Wikipedia talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia

Learn more about this page

Some contents of this talk page have been archived. For initial reactions on this article, see 2005_Britannica_takeover_of_Wikimedia/archive. By the way, Wikipedia is not a chatroom.

Hmm...

Don't you think parts of this have become a bit esoteric?

Congrats Everyone!

You've taken a clever and funny original, and proven why comedy should never be group written. You should all be proud. Aidan

Yeah, the article duped me into believing it until the article degenerated into nonsense. Now it's just stupid. This article should have been restricted--Will2k 14:25, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

They've taken a clever and funny original, and turned every sentence into pure gold.

Photo

That photo of the Cuban boy has got to go. It's not funny and it might offend some people.

It is in very poor taste to use a picture of a small child being terrified by a machine gun in this site's April Fool's 'joke'

No it's not.

Where did it go? That photo had me dying with laughter! Restore it! ~Willy

Wonderful Joke!

i call BS! april fools joke.

Yeh I was a little confused until I read about Margaret Thatcher and her "burlesque days"... dead giveaway. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I almost believed in it, until I saw the picture. -Pedro 19:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was funny as hell!

oh yes

I concur! -- Yossarian What's wrong with you people? The picture should OBVIOUSLY say PWNED

Fixed it--Wesbran

Wikinews

Wait. Wikinews is supposed to scoop all the major news outlets, not Wikipedia! :) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 05:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews is supposed to be real. --Geoffrey 05:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia... - Nunh-huh 05:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AFD notice

Okay, for a real question, should the page have an "Anyone who is surprised read the [[April Fool's Day|explanation]]" notice at the top? The argument for, as I see it, is that the article is getting long, and the link at the bottom is not immediately obvious. The argument against is precedent. Any other reasons/opinions? ~~~~

I am proud to say that it didn't take more than a second to remember it was April Fool's. My heart did skip a beat, though, when I first read it. --NoPetrol 05:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, an April fool's joke next to news of the seriously ill Pope and Prince of Monaco, and the dead Terri Schiavo. Quite the contrast there. — Ливай | ☺ 05:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weirdness

What the hell is going on? Instead of saying "Article" it says "trash", instead of "discussion" it's "groupthink", instead of "history" it's time travel, instead of "move" it's "teleport", and instead of "watch" it's "stalk." Is this the work of a hacker, or is it just an April Fool's Day prank by a developer? → JarlaxleArtemis 05:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Ents are going to war.... The last march... of the Ents. Doo doo dooooo doo doo doo dooooo doo doo doo doo... doo... doo... doo... dooooooooo....

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords. --129.97.83.188 05:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Save that sort of talk for slashdot please - AC

Now the horn of Helm Hammerhand shall sound in the Deep... one last time. For glory! For ruin! And for the Red Dawn! Death! Death! Death! Death! Death!

Ride! For Rohan!

The filth of Saruman... washes away....

One ring to rule them all,

One ring to find them.

One ring to bring them all

And in the darkness bind them

In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie.

Folk in those stories had lots of chances to turn back, but they didn't.

There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fightin' for.

Master looks looks after us. Master wouldn't hurt us.

Kill them, kill them, kill them all!

But the fat one... his eyes... always watching....

Then we puts them out.

We could... let her do it....

Yes... yes...

Then we takes it... after they're dead....

Obvious?

At first, I thought this was really funny, but now people are adding so much to it, it has become irrational. I think it'd be much better if it was made more believable.

I concur. --Cammoore 07:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about... somehow people worked in references to Terri Chiavo, Pope John Paul II, AND Osama Bin Laden. So clever and funny!

Stupid

Forgive the blunt opinion, but next time, do something more subtle and believable. This is completely implausible. Encyclopædia Brittanica would never ever control an entity that would wrench control over its content. --Kitch 05:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good One

"Maui survivalist compound", yeah right ;-) And what is Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf doing in the new corporate structure? Now that's worrisome ;-)

Request: archive content unrelated to article

Please avoid posting comments on how you felt after seeing the article; no one cares about your emotions.

Now that I have that out of my chest, let's go back to the topic. Whoever made this article forgot to cite his sources, specially those alleged quotes from Bono. Can anyone verify that? R

God, I think that it would be "What hath thou done". Just letting you know. -Hannabelle

Yes, corrections are needed.

1) ASSHOLES...nearly had a stroke.

2) There are many spelling errors in there. I'm going to go pull out my red-ink-analogous laser-mouse.

9.40 CEST, April 1st: "now I wonder how Wikipedia will celebrate"

Chapeau!

Alex Bertolini.

What can I say?

