'd tug on his johnson. That tells you everything you need to know about the dependability of Wikipedia, especia
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey, I still think Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are more useful for non-political-correct things, than Wikipedia and its false moral rules ever can be.
Face it: Wikipedia is a monarchy. What does not please the gods, does not get in. And this is why it’s fundamentally flawed: It’s centralized. I mean the one who thought that up must have never looked back at history. Ever.
It needs to peer-to-peer. It needs to be built upon a trust network. Or it will never surpass what is essentially a dictatorship over mindsets and ideas.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is a successful project. You can read mostly well-written summaries of nearly every single area of human knowledge, and for the most part it's accurate and accessible with nice diagrams etc.
I'm also tempted by that decentralized approach, but when I think about it I know that I wouldn't want to deal with ridiculous one-off articles like malamanteau just because people are having fun dicking around. The internet should be free and decentralized, and Wikipedia's policies are arbitrary and stupid, but sometimes you just want something that works! A coherent high-quality project can't succeed with waves of Internet anarchy pounding at its foundations. If you want a project where only experts and trusted people can edit, then go buy the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you want a project that anybody can edit then you have to deal with people.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Informative)
The problem I have with Wikipedia is that it refuses to create strict rules and follow them. It has stupid 'Notability' nonsense instead where it's just totally arbitrary.
For example, I'd be entirely okay with the idea that fictional things do not belong on Wikipedia, period. No fictional characters, no fictional places, nothing.
But that's not the rule. You can find, for example, 'Sunnydale California' on it, the setting of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
But I'm sure there are plenty of TV shows that don't have their setting on there, and if you tried to put them on there, you'd be removed for notability reasons. Why one fictional place is more notable than the other, I don't know.
The problem with Wikipedia is that the rules are totally arbitrary about what is and isn't on there. And enforced in a completely random manner.
Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if they weren't operating with a single namespace. But they are.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Informative)
The problem I have with Wikipedia is that it refuses to create strict rules and follow them. It has stupid 'Notability' nonsense instead where it's just totally arbitrary.
Do [wikipedia.org] you [wikipedia.org] know [wikipedia.org] how [wikipedia.org] many [wikipedia.org] pages [wikipedia.org] of rules [wikipedia.org] (and [wikipedia.org] whatnot [wikipedia.org]) there [wikipedia.org] are [wikipedia.org] on [wikipedia.org] notability [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you can parse that both ways: refuse (to create) and (follow) or refuse (to create and follow). Besides which, arguably the have fairly strict rules and they do follow them (maybe: as well as humanly possible). Those rules just create a situation where a fictional place from what is apparently a fairly popular show does have an article, while a fictional place from a less popular show doesn't.
Having a notability criterion where "one fictional place is more notable then the other" doesn't seem very unli
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Funny)
Snake?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the sum of 4chan's > 3 million articles rarely diverts from the topics of penises and lolcats.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia articles and wikipedia 'personalities' are two different things. You can use the articles while ignoring the personalities. Of course, if you want to edit the articles, you have to deal with the personalities, but who edits articles? Antisocial, egotistical wingnuts with too much time on their hands, that's who. You don't have to join the Cult of Wales to use wikipedia.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:4, Funny)
Mistakes happens
Clearly. So I guess you're, like, a senior editor?
You people have no patience! (Score:5, Insightful)
TL;DR
Oh, come on, it wasn't that long. I'm sick of people being so short in their attention span that they have to complain about any piece of text not short enough for Twitter.
Re:You people have no patience! (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't know what TL;DR meant until I saw your post. Can we all agree that anyone whose typing speed is so slow they have to make up acronyms like that isn't worth listening to?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see that a lot in regular emails. Well, not "tl;dr", but I type at over 100wpm, so my dialogue can get rather verbose. from a slow typer, I may just get "thx". What's more annoying is when they do that where I'm asking a bunch of questions.
In conversation, is it presumed that an articulate speaker trying to convey a lot of information should have their questions responded to with "ok."? It only indicates that the listener (or reader) has the attention span of a 2 year old
Re:You people have no patience! (Score:5, Funny)
So.... Can you sum that up in a couple of sentences for me?
