Comments on: Truth Vandals?

Truth Vandals?

l33tpolicywonk — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:16:25 -0800

XKCD mocks Wikipedia's "in popular culture" sections. Wikipedians take the idea seriously. The article ("Wood"). goes on lockdown. But is adding correct, even if useless, information really WikiVandalism?

By: decagon

decagon — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:21:34 -0800

If done in bad faith, yes.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:24:08 -0800

No, hiring the "theologian" Essjay was (self-inflicted) vandalism.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:24:52 -0800

Can't wait for the WP entry marking where xkcd is taking itself way too seriously.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:28:39 -0800

No, hiring the "theologian" Essjay was (self-inflicted) vandalism. Moreso then hiring an ex-con with a violent past as their COO?

By: graventy

graventy — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:28:40 -0800

It's probably worth noting that Something Awful did this joke last year. I'm not completely sure I understand the "I ALSO READ XKCD AND CAN BE FUNNY WATCH ME BE FUNNY IN THE ARTICLE HAHAHA I'M SO FUNNY". It's a vaguely humorous riff on another example of wikipedia's pop culture-based knowledge. Making his comic a reality is foolishness.

By: Dr. Boom

Dr. Boom — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:29:52 -0800

The strip doesn't say this is vandalism and I would argue that it doesn't imply it; wikipedia notes vandalism following the strip. Certainly the strip implies a uselessness of that sub-head driven by selection bias. Is anyone going to argue that this isn't a problem w/ wiki's generally? If so, good luck with that. I'll read further with skeptical interest.

By: Samuel Farrow

Samuel Farrow — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:30:34 -0800

Metafilter: adding correct, even if useless, information.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:32:09 -0800

HUH-huh. HUH-huh. Wood.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:33:39 -0800

The article ("Wood"). goes on lockdown. Oh, yeah, "Adding a woodstove or fireplace to a home adds ambiance and warmth.[5]" And there's a footnote, so you know it's true.

By: rivenwanderer

rivenwanderer — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:41:18 -0800

The "Dudes already know about wood" comment on the talk page amused me. But possibly because I'm kind of a dork.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:42:17 -0800

Every time someone makes a joke about a Wikipedia article the corresponding article gets vandalized. Is this really news to anyone?

By: Samuel Farrow

Samuel Farrow — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:46:17 -0800

A seal walks into a club.

By: l33tpolicywonk

l33tpolicywonk — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:47:37 -0800

Citizen: I would argue that this "vandalization" has a distinctly different character because the edits in question are all true. Unlike the whole Colbert thing or however many others, no one's posting deliberately false information (though the talk page goes round-for-round on some of the facts in the XKCD piece.) This is, rather, about "the democratic encyclopedia" being cut back because moderators think a section is useless, not a violation of community standards per se. Whether such restrictions are good or bad, they raise questions about the sustainability of the Wiki philosophy.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:48:28 -0800

I recently looked up "maven" on Wikipedia and was amused to find the following under "Usage":

In the computerized version of the game Scrabble, the computer player is named Maven. In Final Fantasy X-2, the leader of the Youth League, Nooj, is titled Meyvn. In Pokémon Emerald, the Frontier Brain Spenser's title is "Palace Maven".

By: Rhaomi

Rhaomi — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:51:55 -0800

I find this entire situation hilarious. It happens every month or so, whenever a Wikipedia is mentioned in any notable media source (the funnier, the worse), and l33tpolicywonk's use of "lockdown" just hit the nail on the head in terms of what that mad scramble is like. I imagine the site as a sprawling nation, dotted with countless small villages. And every so often the Gods look unkindly on one of them and unleash their wrath. Off go the sirens as the puny Wikipedian bureaucrats cower in the talk page, proffering their rules and bylaws in vain, while the more proactive editors desperately petition for a lockdown in order to preserve their precious creations from the chaotic onrushing tsunami of the Internets. That it happened this time to an article as innocuous as "wood" is just icing on the cake. And the drama! I can just picture it: ENSIGN COWARDLY: "Sir, we have multiple bogeys inbound!" ADMIRAL SHOUTSALOT: "Point of origin?" ENSIGN COWARDLY: "...xkcd..." ADMIRAL SHOUTSALOT: "Wales in heaven... what's the target?" ENSIGN COWARDLY: *scrambles for a printout* "Um... uh... ee-en d-dot w-w-wikipedia dot org s-s-slash w-wiki slash..." ADMIRAL SHOUTSALOT: *snatches the page* "Wood! A hard, fibrous, lignified structural tissue produced as secondary xylem in the stems of woody plants! Those poor bastards... alright people, this is not a sandbox! I want article E-N dot-wikipedia dot org slash wiki slash Wood into full lockdown NOW."

