Wikipedia talk:Randy in Boise

Merge with Wikipedia:Anti-elitism

The quote appears over there... Perhaps this should be merged, until more is written about Randy in particular? –xeno^talk 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it convenient to have a place for the "Randy" quote outside the concept of anti-elitism, since it applies in broader contexts. If others disagree that's fine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if this was deliberate, it's not a problem. –xeno^talk 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this should stay here sans the merge tag. It's funny and points right at a common wiki-problem. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Merridew. The article is fine as is. Amusing and on point. Nothing needs to be changed about it. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The essay misrepresents the author of the quote

Per WP:MOS:

Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Wikipedia to give emphasis to some words. If the latter, an editorial note [emphasis added] should appear at the end of the quotation.

I propose the essay follow WP:MOS so that Sjöberg's meaning isn't modified without the proper editorial justification added. Per WP:BRD. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw jeez... are you serious? Let's get rid of the bolding instead of putting in an ugly "emphasis added." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Any truth behind this?

Was this based on a real or mythical incident, and have people come across this sort of thing outside of alternative medicine, climate change and evolution? ϢereSpielChequers 07:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found this very true at times but then I am familiar with the climate change area of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Randies (and their foreign cousins) are everywhere. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Humour

It took me a minute to figure out what this was about.

And since it seems to be using a semi-humourous example to illustrate a point, I thought the humour template would seem to be appropriate. - jc37 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But I think that would be unfairly misleading to people who then expect to read something which is actually funny. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why Boise?

Why was the city of Boise chosen?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a question for Lars not us. ϢereSpielChequers 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reason is because it's viewed as a random, little-known place with no particularly strong cultural associations. Dcoetzee 06:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it just has a higher-than-average number of ignorant bozos. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

John who is black

I think the title says enough. This essay is ludicrous. No one would permit an essay with the above title here, ever. Why is it ok to associate a bad behavior with a particular geographic location? Simply because it is quoting an article in a magazine? If the Idaho Statesman were to write an article critical of this essay and use the same analogy I have used here, would that be justification to allow an essay titled 'John who is black"? I find this essay personally insulting, and bigoted in the worst way. I dare mention that I find it insulting and everyone comes back with comments that my being insulted reinforces the essay. I have never pushed POV here, but since I find this essay insulting, suddenly I become a POV pusher? This is crap! People who are supposed to be intelligent, and most Wikipedians consider themselves intelligent, should be above this kind of thing. Associating a behavior with being from Boise, even if someone from Boise did behave that way once (or even dozens of times) is no better than saying "OJ killed his wife, so all black men will kill their wives". It is patently offensive. Yesterday, User:Iwannasuckyou was summarily deleted. No hearing, no XfD, no AfD, just summarily deleted. Why? Because it is patently offensive. Assigning a bad behavior to a particular geographic region is just as patently offensive! This needs to go. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

People who live in Boise can move away from Boise. People who are black can't do much about that (unless they want to emulate some of Michael Jackson's more dubious medical procedures).