Re:You people have no patience! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, this window only takes up half my screen. I have streaming porn on the other side. I only got as far as "boobies". Can you explain what you were saying again?
Oh look.. boobies..
Re:You people have no patience! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, I lost you at
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Funny)
what an original idea. Let me offer you my most sincere contrafibularities.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By definition, all contrafibulations are sincere. They have to be, they're the opposite of lies.
If by today's you mean yesterday's... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (Score:5, Interesting)
Malapropism means to use a word in place of another word that makes the same sound, but doesn’t deliver an appropriate meaning, for example, odorous for odious, comprehended for apprehended and auspicious for suspicious and benefactors for malefactors. All these are Malapropos of each other. Now the second word portmanteau means to merge two words with each other in such a way that the sounds of the two words become merged as well as their meanings. In this case malamanteau is a portmanteau of portmanteau and Malapropism, whereas malamanteau is also a Malapropos of portmanteau. The meaning of the new word is still to be created properly.
Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a very hirsute observation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (Score:5, Informative)
Some readers at the XKCD forums pointed out that the term may have originated from this MetaFilter thread [metafilter.com] back in 2007:
[blockquote]It's not spoonerism. More like a portmanteau combined with a malapropism. So I'd go with malamanteau or a portmanpropism.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:31 PM on July 17, 2007[/blockquote]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
for example, odorous for odious, comprehended for apprehended and auspicious for suspicious and benefactors for malefactors.
I have a young cousin that loves to talk... and he does this all the time, nearly every other sentence he is using the wrong word for what he's talking about, yet it isn't difficult to understand what he's saying. I've noticed this more often on the reality shows (when I catch glimpses on talk soup), the reality stars are constantly doing that, replacing the wrong word for the word they mean.
What is a person that suffers from this linguistical malady called? There must be a more clinical and less pejorativ
Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed this more often on the reality shows (when I catch glimpses on talk soup), the reality stars are constantly doing that, replacing the wrong word for the word they mean.
What is a person that suffers from this linguistical malady called? There must be a more clinical and less pejorative term than 'idiot.'
In the case of "reality" shows and daytime talk TV, I expect there is no more accurate word than idiot.
Who cares about pejorative? The truth hurts.
Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the best example of why XKCD is an awesome web comic - a modern "funny" - I've seen in some time. In fact, I'd argue the societal commentary is often better - more cutting and intelligent - than you'll find most anywhere else (WSJ included). It's not always just "geeky" stuff, though Little Johny Normalization is a great example in that department, too.
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:4, Interesting)
All right then, since you find it so funny, could you explain the joke to me?
Because I have absolutely no idea what the joke is in the line "Ever notice how Wikipedia has a few words it really likes?", or even what it is trying to say. No, I haven't noticed Wikipedia having any words it particularly likes, whatever that means, and I have no idea what that has to do with a made-up funny word?
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.
1000 kg is only a dozen people though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.
1000 kg is only a dozen people though.
Maybe AC is more clever than you think... Maybe he was simultaneously ripping on XKCD for being fat, and saying that there's hardly any of them at all?
(Or, then again, maybe he just has no concept of powers of ten...)
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.
So that's like what, eight or nine Slashdotters.
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:5, Informative)
Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.
So that's like what, eight or nine Slashdotters.
Or your mom.
Re:It exhibits no creativity. (Score:5, Informative)
http://xkcd.com/195/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/249/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/426/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/681/ [xkcd.com]
These seem reasonably original.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
People don't find xkcd funny because the comics themselves are funny. People find it funny because it makes a direct reference to something that somebody else has made funny in some way. xkcd is nothing more than a pointer to funny material.
Please cite specifically the "funny" sources that these comics reference:
http://xkcd.com/727/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/724/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/719/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/37/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/562/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/239/ [xkcd.com]
http://xkcd.com/225/ [xkcd.com]
(And yes, these are funny, not only to me, but to other people I show them to.)
Re:It exhibits no creativity. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Far Side is, as well. Dilbert is somewhere in between them and xkcd, where it makes references to other funny material, but does have significant originality and creativity. Then there's xkcd, which is unoriginal,
My test is this. I work in a scientific establishment - not a super-geeky-web type place but an "old established science" type place. Over the last 2-5 years, "xkcd's on the door" have largely replaced the yellowing Far Sides... maybe about 1/4 of the doors around here are thus infected independent of each other.
