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."
If by today's you mean yesterday's... (Score:3, Informative)
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:LOL (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, UtherSRG is a douche.
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:NOT BBC NEWS! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:1, Informative)
TL;DR
Then go watch the reference [youtube.com].
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]
And then it gets even better... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Real Power (Score:1, Informative)
cause spontaneous gatherings at random locations
Influencing Doctor Who storylines too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arcs_in_Doctor_Who#Cracks_in_the_universe [wikipedia.org]
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:And then it gets even better... (Score:2, Informative)
Way to kill the joke (Score:3, Informative)
Simpsons did it! (Score:3, Informative)
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:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the sum of 4chan's > 3 million articles rarely diverts from the topics of penises and lolcats.
Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (Score:2, Informative)
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...
Re:screw wikipedia (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, allegations, ideas, and stories--not already published by reliable sources."
Disclaimer: I don't know about the particulars of your friend's edits, nor do I have any particular association with Wikipedia (beyond having an account with a handful of trivial edits).
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:You people have no patience! (Score:3, Informative)
Decision makers shouldn't have the power to make decisions.
Decisions should be left up to their advisors (staff) with expertise in their field.
Re:You people have no patience! (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I couldn't shorten the report much. It included detailed information that was actually requested. Consider just the network maps. The maps themselves were a dozen pages. Anything smaller became unreadable. Well, it didn't matter since he didn't go past the first page. It was to be a comprehensive report of all the available providers, from the ones who distinctly met our criteria, to the ones who barely made it.
If you want a comprehensive report, it won't fit on one page. The executive summary was all of like 3 paragraphs taking up about 1/3 of the first page.
That's not a BBC site (Score:3, Informative)
The site ("BBC News of America") mentioned isn't a BBC site.
It's registered to an individual in Pakistan, is full of odd typos, doesn't have the BBC logo and seems to only have one contributor
Re:screw wikipedia (Score:1, Informative)
fyi Swedish is a Germanic language and not Slavic.. (+5 insightful )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language [wikipedia.org]