Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments

[edit]

... and you forgot to add a liberal sprinkling of anon ip's who, in between all those actions:

  • randomly change the lightbulb's date of birth
  • post links to viral videos of the lightblub performing on YouTube
  • add "ur mOm IS a faggot"
- but they're not real Wikipedians, are they(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven commentators at WQA? Which Wikipedia have you been editing? Three on a good week... Nobody Ent 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should also involve something about a Wikipedian writing on another's Talk page about their revert/change of the lightbulb, the discussion to carry on for some time, and two Talk Page Stalkers to get involved, another to try to bring Jimbo Wales into it, until finally someone halts the discussions and try to get things back on the Talk page. I've seen this happen a number of times now. Also, someone should wikilink some of the terms in this page, so that those who aren't immediately familiar with what "ANI" is will be able to check it out and get the joke. Jessemv (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely love this page; it's on my list of Pages To Remember To Look At when I'm remembering (with nostalgia) the days when flint-knapping was cutting-edge technology. Actually, I suppose it still is ... Pesky (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]
  • I agree with wikilinks for new users. Is there a way to have them show the full name for things like ANI, but only on mouse hover mouseover? Also, one line should read 'this is the second stupiest thing I have ever seen. It shows as first twice. I am COI because I am an electrician and thus can't edit the article myself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(added a Request edit COI template.)--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For mouse hover, check out Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. You can turn on the Navigation popups in My preferences 'Gadgets' tab. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If my mouse hovers long enough, will the lightbulb come back on? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if mouseover happens on AfC it would show Articles for creation, as opposed to simply Afc. I also notice that 'this is the stupiest thing I have ever seen' only occurs once. I was wrong about that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear on the requested change, or why the Request edit template is necessary. I've disabled it working to clear out the backlog. If there's a reason for it I've missed or misunderstood, please let me know. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the request template. My request is basically to have wikilinks added. It would be nice to have them as 'full length' as opposed to just the shortcut form so newer users can understand them better. I doubt the full length can be set to show on mouseover only, and using it in the text may cause it to be long and bulky. I see it can be done client side though. I am an electrician so any edits I do would be COI--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
um... wha??? I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny (fail, if you are), but... I can't make heads or tails of what you mean here. I've removed the edit requested pseudo-template at the top of this, since it's not actually an edit request... maybe I'm just missing something. ?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not any more than the editor who removed the "recent death" template. But then, it wasn't really a celebrity light bulb, was it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love the new "Wikipedia is no place for humour" heading, though!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Question

[edit]

Given that Wikipedia articles frequently change over time, shouldn't the question be, "Once the light bulb has been screwed in, will it stay screwed in?" ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but considering that the title is itself a joke and the contents explain everything else, it's probably best to leave it as is. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

The current format makes it appear as if there are several answers to the question. Is there a way to make it more linear and less list?83.70.170.48 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with this. Anything anyone want to do, or am I just seeing things? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Types of bulbs

[edit]

There are many types of light bulbs, so I'm sure that would lead to many arguments about what types of bulbs to use by the various cabals. There are a wide variety of incandescent bulbs, including clear, white light, and decorative. Then there are the CFLs and LEDs, candles for the Luddite type, and those who favor no artificial lights at all.

Also, don't forget the vandals, who on various occasions will smash the bulbs,rip out the sockets, cut or remove the wires, turn off or remove the light switch or breaker, and so on. Then we'llhave the protectionists who want to ecage the bulbs,who are opposed by those who say WP is a place where anyone can edit bulbs! - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should insert a picture then?
A task force of 163 wikipedians secretely caught on camera while taking a break after discussing a lightbulb change...

  M aurice   Carbonaro  11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Light bulbs.

Here is a link to choose from. I agree we should add images, but as an electrician I would risk a block as a COI editor if I edited the main article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close knit small cabal containing 3 bulbs
Bulb placed out of scope
Wikipedia:WikiLove bulb

Perhaps a gallery at the bottom of the article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, we could BOTH risk COI: not just as wiki-editors but I am employed as a IT assistant... :O/   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are good. I've added some to the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article?

[edit]

How many Wikipedians does it take to talk about the weather--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ...?

[edit]

USSR 5 yrs plans

[edit]
"(...) Socialist product requirements produced distorted black market consequences, such that broken light bulbs possessed significant market values in Eastern Bloc offices because a broken light bulb was required to be submitted before a new light bulb would be issued. (...)"
  M aurice   Carbonaro  07:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it was not just in the Soviet Block! In 1969 I changed high schools. One of the overhead projectors at my new school was out of commission simply because the broken lamp had been mistakenly discarded and we couldn't have a new one until we produced the old one. The projector was a fairly critical resource for our material, so the staff had "solved" this by reporting that the projector was damaged and unusable (which was true in a way) and ordering a new one to replace it but they'd been told that it would take some months to arrive.