In any case, there is a long list of traditional geographical butts of jokes (Gotham in medieval England, Chelm in Jewish folkore, etc.). By comparison, Boise was pretty much picked at random... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Because someone randomly picked a city to be the butt of the joke, people who live there should move to avoid it? You can't really be seriously using that to defend this? Boise is a wonderful place to live. All sorts of interesting activities, many intellectually stimulating jobs available, to some a great climate. It is the third largest city in the Northwest, behind Seattle and Portland. It just isn't appropriate to randomly single out ANY group of people to be the butt of a joke. This isn't in the mainspace, where the no censorship policy would apply. This is an essay that gets quoted far too often, that pokes fun at a group of people. Current, living people, not historic figures. It embraces an air of hostility and superiority, an attitude many have recognized as a problem on Wikipedia. Show me one way it improves the project! I have cited many ways that it detracts from the reputation and legitimacy of the project. Do you think a university or museum would allow such an essay to exist in its training material? (That is my understanding of what essays are supposed to be: Material to help explain the many rules and policies of Wikipedia and to generally make editing Wikipedia more fun.) Be bold. Quit embracing the status quo and stand up for what is right! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Living in Boise is a highly-mutable characteristic, unlike being female, black, gay etc. I'm sorry if you feel personally snubbed, but Boise-hatred is not an established social problem or form of discrimination, and the current suffering of Boise is as nothing compared to the suffering of Gotham and Chelm in former times... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So I can assume you are on record as approving of maintaining an atmosphere of exclusion on Wikipedia. I notice you didn't bother trying to cite a way it improves the project! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why "Randy from Boise" and not "Randy from Rockville"? More bullshit bigotry from the Urban Archipelago crowd, I suppose. 184.19.129.152 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I just had a thought. AnonMoos, what's you're real name? We'll use that. You're free to change it. Just drop by the DMV, fill out the paperwork, etc. - Richfife (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, make things personal -- that's always the way to convincingly win an argument (not to mention win friends and influence people)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Using "Boise" already made it personal for the 200,000 or so people that live in Boise. - Richfife (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't. AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it has. Have you read this entire section? We're not the only two people contributing. - Richfife (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is the point. You will note the edit tag: "A Modest Proposal". It was not a serious suggestion, but it was making the point that being tied to stereotypes of low intelligence is unpleasant. Why did my suggestion offend you exactly if that wasn't true? - Richfife (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't personally "offended" so much as I found your strategy of attacking the person instead of trying to win the argument through reasoning and evidence to be singularly pointless and ineffective. AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a mythical location like "Puddleboro" (I just made that up on the spot and verified its non-existence) is a better bet. - Richfife (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2006 in Wired magazine, Lore Sjöberg said "Boise", not "Puddleboro"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not Wired. Or Medieval England or past time Judaism. I noticed you avoided the more obvious reference that cuts closer to home: The Polack Joke. This article is taking an outside essay written by a man speaking only for himself and giving it Wikipedia's imprimatur; namespaces are an artificial construct. Time to drop the location reference entirely? When you say "Mary Sue", no one is confused despite the lack of a location. The original article only mentions Boise once. Moving forward it only says "Randy". Why are we dragging the Boise reference into the title at all? - Richfife (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that's what the meme is known as... And your proposal does nothing to address the potential grievances of those named "Randy". AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a meme. This is an essay intended to give advice to Wikipedia editors. The word "meme" appears nowhere in it. An article on a meme is fine, but it needs to include discussion of why it's offensive. There is no significant (< - important word) history of discrimination of stereotypes based on a name as common as Randy. There are many, many examples of stereotypes based on places of origin. You brought up two yourself. Time to kick this up to a higher level. - Richfife (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no higher level. Someone would have to try very hard to get offended by the notion that Randy is from Boise. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm responding to the request posted at WP:3O. Here is what I have to say.

1. It's not clear what the question being asked is.
2. If it is about deleting the essay or page-moving it, I can't really help. The only way to do that is through WP:MFD or WP:RM.
3. It it is about including content in the essay about some people taking exception to the use of the phrase then, sure, why not? All it needs is for someone to write some suitable content.

Thanks. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a proposed change. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the unnecessary Boise references (there was only one) and changed the title. - Richfife (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Amusing, but no. I suggest a broadly advertised request for comment to achieve consensus for this -- and no canvassing the Boise wikiproject!Dan Murphy (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really need an RfC, just a formal move request, which can be advertised as broadly as anyone cares to. Formerip (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the structure of an rfc and a requested move discussion? Zippo.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, so... Formerip (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If not Randy in Boise, then why "Randy?" Using a name more common to men than women implies the stubborn ignoramus is likely male, and reinforces a hateful and hurtful stereotype. Instead of "Randy," how about "Pat?" Though that is still perhaps Anglocentric... Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Boise Boise Boise Boise

I've seen some odd things on Wikipedia before, but trying to claim that mentioning Boise is the same as being racist is completely off the wall. I don't think anybody puts any special significance on Boise other than it's a funny sounding name for a city. Say it four times fast. Yeah, crazy. Boise is what Lars said. We can't change it to something else, and we can't truncate it without losing the reference. People sure do get offended for rather silly reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We could rename it to "Culturally-Indeterminate Name Of Uncertain Gender In Fictitious Locality"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I support that! :-DDDD Seriously, I agree with Dreamguy that this whole discussion is silly. Rename it to "Randykitty from somewhere", for all I care! --Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It couldn't be from just "somewhere", it's gotta have rhythm & rhyme (or alliteration, or counterpoint, etc.). E.g.: "Randykitty from Tallahassee". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. There was a reason Woody Allen placed Annie Hall in Chippewa Falls.