On my own door is this [xkcd.com] and let me tell you I get more people just stopping to say how funny that is -old guys nearing retirement shaking with laughter and saying "how true" - than with any cartoon I've had up over the years.
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
So you're saying you liked XKCD before it got popular, but now that it's popular it sucks? Lemme guess... you like indie bands, too?
Jorge Luis Borges (Score:4, Insightful)
The library is witness to both truth and falsehood
I'd check the quotation properly in my translation, but currently it's hiding somewhere in L-space, probably afraid to come out.
The most scary part is the number of googleresults (Score:5, Interesting)
I still think that the most scary(And interesting) part is that google now have 152,000 hits for the word. So a: Google is fast at picking up new words. It really generated a lot of interest and there are quite some spammers with some effective automatic page generation systems.
Real Power (Score:5, Funny)
And people say kids these days put too much stock in wikipedia. Come on, they won't even let an undefined word be added even after it clearly becomes defined by xkcd.
Now the power to change google search results [xkcd.com], make new words [xkcd.com], and cause spontaneous gatherings at random locations [xkcd.com]. That's power that only stick figures can be trusted with.
Serves them right (Score:4, Funny)
It serves them right for deleting all that porn. Karma's a bitch!
NOT BBC NEWS! (Score:5, Informative)
The link in TFA: http://www.bbcnewsamerica.com/malamanteau-wikipedia.html [bbcnewsamerica.com]
This site does not appear to be related to BBC News, it is actually registered to a guy in Pakistan:
Domain Name: BBCNEWSAMERICA.COM
Registrant:
Digghost.net
Shahbaz Ali (info@digghost.net)
DHA Lahore
Lahore
Punjab,54000
PK
Tel. +092.3218830642
Creation Date: 16-Feb-2010
For reference, BBC World News America has this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/default.stm [bbc.co.uk]
-molo
Re:NOT BBC NEWS! (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, I only realised this mistake after I posted the submission. This particular story has in fact been copied around an endless list of such spam sites, but I was totally unable to find the original source, so I couldn't make a proper submission update in time. It'd probably be best if the link was taken out of the story altogether as the site linked to is essentially plagarising whoever initially wrote it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought this was blindingly obvious based on the fact that the author of TFA is clearly a pseudonym, there's a very low hit counter at the bottom, and the web design looks like it's from six years ago. Slashdot editors must be out to lunch on this one.
this is not new (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this is not new (Score:5, Funny)
Here you go [askoxford.com].
Protip: this was the first result of googling "etymology quiz", which is actually 3 fewer characters to type than "[citation needed]".
Re: (Score:3)
What part of "possibly apocryphal tale" are you having trouble with. He already said that its veracity is questionable. For the record, I have also heard the same tale.
QFTD. (Score:4, Funny)
"Your obscure Pokemon obsession is no more valid than my XKCD fetish" - Anonymous
--
BMO
screw wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
So, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis for quick reference and as a jumping point to the sources. However, as a community/culture, I think its really just sort of gotten out of hand. Arguing for pages and pages about something which is really sort of inconsequential? Who do they think they are, Slashdot? (but seriously...). I first realized a few years ago that there was no point in trying to actually participate when I watched a revision war/flame fest between some random Swedish guy and an exchange student friend of mine who was from Georgia (the country), over stuff in the Georgia article. J. Random Swede decided that being born in a country, growing up there, and having had 20+ years of first-hand experience wasn't good enough to contribue some relatively minor points to the article, iirc. It turned into quite the little bru-ha-ha between Soso (my friend) and that guy, who wasn't exactly a Slavic languages and culture scholar himself, either. There is some value in wikipedia, but not enough to justify a bunch of bored, pissed-off nerds thumping around like some stiff-collar Britannica editors at the East India Club.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First-hand experience is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all, regardless of how good it is. That's because there's no way for anyone later to verify your friend's level of experience. All information on Wikipedia is supposed to be cited (or common knowledge). Do you really think it would be a good idea to just trust all contributors who claim to have knowledge of some subject?