Comic genius, this is just incredibly funny.

gives ~~Wikipedia~~ Wikipædia a cookie*

Sure I'm not the first, but it's still a funny bit...

I, for one, welcome our new Britannica overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Wikipedia personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground writing caves. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:15, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Can we go back to the version a few hours ago...

In just a few hours time the article has gone from somewhat believable to totally unbelievable. It hardly fools anyone any more -- KittySaturn 09:33, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Glaring Omission?

Um, why doesn't the article have any reference to the rumored last-ditch mediation attempts by Gloriana XII of Grand Fenwick? Even if the reports are untrue, the article should still address them since the story is all over Duchy. (One version claims that she had to openly sample the cucumber sandwiches before the Ruritanian ambassador would take the risk of eating one himself.) I don't have enough first-hand information to feel confident in contributing on this matter; does anybody know of any official statements or reports in the reputable press? Thanks. Doops 09:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL

LOL! Radiant _* 10:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

defacing?

someone put lots of links at the bottom, probably to increase search engine pageranking?

Please do not move this to BJOADN until April 1 is over. This article is so poorly written and dimwit could tell it full of crap and not to be believed. There are no worries here. Google had no problem with pulling off April Fools Jokes. --Ji ang 11:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese version is very good

Hahahahhahaha! -- 11:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't believe them

If anything like that comes out on the first of April, it's a hoax. Britannica didn't take over Wikimedia, so don't panic. I would bomb Britannica if they even thought about taking over our encyclopedia, imperfect as it might seem with all the vandalism and edit wars that flood the recent changes every day. Scott Gall 11:28, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Where'd the takeover go?

Toilet paper???

Am dying here

What a great line!

Standardized spelling

I guess this solves the problem of standardized spellings. :O --tomf688 (talk) 14:04, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Google Gulp

See also Google's new product, some kind of thought-enhancing "smart drink". [1] And for that matter my recent addition to Steering wheel - BMW have put full-page adverts in today's broadsheet press claiming that British-style right-hand-drive cars will be banned on the continent, and therefore the company has released a "hands-free" auto-car (the tie-in website is at [2]). In general, however, I think that Wikipedia should have one small, well-written April Fool's joke rather than a huge, sprawling mess; this article is a good idea, but the joke just goes on and on and on and on, like one of the lesser Onion skits.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact - oh, hi Ashley, I think you're really cool - is there a page on Wikipedia which could collect these April Fools' jokes, the professionally-produced ones? April Fools' jokes in the mainstream media, or something.-Ashley Pomeroy 14:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awesome

This idea was totally awesome. Wikipedia continues to call for more mind share each day I see it!
doles 14:48, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

hahaha 209.148.146.167 15:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Djiboutian kitten-eating crisis

I suppose now's a good time to point out that I have a regularly updated page about eating cats. --Ardonik.talk()^* 16:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us.

You have no chance to survive make your time. _{Ha ha ha ha.} --Ævice? 16:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

"All your articles are belong to Britannica". Hedley 17:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I thought it was Google that set us up the bomb. --Baylink 18:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

Clearly supports the view that it wouldn't be a good thing. Although I agree with that POV, we must maintain neutrality. Also, it could be aruged that I agree with it only because the article persuaded me. :^ ) -Jobarts | Talk 17:05, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Great stuff

The lead section and photo, in particular, had me in stitches. Nice one! — Matt Crypto 17:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

B-101

Wonderful joke, guys! Say, is it okay to edit the "new ministers"?- B-101 17:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Hopefully they don't remove my General Grievous edit AGAIN... ~VGerX

So long as no one touches Emperor Norton, H. P. Lovecraft, Cthulhu and Deep Thought...go ahead. Also, is it just me or is everyone ignoring the DO NOT EDIT sign over that section? CABAL 08:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was fooled..

Until I saw the picture at the top (about 3 seconds). Anyways, regarding the comments on history being time travel and such, Yesterday I saw an article that said "Vandalise this page" as opposed to "edit this page". And now it's completely insane enough that nobody will fall for it oncef they actually read the article. Anyways, good prank.

No

Its past noon. Wikipedia is the fool :p.--Josquius 17:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh...

Not everybody follows that 12:00 rule. And in some time zones it might not be noon yet.

True about some time zones (maybe Alaska?) but noon is the general custom of april fools day --Josquius 18:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ROFL

I have to admit, I fell for it.

--150.182.164.85 18:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weh hey!

Good one i acturally fell for it. Just one thing... if its an april fools joke, tend not to be so long and dragged out, i got bored after the 3rd paragraph

Five and a half trustees ?

Anthere

the head line on the main page took me in for a full second. Fabulous joke. It's a joke, right?? WOO WOO

I assure you that it wasn't a joke. --/ɛvɪs/ 01:02, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) ←That lies, it's still April Fool's Day here.