"Jack/Joe/Bob from Hicksville" (note, however, that there are real places called Hicksville) is the best I can come up with as for a generic name, but I think poor Randy is too well established already in this particular sense, so real Randies living in Boise are just going to have to live with this unflattering meme. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad that an article that uses a random name and location is being taken so personally. I think it's obvious that the Wired author could have picked any funny sounding city (Peoria, Massapequa, Piscataway, Ronkonkoma, etc.), I remember living in the Bay Area, people always used Milpitas to make similar points.

You might want to direct your anger at the writers of The Big Bang Theory for setting part of an episode in Boise where Sheldon is robbed. I'm sure the city was also chosen purely because of the sound of its name and not because this incident reflect upon the character of the inhabitants. Boise is a perfectly nice place, low crime rate, heck, U.S. News & World Report named it as one of the 10 best places to live!

Do you know how often people use New Jersey as a punchline? All of the time! And they don't know that people like me live in a rural environment, surrounded by forests, not toxic waste dumps or interstate highways. But when comics use New Jersey to make some point, I know it's a sign of their ignorance and I do not take it personally because I can look out my window, see the wild rabbits who live in my backyard and I know that they don't know what they are talking about. Newjerseyliz (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Serious or satire ?

I have always assumed this essay was satire, lampooning the interactions between two hypothetical and extreme types of Wikipedia editor, the "expert" and the "over-enthusiastic amateur". Surely, I thought, no-one takes this essay seriously. However, when I attempted to highlight the satirical nature of this essay over at WP:COMPETENCE (which links here), I was reverted. So at least one editor thinks this essay is meant to be taken seriously. What is the consensus - is this essay serious or satire ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WTF?! That essay is as true as true can be. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a common problem on Wikipedia - the person with little awareness of how much more he has to learn about his topic, and who will often edit-war and sling personal abuse because he genuinely and ignorantly believes himself to be right (and who may even, because of the overconfidence with which he pontificates, appear to be right to completely uninformed eyes), even though his contributions are often poorly argued and full of nonsense which would attract red ink in an undergraduate essay. Some such people are in late middle age or older but come across as far younger (e.g. a tendency to hold, and rant about, extreme political opinions) - perhaps because they are people of moderate intelligence who have never "got out much" or had to test their wits against people smarter than themselves and have gone through their lives regarding themselves as, or being told by their friends that they are, undiscovered intellectuals. That is my experience anyway.Paulturtle (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand the confusion, since someone expects a serious essay to be maturely written, and a humorous essay to be actually funny, and this essay is neither. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's more like an only slightly exaggerated parody of an all too real phenomenon. If you've ever run into a crank on Wikipedia, you will recognise the pattern and sigh. Maybe the essay isn't "actually funny" because it's sadly only all too true. It's not meant to make you laugh out loud; it's meant to comfort you that you're not alone in having to deal with crackpots exhibiting the classic Dunning–Kruger effect: the more ignorant, the more confident are they. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and one of the classic signs of a crackpot - apart from the fact that he clearly hasn't fully understood what he has read and his claims don't even much make internal sense, let alone correspond to facts or argument - is that he will rant about how everybody else apart from him is wrong, most of the experts in the field are "charlatans" and "craquepots" etc. At the risk of repeating myself, one often hears all this from men of mature years who are blissfully unaware that their abilities are on a par with a rather tiresome type of student familiar to every supervisor.Paulturtle (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC) That said, there are other equally irritating "types" of editor out there. I don't mean minor irritants like MOS fetishists, but serious nuisances like the small army of busybodies who infest Wikipedia like knotweed nowadays, hanging out on discussion boards with like-minded editors and often setting themselves up as self-appointed gatekeepers of articles or very clearly "getting off on" rebuking and reverting other editors and lecturing them about what they must "please" do and "please" not do. Of course all of this - and many of them add little real value (anybody can spot vandalism and repair it) - is much easier than doing the real heavy lifting of researching and writing properly-cited content. Somebody should write an essay about them.Paulturtle (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose removing the second section