The official name of this policy is No Original Research [wikipedia.org]. "The term 'original research' refers to material--such as facts, allegatio
And then it gets even better... (Score:4, Informative)
Like "False Fact On Wikipedia Proves Itself" (Score:3, Insightful)
Cool. It's like a new and improved version of the prank involving the lengthy name of the new German Foreign Minister [slashdot.org] last year.
We Are Now At XKCD DEFCON 4 (Score:5, Funny)
The XKCD threat has officially been upgraded from "Unfunny But Harmless" to "Somewhat Annoying".
Luckily for them, the Internet doesn't scramble its bombers until DEFCON 2 ("Almost As Problematic As 4chan").
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
However ROFLcopters fuelling up as we speak
Re:We Are Now At XKCD DEFCON 4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly you haven't been targeted by 4chan.
Way to kill the joke (Score:3, Informative)
Simpsons did it! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh the irony. (Score:4, Funny)
It's really odd the wikiadmins should be complaining about someone else making up things to put on their site. All things considered, it seems somewhat hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really odd the wikiadmins should be complaining about someone else making up things to put on their site. All things considered, it seems somewhat hypocritical.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It's precisely because it's so easy for random people to document made-up stuff on Wikipedia that the wikiadmins take such a hard line about removing it. Without a serious focus on removing such articles, the encyclopedia would be flooded with them.
Correct response (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct response is "Good one. That was very funny! We are a project that lives and dies on the contributions of our users. You just demonstrated how quickly people on the internet can be motivated and organized to a single goal. We're hoping some of that energy can be directed towards making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks. -- The Management"
Everyone is so ready to hop on the hate-wagon (Score:3, Insightful)
"Wikipedia sucks! Ya man, they're not COOL enough to let my favorite webcomic make shit up on its website!"
I think XKCD has the right to make whatever jokes it wants to. I also am more of the opinion that Wikipedia should allow the article to be published. For the sake of avoiding confrontation, Wikipedia should probably chill and let it through. In reality, though, all the thousands of people who vandalize Wikipedia every day who think they're SOOO funny just mess things up for everyone else.
Wikipedia has done more for humanity's accessibility to knowledge than most of us will individually in our lifetimes. So quit being so damned rough on a website with such a huge task at hand: creating an accurate, universal encyclopedia while fighting ignorance, stupidity, and malice.
It's the 21st century all right. (Score:5, Interesting)
An internet forum is debating the proper formalism for creating neologisms on a user-edited encyclopedia.
Would I even be able to give my grandmother the slightest glimmer of what this is about?
New Malmanteau: "Wikador" (Score:3, Funny)
"Wikador" --A malmanteau combining "Wikipedia" and "Matador," the latter standing in semantically for "Editor."
Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Score:3, Insightful)
Without getting into the argument about the notability of the term (I think it's quite notable, but I'm biased), "Malamanteau" should not have a Wikipedia entry because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as Wikipedia will gladly point out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTDICT [wikipedia.org]
Not BBC! (Score:3, Informative)
The link in the article is a blog. It has no ties with the "real" BBC. This is the real one... [bbcamerica.com].
Poor Wikipedia...
I give 6 months until (Score:4, Insightful)
Tough Luck, Wikipedia (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
read the talk page on wikipedia last night, might have been one of the funniest things i've ever read. i do love wikipedia admins, never before in human history has anyone gotten so drunk on so little power.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Funny)
never before in human history has anyone gotten so drunk on so little power.
I take it you don't work at a University....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what happens when you let a bunch of random self absorbed schmucks think what they are doing is actually important to the world.
While I'll use wikipedia as a starting reference point but lets face it, if you use Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative reference, you're an idiot. I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.
