You know what I saw?

Essays

edit

Wikicaceous humour

edit
  • The mountaineer Chris Bonington described getting up the Old Man of Hoy as "like climbing the library. Everything I touched came away in my hand." Just the experience of editing a new area of Wikipedia.
  • A 2000-year-old Roman joke (lightly retold): A Wikipedian sees an edit from a friend who hasn't been around for a while, and pings him with the words "I heard you died!" The friend replies at once "Well, you can see I'm still alive." The Wikipedian replies "Yes, but the place that told me you were dead was a more Reliable Source than you." (From the Philogelos or 'Laughter Lover', 4th Century AD)
 
Wikipedia truthfully embroiders itself, or as computer books used to say in their indexes, Recursion: see Recursion
 
Linnaeus's sexually-charged drawing of Venus dione, 1771 (guess what the labels said, Herr Freud)
  • Wikipedians who add content are "substantive experts": which is to say, they're invisible, and never rely on their own knowledge... (and I speak as one)
 
"Stubs are useless! Here is one!" The Encyclopédie entry for Aguaxima
  • "An Indispensable Part of the Internet", writes Taylor Owen on CIGI: "While Wikipedia was once derided for its perceived lack of traditional authority (teachers and professors around the world have famously, and in my mind erroneously, counselled students not to use it as a source), the website is now the single largest home of reliable information ever created."
  • Outriggr's marvellously lightly-worn learning in his poems upon matters Wiki, such as On the occasion of William Shakespeare's featured article candidacy by a group including user:qp10qp, which begins "Shall I compare thee to a Featured A? Thou art as lengthy and as templated:"...
  • Project Osprey's experience, mirroring my own: "the trained educators behind all this. They rarely have any experience of editing Wikipedia but don't seem to think this is a barrier to them training others to do so. They fail to engage with what is well-known to be a community-based project. There is also clearly an assumption that so long as content is generated then Wikipedia's needs are being satisfied"... who also notes:
  • "Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it.... The information that it contains is totally unreliable and surprisingly accurate." Freeman Dyson, NYRB
  • Tacit knowledge: Olga Tokarczuk writes in her novel Flights under the heading "WIKIPEDIA" that "As far as I can tell, this is mankind's most honest cognitive project. It is frank about the fact that all the information we have in the world comes straight out of our own heads, [Eh? WP:OR?] like Athena out of Zeus's." She goes on "If the project succeeds, then this encyclopedia undergoing perpetual renewal will be the greatest wonder of the world. It has everything [Hmm, maybe one or two small gaps] we know in it". Seems great ... but she continues "Sometimes I start to doubt that it will work. After all, what it has in it can only be what we can put into words [well, or images or sounds or video...] - what we have words for. ... We should have some other collection of knowledge, then, to balance that one out - its inverse, its inner lining, everything we don't know [editorial emphases], all the things that can't be captured in any index, can't be handled by any search engine."
  • Och aye the noo (intentionally bad Scots): a US teenager "wrote huge slice of Scots Wikipedia", apparently without knowing how to speak it himself. Then he became its Admin. He "improved" 49% of all its articles: today it has just shy of 58,000. That's 29,000 articles to clean up ... "some" have called for "the entire Scots Wikipedia to be deleted"; others to undo all the teenage admin's edits. Ouch. The Scots Language Centre in Perth is looking for "a team of volunteers" to clean the Augean Stables. Anyone out there named Hercules?
 
Piper Kerr (right), a member of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, plays the bagpipes for an indifferent penguin, March 1904
  • The right-wing rag The Telegraph names us "Wokepedia", as we're apparently a bunch of hyper-lefties who hug trees and flowers and spend all our time being politically correct (that's the "woke" bit) in the "most influential media company in the world". If they think we're all fluffy bunnies they should look at some of the edit-warring that goes on, not to mention AfD...