Before April 2011, this essay was funny. Like this. Too many "See also"s, but otherwise fine. The merging-in of the long, whiney "enablers" section, composed of things heard on WP:ANI a thousand times, has weighted it down. I suppose the Wikipedia system encourages encrustation: it's easy to add material, while anybody who removes it is liable to have WP:OWN thrown at them. Could we possibly agree that funny essays, at least, need to be kept concise and lean and mean and sure of their tone? Also, the essay is about the meme, per sections above. The second section isn't about the meme. I propose removing it. (P. S. The paragraph was originally a separate essay in User:Cardamon's space, created in February 2011. Sorry, Cardamon, but I think your userspace essay worked better on its own, and in userspace.) Bishonen | talk 18:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC).

It was a separate essay in wikipedia space from January 15, 2011 to April 11, 2011, before someone merged it here. I would rather have it as a separate essay in wikipedia space than in my userspace. Cardamon (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me! (And don't forget, I'm not just Randy, I'm:) Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has objected, so I've removed the section. User:Cardamon, I'm not sure how to get your essay, which User:Dcoetzee moved and redirected in April 2011, back as an essay in Wikipedia space. I've asked Dcoetzee to help. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

• Returning to the scene of the crime years later: The second section has again been re-added, by Godsy, and I have again restored the essay to its mean and lean version. Please see above for my reasons. Please discuss, anybody who has an interest. Bishonen | talk 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: I merged Wikipedia:Randy's enablers here per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy's enablers (edit summary 1/edit summary 2). As I took that action in my capacity as the closer of that discussion, I have no opinion on whether or not that content should reside here. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You might have mentioned that in the edit summary, Godsy. Anyway, it seems a pity to me. I wonder if the people who !voted to merge considered whether it would harm the quality of this essay when they looked for a place to put the "enabler" content. But I don't really care that much, do what you will. As I said above, essays on Wikipedia (like a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia) often do deteriorate by encrustation and creep, and who am I to try to hold back the tide? Bishonen | talk 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
      • @Bishonen: I did mention it in my edit summaries, which I linked above, see "(edit summary 1 [and] edit summary 2)". Perhaps you missed it because it's in the subsequent summary only edit (I must have either ran out of room or forgot it in the first), if so, my apologies.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't think you can sensibly close an MfD of an essay as "merge" without taking into consideration the opinions of editors who steward the target article. You should have relisted the MfD and placed a note here pointing to the discussion. I'm going to restore the pre-redirect version of Wikipedia:Randy's enablers and ping Ribbet32 to see if they want to re-run the MfD as delete or userify as they originally requested. I agree that Wikipedia:Randy's enablers does not belong here as part of this essay. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
          • It belongs either here or in the delete bin. There's no basis or need for it to stand alone as a separate essay in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Then get consensus for sending it to the delete bin, because it doesn't belong here. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
              • I know full well that "essay" is extremely trashy quality, which is why I nom'd it for deletion and not merging. I notified the author, that's more than what was required from me. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• As it seems this is going to be relitigated, notifying the other participants of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy's enablers: Andy Dingley, SmokeyJoe, CamelCase, and Bearcat. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Restore as merged after the MfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Restore - I agree with the result of the MfD. Rlendog (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• To restore a little balance to Godsy's canvassing, I suppose I ought to notify Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, who was the original author of this essay. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Restore" the redirection of the essay, even if the content is not merged here. In fact, it shouldn't be merged here. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the section on "enablers." Bishonen is at least 5000% right, this addition from the MfD materially damages the essay and detracts from the important point it was written to make. I !vote that Bishzilla crunches the addition into tiny little pieces and incinerate them. Editor's invoking WP:RANDY are referring to the problem of experts being attacked by (typically) POV-pushers with an agenda and a miniscule understanding of a topic, based on the evocatively absurd notion of sword-wielding skeleton troops. The addition of content on enablers clearly lacks consensus, and if such a section were to be added, it should be drafted and proposed here. Godsy's addition based on the MfD can be seen as a BOLD addition, which has been reverted and should not have been re-added. EdChem (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• @RexxS: My actions were perfectly acceptable, see WP:APPNOTE. I notified everyone who participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy's enablers, including 184.13.13.56, besides the nominator (i.e. Ribbet32) whom you had already notified. If anything, your