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:56:13 -0800

But the section was useless, and furthermore don't have citations.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:01:35 -0800

OH GOD SOMEONE IS EDITING OUR FREE-TO-EDIT ENCYCLOPEDIA OH GOD LOCKDOWN LOCKDOWN OH GOD OH GOD Wikipedia is getting almost as stuffy as Britannica.

By: sunshinesky

sunshinesky — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:02:24 -0800

I had a premonition that there would be an XKCD post today... weird!

By: spock

spock — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:12:40 -0800

File this under: XKCD shooting fish in a barrel

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:15:20 -0800

Moderators: Unlock this article at once, so that it may be amended to cite critical Popular Culture reference in xkcd. AT ONCE! OR I'LL MAKE WEBCOMIC AND COMPANION CUBE REFERENCES UNTIL YOU DIE OF FACEPALMING YOURSELF TO DEATH.

By: theclaw

theclaw — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:44:49 -0800

But is adding correct, even if useless, information really WikiVandalism? Vandalism may not be the right word, but if the content is not useful, then it's entirely reasonable to lock the page to prevent 10,000 Internet comedians making the same joke, and the subsequent 10,000 reverts. Community project, community rules; WP deletes correct content of higher value than repeats of a webcomic's joke every day. Of course, there are some well documented problems with the way the community is run, but their methods of setting and enforcing style is reasonable and largely transparent. See one of their portal sites and all the thousands of Wikipedia: policy and Talk articles linked therein. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a collection of all possible correct data, regardless of value.

By: ryoshu

ryoshu — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:57:27 -0800

I just learned that alt-right arrow is not the same as right arrow-alt.

By: katillathehun

katillathehun — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:57:58 -0800

Wikipedians are still better than IMDBians. Biography for ACTOR GUY Trivia He was born the same year as another actor guy He is known for playing a different character in every movie except sequels Appeared in two films where characters from another era dress in period clothing When he smiles, the corners of his mouth turn up Ate too many Twinkies at summer camp when he was a kid and refuses to eat them now Has a trademark forehead

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:59:51 -0800

I love that xkcd gets posted to the front page on a regular basis, reminds me to browse thru the new stuff. Does Virgina creeper really make a passable rope substitute?

By: pracowity

pracowity — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:05:13 -0800

The "in popular culture" section is a good way to keep that crap from spreading into the rest of the article. They just need to let readers toggle that section off. But Wikipedia is for when the answer doesn't matter. To learn the truth about something that matters, start with the library. They even have real encyclopedias there.

By: Wood

Wood — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:09:56 -0800

So... the latest graffiti is this clean graffiti stuff where folks "clean" words or images into dirty city surfaces. A lot of it is fairly benign but I saw some and I thought about some random and pleasant wall whose standard unobtrusive layer of grime was defaced with an advertisement. Your question answers itself: useless information is bad. There is little to no interest in an encyclopedic listing of facts about wood at the level of so-and-so is given a wooden stick in such and such show. Anyway I'm sleepy and not having any great thoughts as to what a legitimate "in popular culture" section would look like for wood or what makes the existing "in popular culture" sections appropriate so I'll just second decagon: intent is important.

By: WCityMike

WCityMike — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:31:55 -0800

> And the drama! I can just picture it: FYI.

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:40:22 -0800

WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a collection of all possible correct data, regardless of value. I will believe this once it stops listing every single Simpsons episode.

