Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-11-24/Humour


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not laughing. WP:SOFIXIT applies to the poor English ones; this is a collaborative project, and although I frequently wish those with poor English would write more simply so it would be easier to figure out the intended meaning, we need their enthusiasm and knowledge. The maths, engineering, and computer science I can't judge because of my own ignorance in such subjects, but I'm informed on a site that should not be named that two of the examples are by a distinguished expert. Wikipedia very much needs experts, and my impression is that that is how mathematics is written about. Not all our readers share my ignorance. We need articles on advanced topics, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Do you know where the shortcut SOFIXIT shortcut leads to? It leads to a Wikipedia namespace article entitled Be bold. Why shortcut to a six letter article via an eight letter shortcut? That is like spending $8 for $6 of value. It is very mean, condescending, and misconstrues the target article. It is not humourous. I am not laughing. Cheers!  21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ? They're both seven keystrokes. And you misspelt "humorous". Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...um..If I could understand the content, I could probably fix it. I love distinguished experts, I spend a lot of time hanging out with some. I am poking fun at the content not the contributor(s). I am perfectly fine if you don't laugh. Welcome to the majority. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The poor English ones, I agree should just be fixed rather than mocked. The sci/tech ones are a serious problem though.  Not because they're incorrect, but because anyone who can understand articles so dense with jargon and shoptalk has no need to consult a general purpose encyclopædia.  In the meantime, they erroneously project the impression to laypeople that these topics are "hard'.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
 * But we're not just a general encyclopædia; we're a comprehensive one. Links make it much easier for readers than it was with print works (and we also have more pictures). And we should of course have basic and survey articles (and do). But difficult topics exist and we should cover them; for another example, we are consulted by medical students, so we should have specialised medical articles (like one of the other examples here) and not just basic material for laypeople. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the inclusion of some advanced materials, but to use Context switch as an example, that gobbledygook is in the article lede. I don't think it is unreasonable that articles should at least start off with some text that is comprehensible to a layperson, or even a first year university level student, before getting into the heavy jargon.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Perhaps I am making fun of my own ignorance.Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not a techie, but I live among techies, and I don't find that excerpt objectionable. It endeavours to explain or contextualise each term a little, and presumably the body of the article clarifies further. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this challenges the point or proves it, but the "holiday decoration" isn't DNA at all. It's a protein (or actually, three copies of the same protein) that interacts with DNA. You can see that in this picture - all three protein copies are green, the candycane in the middle is the DNA (double-stranded; one strand is white and one is red). Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It still looks like a holiday decoration and I am tickled that DNA can be synthesized by mind control. It will make a marvelous barnstar. I am putting my image as I spread Christmas cheer on talk pages. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has the perennial problem of being not sure of who the "implied reader" is for an article. I did not find the lead for the "Context Switch" article to be particularly dense: according to this readability analyzer, it is about "college graduate" level, which is roughly when the material would typically be taught (maybe college undergraduate, but close enough). Incidentally, it has roughly the same readability as the lead for Rhetoric. The lead for "Context Switch" does contain jargon; but the words are all wikilinked, and one really needs some background before one can understand the concept. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . According to surveys, 25 percent of English Wikipedia readers/editors are between the ages of 10 and 17. The average reader/editor has a sixth grade reading level. The lead of an article is supposed to be a hook. It should include running prose from each section in the article. A good distillation of the lead creation guidelines can be found here. Having fun! Cheers!  21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * According to which surveys exactly (link)? Not the 2012 editor survey, where only 15.6% of editors were 18 or younger. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The survey that I read, silly. LOL. It blended editors and readers as "cohorts". Having fun! Cheers!  21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read where? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia humor is like golf humor. Having fun! Cheers!  21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember folks, this is humour (in theory). Like I said before I created the list of articles that readers were supposed to guess, I mentioned that Wikipedia can be (probably not meant to be) a form of entertainment. BTW I like writing for eighth graders. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)