notifications were selective and mine were not: e.g. notifying Ribbet32 from the mfd but none of the other participants, and notifying the author of this essay but not the author (i.e. Cardamon) of WP:Randy's enablers. Furthermore, the proper forum to challenge my closure of the mfd would have been deletion review, but I chose not to revert your restoration of the content at Randy's enablers and push that issue. That's all I have to say in regard to this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy: On the contrary, your actions were unacceptable, because you notified a group of editors whose opinions you already knew to align with the result you determined. That has the effect of producing a vote-stack. See Wikipedia:Canvassing #Inappropriate notification: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". It was kind of you to drop a note on the talk page of the IP. But it had no purpose, as that's obviously a registered editor, editing logged out on a dynamic IP which has just one contribution (and that was months ago) - Satan will be ice-skating to work before the editor spots your note. I assume you understand that my pings were to make the originator of the MfD and the originator of this essay aware of the discussion. That is a common courtesy that you neglected when you decided that the other essay was to be merged into here. I'm not interested in wasting my time playing wiki-lawyer games about DRV with you: you screwed up the close of the MfD by not realising the knock-on effect on this essay. If you don't like my restoring of the other essay, feel free to blank it, or see if you can find an admin to delete it - I won't object. But it doesn't belong as a redirect to here, as the two essays are unrelated. --RexxS (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest you take a stress pill? Godsy closed the MfD based on the consensus of that discussion, that doesn't mean he is biased in favour of that action and you are obligated to assume his good faith. I suggest giving this discussion a full week and, if there's no consensus, to reopen the MfD. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to make whatever suggestions you like, as long as you're content for me to suggest where you can stick your stress pills if you again attempt to patronise me in that manner - deal? In the meantime, let me know how many proposed merges you've closed where one of the pages was not even notified (The answer's at WP:PM). It's an excellent idea to give several days for editors to comment on proposed major changes to this page, so we have agreement there. If you or someone else decides to reopen the MfD, could I ask if you'd be kind enough to drop a note on this talk page to notify interested editors here, please? --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hilarious! Ribbet32 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep on this page, but rewrite it to better standards. (Like I suggested on the MfD.) As EdChem said, it could be drafted here. CamelCase (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• If this page rejects the merge result from the MfD, take it back to MfD. If "Merge" is not a viable option, Relist the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Remove (or do not restore) the "enablers" section. Bish and EdChem put it well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy's enablers (2nd nomination) Ribbet32 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Restore please. The first part is another in-with-the-in-crowd pat-myself-on-the-back commentary, the second part makes me realize it's nothing personal, Wikipedians all the time spend months and 10,000 words supporting editors who edit technical content based on their opinions but without the ability to read or understand the technical literature they think they are drawing from. It puts it in a context for readers not in on the joke (outsiders who can read, weigh, and understand technical literature and came here to edit based on comprehension of reliable sources). --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:64 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Related MfD

A closely related essay, WP:Randy in space, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Randy in space. Comment is invited from any and all who are interested. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Context

User:Hawkeye7, I had added this text to the essay:

Wikipedia's policies are apparently all Greek to Randy in Boise; hearing about something somewhere does not qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. The situation is not altered if Randy claims expert knowledge. As Wikipedia:Expert editors says: "Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise ... No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources apply to expert editors just as well".

My edit comment when adding it was "this is linked from a beginner's help page, so we should probably clarify that Randy is not entitled to have the sword-skeleton theory incorporated into the article without passing judgment". You removed this paragraph, and I'm a bit unsure as to why. I don't think essays require sourcing, and the factual accuracy of "hearing about something somewhere does not qualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia articles" seems unlikely to be challenged. I've converted the paragraph into a statement citing the relevant policies, but I honestly don't know if this addresses your concerns. I'm happy to discuss mine beyond the rough summary in my edit comment. My attempt to present the information at least slightly humourously was prompted by some of the comments on this page. HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Randy in Boise thinks that the fact that he can edit the article makes him the equal of an expert. We do determine whether someone is an expert or not. He isn't. Disparaging expert editors obscures the point of the essay; Randy is not an expert; that is the point. Note the consensus above to restore to the 2012 version of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)