But they still had the little cardboard box in which the lamp had arrived, complete with its type number, just not the blown lamp. I did a quick tour of my local church and found an old projector with a burned out lamp, not of the correct type but close enough to the same size, so we put that broken lamp in the box, sent it off and hoped. Sure enough, a new lamp of the correct type turned up a day or two later. (And later that year so did the replacement projector, so we then had one extra, which was also put to good use. I don't know how the next asset audit coped with having an extra one.) (;->

The staff of our school office, who were a great bunch and fully informed of what we were doing (but not officially aware of it of course), thought it quite hilarious, as did the headmaster when he found out after the fact (again not officially of course). I even got a thank you from him in School Assembly, rather carefully worded, and it got a lot of laughs from those in the know, which it seemed was most of the school by that time. Ah, memories.

The point being, the office staff seemed to think that such stupidity was fairly routine for the NSW Department of Education of the time. There's an episode of Yes Prime Minister in which the Minister for Education is described as illiterate (and the Minister for Employment as unemployable, etc.). Fact is stranger still, and almost as amusing. Andrewa (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

42 duh?

[edit]

42, duh!

I dont get it, can someone rewrite this so it is clearer.

Shame the end of this funny article doesnt make any sense. Igottheconch (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy has 42 (number) as "the answer to life, the universe and everything" but it doesn't really fit here as the idea is that in the last line someone notices the light is out again and the whole thing loops back unresolved to the beginning. K7L (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone read this essay as it stands today...

[edit]

...and explain the benefit of collaborative editing? I'm not usually one to blow my own horn, but this has slowly, steadily, and relentlessly devolved into worthless crap. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've decided WP:OWN is for losers and pruned it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the count of editors who have worked on the essay--can we discuss? Origamiteⓣⓒ 13:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are referring to some text that was recently removed? If so, please make a proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, how? Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine Origamite is talking about this: [1] (I had previously taken out a link from this page to the editing statistics for this page). If so, I can't stop it from being discussed, obviously, but I'm against including it. It takes focus from the editing process that I'm making fun of, and places it on this page. It dilutes the message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to add snippets to an essay like this, and an argument could be made that the proposed text is "correct" and in keeping with the whole, but I would not support that addition as it merely dilutes the essay. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that the phenomenon this article is satirizing is actually going on, with editors removing commentary they find inappropriate in an unsourced, humorous essay, and debating minutae that should not be taken seriously. I actually do feel a little offended (and i shouldnt) that my silly and useless and possibly not even funny contribution: One to screw in the lightbulb, another to make a note that this act was taken, a third to place a citation tag on the note for a lack of a neutral third party source covering the event, a fourth to remove the note about the lightbulb being screwed in, particularly as the name of the first Wikipedian was mentioned in the note by the second, and thus can be removed without discussion due to BLP concerns, and a fifth to unscrew the bulb, while commenting "we dont create events, we only document them." was removed. It actually makes me not want to edit a little bit, which is again part of what is being parodied and satirized. Its also why i removed the content and unnecessarily asked for a source, which others didnt find funny, and which makes me both guilty of aggressive editing and (from some perspectives) inappropriate editing, which was what this should be a teaching moment about. It looks like we have a conundrum about how to both maintain the content as funny, and allow for editors to contribute without censoring their particular senses of humor in a way which validates the point of the essay. maybe thats the value: if we vigorously apply all the worst editing methods here, and scare away editors, we can prove how bad that is for WP. crazy wisdom: dont do as i say or as i do, do the opposite, im here as a bad person to remind you how good it is to be a good person. youre welcome.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the next step is RfC. I doubt we're quite ready yet for Arbcom. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lightbulb joke is versatile, well suited to ridicule many stereotypes. There is not just one Wikipedian stereotype worthy of inspection. All users should be encouraged to write their own versions, in userspace, all linked and/or categorised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking on this at the start of 2020, the overall stats for the page are "202 revisions since 2011-10-28, 79 editors, 76 watchers". Interestingly, the number of editors and watchers is about the same as the answer given by the page which is currently 76. The numbers will tend to stay in sync as each new editor will tend to bring a new idea and entry for the page. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regionalism

[edit]

You've forgotten the Wikipedians from other areas of the world where most light bulbs are bayonet cap and so are not screwed in! I'm not sure whether it's worth adding us to the list. Dbfirs 08:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are "How many X does it take to change a lightbulb" jokes still common in places where bayonet caps are used? If so, then it shouldn't be too hard to deregionalize. But it seems better to me to rephrase inclusively, rather than add lines. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, common joke here without the screwing. Thanks for de-regionalising. Dbfirs 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And talking of screwing....
Q."How many Freudians does it take to change a light bulb?"
A."The burned out state of the bulb is only symptomatic. You must understand the underlying causes of its failure before you change anything." [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is

[edit]

I love this page. I suspect that the numbers would change a lot given more research, but not in such a way as to affect the conclusion.

Have a look at the Parable of the Ants for another view of the same behaviour.

And perhaps despite first impressions, the two views are consistent one with the other? I hope that they might be. Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real reason wh i'm adding a new section, but i do have something.