New messages prank

Well done, User:204.78.11.246! I thought April Fool's was milked for the day, but your "you have new messages" got me! Bravo :) PenguiN42 19:09, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... Got me too. I feel like such a moron. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:11, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was an ingenious prank played by Mr. Easter Lepus -- Easter Lepus 19:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Wikipedia, deleting everything

An important announcement for everyone: Please don't be shocked if I tell you this - I'll have to pull Wikipedia offline. Everything will be gone because everything has gone too far. Enough of Arpil Fools anf Brittanica. I'm terribly sorry about all your tiring edits going into the garbage, but this will have to happen. No more jokes. Everybody, get ready to say good-bye to your old Wiki friend. -- Jimbo Wales 15:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is going on Jimbo? -- Hadal 16:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he was pregnant yesterday. -- Toytoy 00:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? I LOVE WIKIPEDIA!!! I LOVE WIKIPEDIA!!!!! PLEASE DON'T DONT DONT KILL MY BEST BUDDY!! -- SimonP 16:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! -- Everyking 18:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

help help help help help!-- Seth Ilys 21:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Calm down guys! Your cries and prayers are useless. SAY BOODBYE! -- Jimbo Wales 22:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

no no no. this cant happen -- RedWolf 23:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna die. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm crying out to God. Let's all pray! Pray! -- ChrisO 23:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Our father! Come here! Listen to us!!!!! Let Wiki live!!! -- Tony Sidaway 23:59, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

WHAT HAST THOU DONE? -- The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

What? What did I do?? -- Jimbo Wales 00:01 Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

YOU HAVE ATTEMPTED TO KILL WIKIPEDIA! THOU SHALT NOT KILL! -- The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

I didn't kill anybody. -- Jimbo Wales 00:02 Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

YOU HAVE TRIED TO ROOT OUT THE WISDOM OF MEN. WIKIPEDIA IS THE SOURCE OF MEN'S KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!! -- The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

Shut up. -- Jimbo Wales 00:04 Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I SHALL CURSE THEE. CURSE THEE. NOW!!!!!! -- The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

aRGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! ok i wont kill wiki ok pleas dont hurt me ill do anything you say... -- Jimbo Wales 00:05 Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you God! God we all love you!!!! -- anon

I lol'ed --Ghost Freeman 11:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, God. But why aren't you using four tildes to sign your name? -- Everyking 00:13 Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Because I have a lot of names, and time seems like eternity to me. UTC is man's system of time, but it is not the time system of thy Lord. -- The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

Oh, sorry about that. Welcome again. -- Everyking 00:55 Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hey God, be sure to check out Wikiquette! You were yelling at Jimbo, you know. (haha) -- anon

Feh. I refuse to accept the existance of god's messages, therefore, they don't exist, and neither does he. Boy, I love logic. Coolgamer 22:59, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kitten war section

I think the Kitten war section is offtopic, inaccurate (no cites!), and most likely complete nonsense. I talked to my friend at PETA and she said she hadn't heard anything about it... She even suggested that it might be an april fools prank. User:Earl_Andrew refuses to allow this text to be removed, claiming "how dare you take off 2 hours of my wasted time!" and responding rudely when I asked for some citations... I think the section should go, but since there is a disagreement, I'd like to see if we can reach consensus here.Gmaxwell 20:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claim "2 hours of my wasted time" in absense of other arguments is a clear-cut confession in wasted original research. Hence by wikipedia policy the section should go. Mikkalai 21:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Queen Britney says it stays, so it stays! -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Your protectionism of that content is against policy. Please stop vandalizing the page with that nonsense.Gmaxwell 21:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - YOU ARE VANDALISM! -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - Huh? I thought Canadians were supposted to be smart? Gmaxwell 21:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        NO! YOU ARE SMART! -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For violating the 3-revert rule user:Earl Andrew is blocked from editing Wikipædia intil he kisses Queen Brittney. Mikkalai 21:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- NO YOU ARE BLOCKED -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - NO YOU' ARE eARL aNDREW. Mikkalai 22:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Already? I just nominated him... [[3]]Gmaxwell 22:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You didn't notice? For last several hours user:Earl Andrew did not make a single edit in Wikipædia. Mikkalai 22:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - pffft some of us have to go to class. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Important note: Queen Britney was invented by me! Boy, are Easter Lepus' jokes becoming classic jokes? -- Easter Lepus 23:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that invalidate the Queen Elizabeth image? CABAL 08:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I really like pie! I mean, I really like it! Coolgamer 22:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

No GODDAMN WAY!

