[WikiEN-l] Re: Friday's featured article

Wed Mar 30 15:10:59 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Viajero said:
> 
>>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!

Indeed, there seems to be a po-faced faction who delight in removing any 
vestige of humour from Wikipedia, even though it is appropriate in many 
places, [[Official Monster Raving Looney Party]] for example. Does 
anyone remember the argument about the minor joke in a picture caption 
in [[London Congestion Charge]] a year or two ago?

-- 
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/