Wikipedia talk:The Zen of Wikipedia

Not much here, I'll admit, but I thought the point of "The use of ignore all rules that is noticed is not the true ignore all rules" was important to get across. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (No longer completely appropriate for current version.) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why WP:FU

I'm trying to get my mind around this one (#7)

# An editor asked, "has an article [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured]]
 nature or not?" [[Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan|Wikipe-tan]] said, "[[WP:FU|Fu]]."

Why

"[[WP:FU|Fu]]."

 ? - Bevo 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, criterion 3. At least I think it is. Gracenotes^T § 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's almost certainly a reference to Mu (negative) as well. — The Storm Surfer 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I caught the reference to Mu (negative) early on. The koan wikilinks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FU . That does follow a pattern Mu --> Fu --> WP:FU and there is an association of disallowing (as Mu (negative)) inappropriate "Wikipedia:Non-free content" (as covered in WP:FU) in Wikipedia featured articles. - Bevo 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rouge or rogue

Once, an admin stood before his assembled editors, and stamped his foot before them. He spoke: "If you call me a rogue admin, you ignore the facts of my appearance. If you do not call me a rouge admin, you ignore the facts of my actions. Now quickly, call me!"

Is it intentional for #5 to use two different adjectives for the admin, rogue first and then rouge second? In this context they both have specific, separate meanings (but moreso, of course, outside the context). BigNate37_(T) 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a typo, but I didn't conceive it. It is a good koan with rogue used twice, but otherwise I'm lost! - Bevo 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a derivative of this koan

‘Shou-shan held out his short staff and said, If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality; if you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now quickly, say what it is!’ [1]

— Bevo 01:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's intentional. — The Storm Surfer 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my concern was that if it is intended as written, there is a simple answer which commits neither ignorance: call him a rouge. BigNate37_(T) 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A "rouge rogue admin" will do the trick, I think. Gracenotes^T § 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it is intentional: their interchangeability (or lack thereof) is an in-joke within an in-joke. Gracenotes^T § 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:( And I was really proud of that one, but only Gracenotes got it. --Gwern (contribs) 19:32 10 August 2007 (GMT)

Origin

• Every guideline is created to defeat a particular type of problem. If you can determine what the original problems were, you will understand the guideline.

Suitable? Suggested improvements? --Quiddity 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that koan is that it's logical :) Gracenotes^T § 05:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely we know someone who could obfuscate it beyond comprehension...? ;) --Quiddity 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect solution, thank you Lubaf :) --Quiddity 02:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

For these kinds of proto-koans, the simplest procedure, if they're insufficient on their own, is to put it in the mouth of a character, ask "what would be a logical response?" and roll from there. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Number 18

The phrase He summoned his successor to the MedCom is structurally ambiguous (and not really necessary, but whatever). Is this his successor to the MedCom, or is his successor being summoned to the MedCom? Also, the clause whom had achieved... doesn't make any sense. — The Storm Surfer 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this comment, the first had been changed to to the head of the MedCom, which wasn't much better. I've reworked the sentence including the who/whom part and hope I've managed to improve it. If not, revert.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tao or Zen?

"The use of IAR that is noticed is not the true IAR" is more Daoist than Zen, isn't it? pfctdayelise (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We're very ecumenical here at Wikipedia. Figures like Han-Shan didn't see any need to choose one or the other, so I don't think we need to either. --Gwern (contribs) 18:11 12 January 2010 (GMT)