There is no way a Crappy company like Brittanica could take over Wikipedia! Why would a non-profit entity sell out anyway? THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! Rtcpenguin 22:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? for profit, of course! Don't you know that all Free Software Foundation founders are shamefully rich now? Mikkalai 22:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted...

This is unprofessional, not funny, and way out of hand. The article should be immediately deleted and replaced by one refering to the hoax AS a hoax and discussing the actual reactions to it.

Your remark (and the article itself) shows that different people have extremely different notions about what is funny and what is not. Mikkalai 22:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hope you get a sense of humor (or humour) soon.

Note the meaning of "professional" today: to be professional today in any number of fields is to project a FALSE persona and a FALSE *gravitas* which would never create this page, to do it for a professional income, and never step outside of character.

The 19th century meaning, on the other hand, was that the professional had a responsibility to the truth independent of his income, and the modern professions were formed in reaction to quacks and shysters, who projected today's "professionalism" and dared not make a joke precisely because they were engaged in fraud.

But precisely to the extent that we as contributors are not paid, the equations do not apply. "Professionalism" is statistically guaranteed by the default purity of heart, since there is no reason (such as the "deadline") to submit false information.

Whereas commercial encyclopedias are ridden with errors and bias because of that form of "professionalism" imposed on the petty bourgeois who actually write the content, an alienated seriousness.

The brilliance of this page is that precisely to the extent that money has been taken out of the equation, it is obviously a spoof.

Please...

Jimbos comment

First, this was a great joke. Second...please let me add just a few more new ministers! If not, I understand. Please respond soon...as in, thirty minutes.- B-101 22:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arg, why is it protectet, I wanded to add Jimbos first comment on this. -Schnappi 00:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editable Takeover (the editors ain't done with this prank yet) — Rickyrab | Talk 00:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) I feel that protecting the page before the end of April Fool's was the wrong thing to do, so I made a new version. And if someone protects "Editable Takeover", I'll simply dump it under my name and "Pwnage of current events", which is currenty dwelling on the Schiavo case. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm on Eastern Standard Time, and it's 7:35 pm here. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UH, 2:45 am here. Too late! -Schnappi 00:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, nu, go on over to "Editable Takeover".... where the fun continues past April Fool's Day.... better yet, try User:Rickyrab/ April Fool's BJAODN!

Include Anne Frank as a minister of Journalism, please

That's the bottom line. Okay?? and don't revert me. And delete Adolf Hitler if you can't include Anne Frank. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quality

At first it was funny. It became bloated and kind of boring with each later edit. Wikipedia has to be a controlled environment. Otherwise it becomes chaotic.

As a reader, I would like to see more in-jokes and innovative BJAODN in this article such as jokes dealing with the alleged anti-elitism of the "Faith-Based Encyclopedia", the 3RR, edit-conflicts and server break down. However, it is next to impossible to keep the focus on anything when all the people are editing at the same moment. In the end, this page became an overcrowded parking lot for the rich and famous. It contained very few in-jokes. The "International reaction" section has anything but a theme. And anyone could use the "New corporate structure" section for almost any business. The "You have new messaged" thing is truly genius. -- Toytoy 01:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is it over yet?

Can we return to the task of editing other enties now? Ghost Freeman 01:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead. (Actually, little known fact, you were always allowed to.) Doops 04:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this right, I just noticed that the Dali Lama (drat my spelling) is both part of the hierarchy of the new wikipaedia, however he was also said to have used a mecha to attack Britanica Headquarter.

Well April fools is clear over

So when does this get moved to BJAODN? PenguiN42 23:28, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Old Edits

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems all the older edits have vanished... damn shame too. There was some good stuff in there I was going to archive. Coolgamer 23:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The revisions are somewhere... just lost due to lots of messy page-moves. A great example for fixing how revisions are stored in future db schemas. +sj + 04:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've put them all back together now. Graham87 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Spanish-language Wikinews prank

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As some of you may know, on December 28 Iberoamericans (except Brazil) commemorate the Massacre of the Innocents with pranks. Spanish-language Wikinews features an article about a supposed BP acquisition by PDVSA, as the Spanish-language Wikipedia presents an article about the Krill War.--168.176.160.13 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Picture

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The picture Image:Wiki-gonzales.jpg is nonexistent, it might just be me, but if not, it will need to be re-uploaded. Rapigan 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (it is an historical record, even if a silly one, of Wikipedia's development. Moreover, the proposer remains anonymous amongst us and obviously has no sense of humour whatsover. I will, however, support any decision by User: Graham87 or the originator User: Grunt.) --Jimmy.Plus (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; I've removed the clear trolling. Graham87 05:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

"2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic