Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-31/The Onion
Onion riff prompts some to cry for change
Parody newspaper The Onion poked fun at Wikipedia last week with a "news" story about celebrating the 750th anniversary of American independence. Reactions from Wikipedia editors ranged from enthusiastic appreciation of the joke to advocating major changes in an effort to have Wikipedia taken more seriously.
The article was part of The Onion's 26 July issue, and described how Wikipedia celebrated the supposed anniversary on 25 July with a featured section on the Main Page. It included excerpts from the "American Inderpendance" article riddled with vandalism, and indicated that it had apparently been protected as a result. A number of farcical facts and subjects were discussed, rounded out by sincere-sounding quotes from Jimmy Wales about the age of the United States relative to other historical events. The Onion even mentioned links to videos of the first Thanksgiving hosted on YouTube.
This is one of several recent uses of Wikipedia in a humor context. A piece in the August issue of Wired by comedian Stephen Colbert refers to Wikipedia as a way to get your own encyclopedia entry. As a bonus, he adds, "You can edit your own entry to make yourself seem even smarter." Late Show host David Letterman read the article Cougar (slang) aloud on air earlier this month. Also, the comic strip Working Daze recently featured a series of strips featuring Wikipedia, culminating in a manager ordering one of her employees to write an article about her.
A number of Wikipedia editors thought The Onion parody was one of the better attempts at Wikipedia-related comedy they had seen. Dpbsmith said he found it "hysterically funny". Not all agreed that The Onion's effort was especially witty, however, as a few contributors from outside the United States thought the story was somewhat lacking in the humour department.
The serious side of the story
Going even further, some editors took this as an opportunity to reiterate calls for significant change. Adam Carr said the piece should be taken as "a very serious warning" that the Wikipedia philosophy of open access to all editors was turning it into "an object of ridicule." Carr, who believes Wikipedia would be better off with both fewer articles and fewer editors, has long advocated eliminating the ability to edit without registering, along with a process for bringing articles to a state of completion.
Meanwhile, Ben Houston wrote an essay criticizing the overuse of anonymity and pseudonymity on Wikipedia. He suggested adopting a system similar to Amazon.com's "Real Name" attributions. Implementing a method to authenticate an editor's identity and encouraging its use, he said, "substantively improve Wikipedia's quality and reputation." Houston thought the authentication process could be outsourced to a commercial partner, possibly fee-supported, with a second option provided for those who don't have credit cards, which is what the Amazon.com system is based on.
Reactions to these proposals were mixed. Some editors agreed with the notion of disabling edits by unregistered users; others defended the importance of anonymity to the principle of free speech. Whether any action will be taken as a result is uncertain — similar proposals have been floated in the past, but so far the primary change is the restriction of article creation by unregistered users (see archived story), a practice that is still officially considered experimental.
Discuss this story
Is it worth mentioning Orlowski's typically negative Register articles[1][2] on Skutt, his "ironic" map of the US and Canada, and Angela's departure? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can prevent humorous and would-be-humorous persons and publications from making use/misuse of Wikipedia or other publications. How would Uncyclopedia fit into this discussion?
I cannot be the only person who "tidies up" typos without necessarily signing in - and how will a authenticated name system actually work (many people with the same name etc)? How would Wikipedia prevent me from signing in under multiple pen names (whether or not with supporting evidence)? Wikipedia should avoid the problems arising from "kneejerk legislation" (see your local legislature for examples). It might be more appropriate to consider what to do with vandalised pages once they have been reverted to something sensible
Just a few ideas for the discussion.
Jackiespeel 12:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i guess i wouldn't be the only one keeping away from "outsourced" credit-card based registration with authentication etc.? i mean, i don't mind if others judge my work or re-edit my edits, that's fair enough... but i'm never getting myself a credit card, or for that matter an automobile. i was happy not having to experience any of the "outside the United States" sort of crap one sees on some websites. that is just plain discrimination. please do not go in that direction, i don't want to see credit card authentication, ZIP code requirement, age limitations or other such moronic devices on this free and (comparably) well-functioning site. --ddani 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no cure for stupidity" (and sometimes you only realise it is a silly question once you've asked it.)
There will always be vandalism, rip offs, new ways of causing a nuisance etc - and ways of keeping most of such activities to a minimum. We have to rely on most people being reasonably honourable - and being responsible for no more than the occasional pun and 'fingers in a twist' in the process. Jackiespeel 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change slowly. Wiki's open philosophy I personally find very attractive. The skit is a compliment surely.
Regarding the skit: not everything that is false is funny. MartinGugino 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]