Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Op-Ed

How does the author know that we are not already doing this, in our own, quiet way? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A non-Wikipedian friend raised this idea to me recently, but the problem I have is one of pragmatism. Not only are we having our few, overworked anti-vandal volunteers spending hours a day patrolling edits they need to identify as useful/not useful correctly within a few seconds, but they're going to get shit for wrongly judging whether someone was funny enough or not? Every bad edit someone makes on my watchlist wastes my time. The next time someone goes to look up Between the Stops by Sandi Toksvig, or one of the several hundred items on my never-decreasing list of tasks I want to do, the reason they won't find it is because of all the hours I've spent reverting "Sandi Toksvig is a writer, comedian, broadcaster, actor, podcaster, TV presenter and Danish" and all the other things that one person found funny. Samuel Johnson didn't have the slippery slope problem that once one person got wind of the fact that there could jokes in his dictionary, thousands of people would start writing jokes everywhere and removing important content in the process. If someone wants to make jokes but doesn't want to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, I'm sorry but you're one of the thousand cuts that will be the death of the thing you're trying to make a loving joke about. To the dozens of overt vandals who have told me to lighten up and that it's "just one joke": I don't respect your feedback if you've made no effort to learn how Wikipedia actually works or even what it is, and if you treat the people who write the encyclopedia for you like this then you're welcome to never use it again. 80% of the answers to the questions never-seen-before-and-never-seen-again editors ask are "if this was how Wikipedia worked then it would have turned into Urban Dictionary 2 in 2004". — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ^This, really. There's a place for humor on Wikipedia, especially as it boosts editor retention, but it has to be done responsibly, and too many editors (not just newcomers) abuse any leniency. When it comes to humor in mainspace, it's okay if it can be done without in any way detracting from the encyclopedic value of an article (example: the missing pictures at List of cetaceans), but I draw a line as soon as it does so, even if it's only by changing to less natural wording as seemingly at e.g. Will Smith. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Much as I love the care taken in distinguishing a penguin from a Scotsman, or the vandalism where a photo of the Presidents of Brazil and the US standing together was replaced by one of Miss Piggy and Kermit in a parade, I'm afraid we have to strike out the jokes in Article Space. Slippery slope, y'know. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a Noticeboard for disputes over creative writing. -- Green  C  00:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me if someone knee-jerk reverts an edit the first time, but I think there's a point at which the decision to rollback needs to be critically examined. The issue I have isn't with someone saying "oh, this isn't funny, I think it's vandalism, I'll revert". The issue I have is with extremely protracted and obtuse arguments in which people doggedly insist that anything funny must be bad content. On Talk:Guy Standing, for example, you can see gallons of ink being spilled over whether it's unencyclopedic to caption it "Guy Standing sitting". To me, this is about as silly as you can get -- just as "phrasing it this way is funny" isn't a good justification for an edit, neither is "phrasing it this way prevents it from being funny". Nobody would bat an eye if the caption was "Bob Smith sitting", but as soon as the slightest iota of humor is derived from a sentence, the apocalyptic event of someone chuckling must be avoided at all costs. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll present this as an example of a good post I made being removed on the grounds of alleged inappropriateness, even though "ape iron" is a totally plausible interpretation of "apeiron". But the rest of these seem quite harmless. Perhaps in 2005 it made sense to insist on going out of our way to avoid anything that could potentially be construed as unprofessional; at this point, the New York Times writes articles about how reliable we are on a regular basis. Who gives a damn if Category:Recursion includes itself? And, more importantly, is it really worth fully protecting the category for five entire years to avoid -- Heaven forfend! -- the possibility of someone adding it to itself? I wouldn't be opposed to a MoS supplement specifically to deprecate contorting an article to remove a joke, or a guideline saying that edit-warring to remove a joke is just as much a nuisance as edit-warring to keep one in. jp×g 03:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is worth reverting these things. No, it is not worth protracted discussion. This MoS addition idea is precisely the waste of time I want to avoid. I've never seen a caption reading "X sitting" and it doesn't seem natural to me, so I'd revert it. But if I saw that there was discussion or was asked to join it, I no longer care, because "X sitting" is not an implausibly bad caption. Apeiron can't reasonably be confused with "use of irons by apes" (it would be different if "ape iron" was a thing), even though it might be everybody's first unfunny joke when they meet Apeiron at a dinner party, so I'd revert it. Self-loops in categories are never helpful for navigation, so I'd revert it. I don't need a special reason to undo something that's funny, because being funny is not a trait that has any weight or value according to any policy, guideline or precedent I've ever read. As for The New York Times, whether we are seen as a serious or reliable is not relevant to any of the reasoning I've given. — Bilorv ( talk ) 03:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of when Elon Musk wanted his Wikipedia page to call him a "business magnet" instead of a "business magnate" (even Talk:Elon Musk refers to that). Personally I think humour is fine as long as people who just want the information can easily get the information (and are not confused by the jokes). Making Musk a magnet is not a good idea of a joke on Wikipedia as it can confuse non-native English readers. 