Andrew Lih wrote:
HOWEVER, I would beg folks not to make it
"subtly marked" but rather
*obviously marked* at the end.
An April Fools joke is only fun when you can blame the reader for
missing an obvious doozie that gives it away. Right now, it does not
have such a kicker or punchline to let people in on the secret. If we
do not, it would amount to devious and malicious intent, which would
do a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation.
Wow, this is an amazingly cautious attitude. You are saying we should
take into account that on *April 1* some naive soul might read the
text, miss all the inconguities and jokes, arrive at the bottom, not
be explicitly told it is a joke, and blame Wikipedia for deceiving
them?
I'm ...ah... speechless.
I've been watching this conversation with mounting disbelief. Somebody
please tell me that the seeming loss of sense of humor on the part of a
number of Wikipedians is all part of a prolonged jape, to be brought to a
hilarous conclusion this Friday. No?
April fools jokes are traditional. People reading a joke article on April
1 will not feel unduly put out. Most of them. We can just laugh at those
who are. That's the whole point of the exercise--to puncture pretensions,
confound expectations and--dare I say it--have a laugh!