By: Xoebe

Xoebe — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:49:21 -0800

At some point an encyclopedia stops being a reservoir of all information, and becomes a reservoir of all useful or relevant or not-commonly-known information. A useful encyclopedia does not contain everything. It contains everything that is worth referencing. There is a very small but incredibly significant difference. XKCD was pointing this out, and at the same time noting that all things in the universe also have a Joss Whedon tie in. It's far worse than Kevin Bacon, really. One degree of separation. We just don't need to know it.

By: Class Goat

Class Goat — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:53:22 -0800

I gather that the term for this is "fancruft".

By: loiseau

loiseau — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:54:35 -0800

...and XKCD readers grow even more obnoxious.

By: Slap*Happy

Slap*Happy — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:57:04 -0800

Issues of truthiness aside, it's pretty cut-and-dried from a security perspective - it's a denial-of-service attack. "Pranks" that bring online resources down by exploiting loopholes - of any sort, including ones in the terms of service - tend to be looked at askance by ISP abuse departments, and open up burgeoning webcomic empires to retaliatory lawsuits and/or law enforcement investigations. In short, pretty dumb of the XKCD readers, and left Munroe completely at the mercy of the Wikipedia Foundation to take the "criticism" with grace and due consideration... which they ultimately will.

By: hattifattener

hattifattener — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:03:29 -0800

What service is xkcd denying, though? Worst case, WP has to wait a couple days and then revert, adding back in any useful stuff that got added with the flood. XKCD is hardly going to overload WP's server.

By: imperium

imperium — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:12:33 -0800

Wikipedia is getting almost as stuffy as Britannica. Dunno about you, but every time I correct something with a biro in my Britannica, the whole internet doesn't come screaming into my house shouting "NPOV! NPOV!".

By: Phanx

Phanx — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:19:51 -0800

The Simpsons' fence is actually wooden? Gosh.

By: Harald74

Harald74 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:31:52 -0800

FWIW, this Wikipedian thinks Procawity's suggestion to make the "in popular culture" section visibility optional a great one. Those sections usually are eyesores.

By: ubernostrum

ubernostrum — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:11:02 -0800

Erm. There are many reasons to conclude that Wikipedia is dumb. This? This is not one of those reasons.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:21:35 -0800

Wikipedia is more useful than xkcd is funny. Hell, Wikipedia's more useful than Google.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:23:44 -0800

See if xkcd was cool, they would make a comic where every use got diffrent wikipedia vandalism suggestions, say by using the using the Dada Engine.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:31:08 -0800

The Simpsons' fence is actually wooden? No, it's not. The Simpsons don't even have a fence. See WP:WAF#Real-world perspective.

By: msalt

msalt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:42:17 -0800

The point about "In Popular Culture" sections is well-taken, but not as funny as, say, Wikipedia's own list of lamest edit wars. Miss Kitty Fantastico Edit war over whether it is appropriate for the text "some demons" to link to the article "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet."

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:29:43 -0800

* In episode 7 of Firefly, Jaynestown, Jayne is given a wooden Rain stick by a villager. wasnt it actually episode 7 "Our Mrs. Reynolds"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Cluster (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) No, it was episode 6, "Our Mrs. Reynolds" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.224.234 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Irony-levels overload!!!

By: DU

DU — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:18:02 -0800

This thread was done after the first comment.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:51:04 -0800

I guess this is very meta since it's a popular culture reference itself, but Wikipedia's "In Popular Culture" sections remind me me of that episode of the Simpsons where Marge has made a cake for a party, and Homer comes in and starts trying to eat all the individual candy letters and roses off it. So Marge snaps at him "Homer, stop that! I made you your own second cake to mess up." And we pan to a second, sloppier cake covered haphazardly with stuff that Homer starts picking off and nibbling on.

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:18:05 -0800

With all these In Popular Culture sections on Wikipedia, the site is really showing itself to be Popularist. They need to get some In Unpopular Culture sections up in order to equal things out and keep to their egalitarian mission. For example, in the Wood article, they could link to a picture of my now-departed Uncle Walter, which was taken in the late seventies. In the picture, he sits alone on a ratty folding chair in a field. He's wearing a beer hat (left side Tab, right side Old Milwaukee, 'natch) and his nose is covered in that zinc cream that never really stopped him from getting sunburnt. In one hand he holds a hotdog. In the other, he holds a pinwheel. His clothing consists of a ratty wifebeater (which is either yellow due to his, uh, unfortunate hygiene or the age of the picture), a speedo, and what looks like tap shoes. He is smiling at the camera, showing incongruously white teeth. The stick on the pinwheel is made of wood. Also, sadly for Uncle Walter and everyone who saw this picture up at my grandparents' house, he was also sporting wood. It really makes us wonder what the hell Gram was wearing when she took that picture.

By: Spatch

Spatch — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:30:08 -0800

Quick, XQUZYPHYR, add that to the Wikipedia entry on cake before it gets locked down.

By: RokkitNite

RokkitNite — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:53:58 -0800

Surely Wikipedia's unusual focus is exactly what makes it so interesting. Whereas encyclopedias are usually constructed on the basis of what a team of academics think you ought to have information on, Wikipedia acts as a kind of referendum on what the internet public actually care about. The length of an article tends to be a good indicator of how popular a thing is. For example, the article on Scrooge McDuck is longer than any article on Scottish politicians, longer than the section on William Wallace, longer than the section on Rabbie Burns, longer, indeed, than the article on actual ducks. Look me in the eye and tell me that's not awesome.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:04:26 -0800

Wikipedia really should be called Notapedia because most arguments boil down to notability. Which is not surprising since the whole reason Wikipedia is popular is because with the Internet suddenly there is nearly unlimited information available at an instant search and we want to know quickly what is important/relevant (notable). The problem is and always will be disagreement over what is notable. Now, take this to a different level - in 100 years, what we collectively found notable in the first decade of the 21st century will be really useful and fascinating information for historians building a picture of what life was like in our era. There are thousands of biographies of George Washington and that article will likely fade into the background, but there are not many articles on The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Thus the notability battles are two sided depending if you have a mind-set that can think long term like a historian.

By: explosion

explosion — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:33:06 -0800

The fun part of Wikipedia lies in seeing what you can slip under the radar. After watching on TV how orcas sadistically kill their prey, Jerk of the sea was created, and 8 months later sits happily waiting for people to find it. Sadly, I imagine someone reading MeFi will destroy my work.

By: jefflowrey

jefflowrey — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:39:40 -0800

Metafilter: XKCD mocks. Wikipedia takes it seriously. Metafilter snarks and argues.

By: loiseau

loiseau — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:40:06 -0800

I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed finding this terribly bitter entry on the children's game Seven-Up.

By: damn dirty ape

damn dirty ape — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:03:28 -0800

There should be a lifetime ban for any popular culture or trivia entries in the wikipedia. Its just bored nerds adding anime, manga, and star trek references to everything. Stick to the anime section kids.

By: A Thousand Baited Hooks

A Thousand Baited Hooks — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:41:53 -0800

I would just like to thank msalt for linking to Wikipedia's 'lamest edit wars' page. I had never heard of this page before and already my life has been improved.

Cauliflower Is cauliflower nutritious? Does specifying what parts are usable violate NPOV?

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:48:09 -0800

Wikipedians are still better than IMDBians. I read the best inane IMDB trivia ever yesterday. It was "[actor] was best friends with [other actor], 19XX-19XX." The very timeframe of their best friends status had been documented. I really hope someone was making it up as a joke, but I doubt it.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:06:37 -0800

Whoa. That edit wars link is pretty awesome. Charles Darwin Is sharing a birthday with Abraham Lincoln important enough to include in the Charles Darwin article, or is it a bit of trivia that has no place in an encyclopedia? As of 4 February 2005, there has been an eight week-long revert war over a single sentence. There have been two polls on the Darwin Talk pages, one request for a debate, one WP:RFC, one WP:RFM, one WP:RFAr denied, and a Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute arbitration case. The discussions at Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln and LincolnArchive01, plus the arbitration pages amount to some 30,000 words, which is about the length of a short Agatha Christie novel. Trivia: Agatha Christie was born on the same day as Frank Martin. It's not at all what I expected under that name, and that cranky ending is pretty good.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:16:02 -0800

I'm going with "petty vandals" and "minor dickishness" myself.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:16:24 -0800

The xkcd cartoon is great though.

By: umrain

umrain — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:58:41 -0800

I thought this joke section was a bit better than the "Wood" edits, even though it is still just repeating a joke from the comic. Apparently from the talk page they are only leaving it up until tonight, though.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:00:18 -0800

But Wikipedia is for when the answer doesn't matter. To learn the truth about something that matters, start with the library. Starting with Wikipedia, even for something that matters, is fine, as the references listed therein are often useful. The error lies not in starting but in stopping with Wikipedia.

By: straight

straight — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:25:50 -0800

[kicks himself for not instantly realizing this would happen when he read the xkcd comic yesterday]

By: infinitewindow

infinitewindow — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:29:51 -0800

It was funnier when Get Fuzzy did it. "Fourple platinum" indeed.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:38:44 -0800

Wikipedia is getting almost as stuffy as Britannica. Good.

By: Billegible

Billegible — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:42:25 -0800

My favorite moment from the discussion : - As a note, the episode shoul be Our Mrs Reynolds, not Jayestown. :) Camajsterek (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.26.0 (talk) -squeeze in- its jaynestown, not jayestown. inaccuracies like this ruin WP ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC) - Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can't allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city. --CBG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.211.201.174 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By: m0nm0n

m0nm0n — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:57:21 -0800

The Internet is just so damned insufferable sometimes.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:16:17 -0800

Wikipedia is where D&D rules lawyers go to die. I have to admit that the xkcd comic made me laugh even if it isn't very original; Anybody who spends any time at all looking at wikipedia knows that the "in popular culture" sections are usually downright embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for wikipedia, I'm embarrassed for whoever wrote the section, and I'm embarrassed for me for reading it.

By: msalt

msalt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:49:43 -0800

OMG! I forgot this Wikithrash! I think this picture [of a sectioned orange] is unflattering if not disgusting. Who would want to eat an orange after seeing that picture? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it were inserted by somebody in the apple industry (known to be unscrupulous) or somebody with an extreme dislike of oranges. And then it gets much better.

By: rhyax

rhyax — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:24:35 -0800

Speaking as a wikipedian, wikipedia is only "taking this seriously" the same way a tree takes cutting off a leaf seriously. It has been noted, and joked about. The humor certainly isn't lost, wikipedians *love* xkcd and post and discuss pretty much every comic about wikipedia. That said, many wikipedians are at least a little doubtful of the "in popular culture" section, or at least think it's silly, which it is, but it's fun. Wikipedia takes the long view a lot, [[Wood]] won't be locked forever, better to have additions when 95% of them aren't because of a web comic, right?

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:29:49 -0800

msalt, on that same page a bit lower there's a note from the gay cabal that's pretty good: Official statement from the gay cabal, if there was one, which there isn't: There is no gay cabal. At all. There is no, I repeat no, massive conspiracy of hundreds of editors across several continents scheming via talkpage and hidden IRC channel (which if it existed, which it doesn't, would called #evilgaycabal, and the password to it would be "Mariah!") to carefully construct Wikipedia articles in such a manner that innocent young recruits children reading them will suddenly be possessed of an urge to wear pink (or flannel) and watch Queer as Folk (or The L Word) five times in a row before our crack Faery teams swoop down on them and carry them off to our perverted nests high up in the Brokeback Mountains for unnatural instruction in lisping and DIY. No conspiracy at all. And there is no "gay cabal". In fact, the words gay cabal don't exist. You're imagining it. And yes we would revelling in the article right now if we existed, which we don't. Well done Gran, if he existed, which he doesn't. All hail Xenu!(if he was real, but he really, REALLY isn't). Signed (or not), Dev920, Supreme Mugwump, if there was such a position, but there's not, of the Wikipedian Gay Lobby ™, if there was one, which there isn't. But if there was, would we tell you? 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By: painquale

painquale — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:36:59 -0800

Wikipedia pages that link to the entry on The Simpsons.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:46:56 -0800

The Simpsons Did It First

By: loiseau

loiseau — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:37:12 -0800

Okay, I must mention that I am still laughing after discovering that the defecation article has a note stating that "This article may require cleanup." I don't care what this says about me.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:12:22 -0800

Been there, done that.