45.251.33.233 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have to say, I'm very happy with the discussion this piece has sparked already. I think humor on Wikipedia can go too far very easily - I'm sympathetic to the slippery slope argument. Whenever it becomes non-factual or genuinely confusing, it should be removed. But subtle things that lead to smiles - "cetacean needed" is a perfect example - can enhance the reader's experience. These things need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and, as points out, many "humorous" edits are simply vandalism. But adding a bit of joy to the reading experience can be valuable thing for an encyclopedia built on the idea that knowledge is worthwhile and worth sharing. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, the cetacean needed joke is the only long-standing one on Wikipedia. Is some ways there's something special about 'the one permitted joke'. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what this leads to is "But it was allowed over there, and my joke is funny too!", and pretty soon we're discussing what's funny and what's not instead of how to have articles contain accurate, verifiable information. Sharp wit and good comedy most certainly has its place in the world, and even here on Wikipedia, we even have our own in-jokes and the like in WP-space and such, and certainly editors may joke around while having conversations with one another. That's all fine, and brings some levity to our work on the project. But in the actual encyclopedia, stick to the facts and leave out the comedy. People come to Wikipedia to be informed, not amused. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of opportunity for whimsy on Wikipedia. This Signpost is published in April and so it's not long since April's Fool Day for which we actually have formal rules.  And some topics are inherently amusing at any time.  For example, while rescuing an ancient manor recently, I came across another nearby place that demanded instantiation and so I made an immediate start on Betty Mundy's Bottom.  This does not require any forced humour – the title is enough to make the lips twitch, eh?  The raised eyebrow of donnish humour is best, as with Samuel Johnson's drollery.  For more on this, let's consult another exponent. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fester_lurch_1966.JPG, not to mention (which should be read in conjunction with the sentence immediately preceding it). And see also – unintentional, apparently – . EEng 04:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will fight in a dark alley any IP/SPA who comes to Wikipedia to add-in jokey edits (especially the ones who come from social media), so yeah, Wikipedia is meant to be serious (at least article-wise) -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think jpxg gets it right in terms of how to strike the balance and the fact that some things get reverted because they might amuse even if they would be unobjectionable elsewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Was going to mention a dry-humorous but accurate caption edit I made but then would have to fight Gouleg in a dark alley, so will spare them the cement-burn and after-fight-handshake ritual. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Back in 2006 I greatly expanded, sourced, and researched Action Park, which has been described as our most hilarious article. I attribute that to a combination of some great quotations from the sources, and the unintended consequence of some incredible-but-true facts rendered in our necessarily dry house style ("Also, nonswimmers would jump off the cliffs, not fully appreciating how deep the water below was, and have to be rescued. Former employee Tom Fergus says the bottom of the pool was eventually painted white to make it easier to spot any bodies on the bottom."). I wouldn't change this for the world. Humor is possible, but within the constraints we impose on ourselves, and that often means it comes about unintentionally. If you really want to write joke versions of articles, go to Uncyclopedia. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)




 * I struggled with this a bit at the article for Abroad in Japan. In a video, Broad called out his viewers to edit his Wikipedia article to state that he invented "green tea sake", something that has existed for quite some time. After several reversions, I considered leaving the claim up to appease his fan base by saying that he merely claimed to have invented the beverage while referencing evidence that he was not the one who came up with the idea (he never even makes it in the video). I decided against this because of the comedic nature of Broad's channel. Personally knowing him, I don't doubt he would continue calling out his viewers to make joke edits if the green tea sake claim was given any kind of leg to stand on. I decided that while it might be fun to leave the claim up, it would ultimately be harmful for the article and the project as a whole.  ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️  03:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see these things quite regularly, most recently a month ago at Rosie Jones (comedian) after this tweet. A lot of high-profile people dislike Wikipedia because they see the article about themselves as laughably inaccurate—usually correctly, but they don't understand that (a) many inaccuracies originate from an inaccuracy in an online news source (which they could contact and then the news source should correct it... although this has never worked for me when I've reported easily-spotted and easily-corrected mistakes to them); (b) many inaccuracies come from over-eager fans and non-experienced Wikipedians; and (c) when it comes to actual matters of clear fact ("this date isn't my birthday") we welcome them pointing out that there's a problem, but they need to be patient with us because impersonation happens so we have no reason to believe it's really them saying it. The "green tea sake" isn't something I would have had a single doubt about reverting, because if I left this thing up then I'd need to leave a thousand things up and they're all useless and not even funny jokes. The jokes also become quickly dated—in five years time, "Broad did not invent green tea sake" will just be confusing to readers and no-one will remember the original reference. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of the lengthy discussion at Talk:Lord_Uxbridge's_leg, where suggested captions such as "Lord Uxbridge's right leg, shown attached to Lord Uxbridge in a portrait by Henry Edridge" were rejected in favour of "Lord Uxbridge portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1808, before the loss of his leg".  Pam  D  09:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And also reminded of Chambers Dictionary where some famously quirky definitions were removed in 1970s but reinstated in 1983 following pressure from readers. Pam  D  09:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be a safe space for those who are in deadly earnest. Humor is diverting, but that also means the narrative is apt to wander and your article on the Civil War end up by telling people where to get good Italian food in Cleveland. There's also the fact that often humor is thinly disguised belligerence; there aren't too many people whose wit is always gentle or self-deprecating and even they are sometimes misunderstood. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ganesha811 I have now copied this and added it to the top of my user page. I so, so, very much agree with you. After having multiple very mildly humorous phrases removed in GAN, I had almost reconciled myself to the idea that being encyclopedic means being as bland and dull as humanly possible, till stumbling across this. Thank you!  Bless you!  May a thousand blessings rain down upon your head - gently!  As one of the authors of Humor in the Bible I have learned to value a well-placed jest for driving home a point. Keep up the good work here!  Humor for Wikipedia!  Up with joy!  (I would start a campaign if it wasn't also against the rules.) :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, . I'm glad you found the piece meaningful. As you can see, it sparked a lot of good discussion, as I had hoped it would! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just read this op-ed which is admittedly not the most recent one. So my comment comes a little later than most others. I'm happy about Ganesha811's approach and venture. Humor is such an integral component of good communication. Texts that lack any humor are failing to win the readers' good will. A won smile is not only an animation of face muscles but the building of ad hoc bridges. In an encyclopedia humor is a good thing as long it is subtle. Yes, there must be red lines and pragmatic rules to remove e.g. rude microaggressions masked as jokes. And I'm glad that Ganesha811 declares "sympathetic to the slippery slope argument. Whenever it becomes non-factual or genuinely confusing, it should be removed." All this is pricipally able to reach consensus among the majority of Wikipedians I'd guess. But there are also people in our community that don't cherish humor. And I not even presume them to be "evil". For example persons with Asperger's syndrome (just as an example) are sometimes very handicapped to perceive and to enjoy humor. They lack so to say tuned antenna for it and can't help it. Can we pragmatically develop rules that are also integrating those persons inside our community that lack humorous inclination to tolerate most forms of subtle humor in Wikipedia articles? -- Just N. (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An interesting aspect of this discussion, I think, is the comparison to other encyclopedias and reference works. Despite its reputation for universal dullness, academic writing is not totally devoid of humour. It's not uncommon for textbooks and monographs to sneak in a few very mild puns or witty turns of phrase: why does Wikipedia need to be less funny than a statistics textbook? "Because statistics textbooks don't have to constant defend against vandalism" would be one good answer -- but I'm not convinced the slope is that slippery. I suspect many pieces of secondary writing about Will Smith reference "in West Philadelphia born and raised," for example. The bar is probably to avoid things that are too funny, but I think the encyclopedia would benefit from identifying a standard more generous than "destroy all wittiness in articles." ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, and this one aligns more closely with the people with Asperger's I've known in my life, such people can have quite different senses of humour. And many things they might find funny will be taken, by people reading their words off a screen with no further context, as rude, unfunny, aggressive or hurtful. But the same can of course be true of neurotypicals too. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Bilorv, your more differentiated observations sound allright. Yes, I remember things like that. But if I had chosen people with heavy narcism as my example .... --Just N. (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Humor is just one aspect of "eccentricity and elegance and surprise", also known as writing style, that we often lack. We rightly have lots of guidance for making prose clear and accurate and nonbiased and grammatical and consistent – with the unfortunate side effect of making it dry. The best writing can do all the above while also being engaging and refreshing and evocative. Rather than a narrow call for more jokes, which will always garner strong pushback, we should try to improve our tolerance for creative style (while meeting the existing guidance of course), and provide resources (including external ones) to help writers stretch their expressive capabilities. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that's very well put. Wikipedia's neutrality and encyclopedic tone often translate into blandness - it really is a challenge sometimes, but it is possible to write in a clear, lively voice while still maintaining the neutrality and formality we require. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree 1000%; see the image and caption halfway up this page. Ten years ago someone actually told me that the writing in articles should be "cold" -- see Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_1. EEng 03:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought back to this piece after I spotted this caption "Smiley smiling in 2016".   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it had happened before I wrote this op-ed, the Barbie/Oppie showdown would have been used as an example here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. jp×g 03:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)