[Citation Needed]
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
[Citation Needed]
Wikipedia has made me hate those two words. Not because citing sources is bad, but Wikipedia has turned it into a parody. If you look at a real encyclopedia, it will contain a rather original text written in encyclopedic style. If you took such an article and pasted into Wikipedia you'd get dozens of [citation needed] because not every other sentence has one. Meanwhile you can pretty much load it with all the bias you want just by using biased sources despite the NPOV policy. I liked it back when you could just contribute some knowledge about a topic you knew about, today that's frowned upon as "original research" even though it isn't very original or research. That and the very questionable concept of Notability [wikipedia.org], which manages to completely not mention point of view. For example if I study local history of [city], then there's tons of information that might be notable enough for someone to put in a book and thus have decent authoritative sources. Are they then notable from the point of view of wikipedia? Did they have an impact on world history? Hardly, but if so you could delete 98% of wikipedia. How local a notability is notable? The hard questions are really answered by policy, which is why you get the politics.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you seen those pages vandalized with dozens of [citation please]? Too often it's a result of an asshole or douchebag putting the numerous [citation please] tags, just because he (usually a he) either refuses to use his brains properly, or has some personal vendetta against the contributor. Because the asshole could easily have used: "This section may contain original research or unverified claims.".
Just because you're doing it for free doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't slag you off for not doing it properly. If you let your personal issues reduce the efficiency of a "soup kitchen" you won't be welcome for long, even if you're doing it for free and supposedly for a good cause. You're a voluntary cog in a wheel, you want to do your job? Leave your ego at the door. Few people like noisy wheels.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Have you seen those pages vandalized with dozens of [citation please]? [citation needed] Too often it's a result of an asshole or douchebag putting the numerous [citation please] tags, just because he (usually a he [citation needed]) either refuses to use his brains properly [citation needed], or has some personal vendetta against the contributor [citation needed]. Because the asshole could easily have used: "This section may contain original research or unverified claims.". [citation needed]
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate [citation needed].
The message there is basically, "I think whoever wrote this is wrong, but I'm too fucking lazy to look it up my damn self. Therefore, I'll shit this tag on it so one of my slaves can look it up later." Except there aren't any slaves, so the damned [citation needed] stays up for 6 years.
Look, if the factoid sounds like bullshit, you have two options:
1) Look it up your damned self and add a citation
2) Delete it
Don't shit tags all over the place. That's not fixing the problem, that's j
Re:LOL (Score:4, Interesting)
The message there is basically, "I think whoever wrote this is wrong, but I'm too fucking lazy to look it up my damn self. Therefore, I'll shit this tag on it so one of my slaves can look it up later." Except there aren't any slaves, so the damned [citation needed] stays up for 6 years...
Look, if the factoid sounds like bullshit, you have two options:
1) Look it up your damned self and add a citation
2) Delete it
Your first recommendation assumes its the responsibility of the editor to be an expert in every article. It's not. The contributors are responsible for doing the research, the editors are merely there to make sure the final article is of good quality.
Your second recommendation is actually sending the "I think this is wrong" message you dislike. "Citation needed" means just that: there are claims being made which are not supported by any given references. Leaving it untouched means that the editor isn't sure if this is, in fact, correct, so the information is left there for all to see with a reminder that if it is untrusted. On the other hand, if you just up and delete, that must mean that you know it's wrong.
I think the biggest problem with wikipedia are the people deleting shit. If it's vandalism, delete it. If you know for sure that something is wrong, and can post the factual information with citations, then delete it. Otherwise, leave it there (and add the [citation needed] tag where appropriate). I'm not sure why the tags would bother anyone, even if they are up there for six years. If nobody ever adds a citation, that means a citation is still needed, so the tag should stay there forever.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
if you use Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative reference, you're an idiot. I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.
While it may not be obvious at first glance, you have effectively just cited wikipedia as authoritative proof that people who cite wikipedia are idiots.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, Wikipedia editors are the worst, they take what should be an encyclopedia filled with -everything- and try to narrow it down to fit what they want.
Does Wikipedia -lose- anything if it accepts an article that is a word coined by xkcd? Of course not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely correct, but you're overlooking the meta-game of the ego war.
In your world people would slave over articles, post them, and they would never be looked at because they weren't notable.
In the Wikipedia world 'notability' is a standard and if the article survives, then it was worth writing in the first place.