[edit]

Wikipedia is just plain awesome. RickEakman (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot are vital (in making edit wars happen)

[edit]

With their crucial importance in Wikipedia, bots should not be left out of this light bulb joke. This page should probably include robots reverting each other in a way described by Tsvetkova et al.[botwar 1]--Artoria2e5 contrib 20:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Tsvetkova, Milena; García-Gavilanes, Ruth; Floridi, Luciano; Yasseri, Taha; Gómez, Sergio (23 February 2017). "Even good bots fight: The case of Wikipedia". PLOS ONE. 12 (2): e0171774. arXiv:1609.04285. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1271774T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171774. PMC 5322977. PMID 28231323.

Title needs a space according to the Google test

[edit]

You know, there are about

  • 50k hits at google for string [wikipedia lightbulb] but
  • 700k thousand hits for string [wikipedia light bulb]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual number = 426 and counting...

[edit]

Lightbulb redirects to electric light and, when I checked just now, that page has had 426 separate edtors who have made 698 edits! And, as it's still only C class, we might expect many more...

People I don't think should count into the final result, doing nothing constructive with the light bulb

[edit]

In this list, (DNC) means "doing nothing constructive", (DNB) means "doing nothing with the bulb".

  • The 52 people playing (DNB)
  • The vandal (DNC, since they do vandalize the light bulb)
    • Since no vandalism can be reverted if it didn't happen, that one revert also becomes unnecessary.
  • 1 person writing the cover and 1 writing the story (DNB)
  • the 8 people doing the war (DNC)
  • The 10 sockpuppets aren't meatpuppets, but in either case, they vandalize as well (DNC)
    • The administrator blocking them also won't be required anymore, reducing the number to 498.

So, by my count, it's 498.

For the short version, why it is one: One can use a ladder, and the very same person can remove the light bulb and replace it with another. Note that this should happen after the very same person turned the previous bulb off. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't specify that the contributions to the lightbulb have to be constructive. Even the unconstructive contributions can affect the final outcome. :) - ZLEA T\C 05:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This lightbulb should not be speedy replaced because...

[edit]

If someone isn't careful, they might accidentally drop the newly bought replacement, causing it to break, rendering it useless and leaving hazardous shards on the floor. Also, the ladder might tip over, likely causing potentially serious injuries. To avoid running the risk of breaking bulbs, bones, or the bank, it would be safer to slow down and take this over to Lightbulbs for Replacement (LfR) to get consensus on what to do about it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbulbs for Replacement (LfR) discussion

[edit]
April Fools' is over. Maybe use those lightbulbs to generate new Wikipedia articles, if you know what I mean :) Awesome Aasim 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


As indicated by the speedy replacement notice at WP:LIGHTBULB, that page's most recent lightbulb is burned out and needs to be replaced. What type of lightbulb should we replace it with?

If you'd like, you may also go into specific details like wattage, brightness, color temperature, manufacturer, and/or whether it can be dimmed, voice-activated, computerized, or come with other features.[4-1] – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrPersonHumanGuy: should you not have made sure that all relevant WP:RFCBEFORE suggestions had been tried before making an RfC on this, particularly because it’s a humorous essay? waddie96 ★ (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would try to do something unique for April Fools this year, so I came up with this. If I was sufficiently familiar with any better venue for this idea, I could've gone with that instead. I tend to forget that requests for comment are usually for resolving disputes between editors and not just one editor seeking consensus on what ought to be done on a given article as a precaution to avert potential disputes. However, in this case, this RfC (which references the mock AfD template above the essay) is intended to be humorous and is intended to receive humorous responses, hence the [4-1] at the end. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we decide, we have to act fast. We cannot afford a repeat of the Wikipedia blackout of '12. - ꓛ\ꓕ ⱯƎꓶZ 14:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I say Option D. We should replace the lightbulb with a Ray cat. It might not be as bright as your average incandescent bulb, but it lasts nine times as long. - ꓛ\ꓕ ⱯƎꓶZ 14:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid RfC. Option B uses the expanded form (compact fluorescent, not CFL), whereas Option C uses the abbreviated form (LED, not light-emitting diode). This is a flagrant attempt to make Option B more noticeable and bias the survey results toward it. It's a blatant violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL that renders any so-called consensus achieved here utterly invalid. The nominator is a well-known POV pusher for Big Lightbulb™, so this is sadly par for the course. Sdkb talk 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (For avoidance of doubt, this entire !vote is a joke for [April Fools!].)[reply]
Quick close, we all know LED are more efficient. Let us use blue because of Nobel Prize per Wikipedia:Wikipedia only cares about authority and efficient energy.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen: Please wait until the end of Autism Awareness Eve to initiate a communication shutdown. If you intend to put a stop to this noise altogether, you may want to use red instead for optimal results, as blue lights tend to have the opposite effect in Japan. On the other hand, you could use both lights at the same time to imitate a police car and see if that doesn't help bring order to the court. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:How_many_Wikipedians_does_it_take_to_change_a_lightbulb%3F&oldid=1216892383"