In short, 'notability' is a cheap psychological tactic designed to get people to contribute free labor to the website, and little else. You're trying to buck that trend, which likely wou
The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't really with xkcd. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of idiots out there who think they're as funny as xkcd. If the Wikipedia administrators only had to deal with the once-in-a-blue-moon comic vandalism by Randall Munroe or Stephen Colbert, this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, when these idiots take it upon themselves to try to convince their buddies that they are as funny as the people who really are funny, it makes life awful difficult for people trying to maintain a useful site.
I'm GLAD they take themselves seriously. If we didn't have folks working on behalf of Wikipedia that did, looking up information on anything would be precisely as useful and informative as looking up information on malamanteau.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that being able to create a reference page for a brand new word is probably one of the strengths of wikipedia.
And nobody sees the irony in commenting on a page's lack of notability?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't really with xkcd. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of idiots out there who think they're as funny as xkcd.
In my experience, those idiots are correct.
Who'd've ever thought that a stick figure comic would be guilty of trying too hard?
Re:The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is saying its XKCD's fault. I think just about everyone on slashdot would agree that since XKCD has poked fun at Wikipedia time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] again, that the comic has a reputation for this kind of thing and shouldn't catch anyone off guard.
The only thing that should have been unexpected was people flooding to Wikipedia to look it up, (in which case, Randall would have expected it surely, but not Wikipedia). Its not like it crashed the servers, people just got ridiculous about what it should say, and as such, the fault lies on those stupid individuals.
Had I coined a new word on Urban Dictionary, and it caught on, and people flooded Wikipedia as well to look it up, would I be blamed? I sure hope not.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. See also http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Bureaucratic_Fuck [encycloped...matica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys take themselves waaay too seriously.
Who?
The XKCD fans who create a wikipedia page about a word that didn't exist until yesterday?
Or the Wikipedia admins who delete a page about a word that didn't exist until yesterday?
To be honest, I think both groups take themselves a bit too seriously. See that talk page in the summary? Yikes.
Re:Love at first read. (Score:5, Funny)
And now I need to go to go make a wiki page on biavianliths.
Care troll cares a lot. (Score:3)
I wanna be a Care Troll
Oh It will be so great to when I'm a Care Troll
Oh I can hardly wait to be a Care Troll
And do the things Care Trolls do.
Oh I wanna be a Care Troll like you!
Seriously, care troll, we all know about the leak. It's not news. And here in America, we don't care what government some washed up ex-empire elects. Jon Stewart is always on about something, how is that news? This isn't the beeb, this is Slashdot, and you know what we care about? Xkcd and douchebag wikipedia editors, that's what.
Re:wikipedians, take a chill pill (Score:5, Insightful)
every kid in the world knows that it's a lot funnier to poke the bitchy guy, and everyone knows the best thing to counter is to just ignore.
Well you can either ignore people by giving them what they've whining to get... or you can ignore them by sticking to your principles and not budging.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of solid, sourced information. It's not supposed to be "a source of solid, sourced information... except when it's funny not to be!"
So Wikipedia is trying to stick to their principles and not let an entry degenerate into something funny but ultimately confusing. The only proper way to actually maintain the entry is to explain the origin and popularization of the word (specifically, that it is a word mentioned in an xkcd comic). Their current solution, a redirect to the entry on xkcd, seems reasonable until the term gains further notability and there's something to actually write about in the entry.
now, wikipedians, chill out. IIRC, there's an entry on the wikipedia's rules saying that you can throw away all the rules if appropriate.
The problem with the "chill out" argument is that the perpetrator of every joke-edit and piece of vandalism would like Wikipedia to "chill out"--but to allow all those joke entries to accumulate would seriously harm the quality and credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Why does your joke-edit warrant the "throw away the rules" exception but all the other joke-edits do not? The fair and proper solution is to not allow joke-content, and to stick to Wikipedia's principles.
So, really, I think it is the joke purveyors (well-meaning vandals?) who should chill out, and accept that the jokes they are interested in do not warrant the "throw away the rules" exception.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of solid, sourced information.
I'd do a 'citation' joke here, but it's just too damn easy.
Wikipedia may or may not 'supposed to' be this. But it isn't. It is, at best, a loose collection of individual best efforts that may or may not have accessible sources at the bottom of the article.
Which goes back to the original advice about not being too full of oneself...