Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Is Not Amused By Entry For xkcd-Coined Word

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the didn't-confuse-me-for-one-frobnitzjibber dept.

Wikipedia 553

ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Today's xkcd comic introduced an unusual word — malamanteau — by giving its supposed definition on Wikipedia. The only trouble is that the word (as well as its supposed wiki page) did not in fact exist. Naturally, much ado ensued at the supposed wiki page, which was swiftly created in response to the comic. This article has more on how the comic and the confusion it caused have put the Net in a tizzy. It turns out that a malamanteau is a portmanteau of portmanteau and malapropism, but also a malapropism of portmanteau. All this puts Wikipedia in the confusing position of not allowing a page for an undefined word whose meaning is defined via the Wikipedia page for that word — and now I have to lie down for a moment."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Simple Solution (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197862)

Add it to the list in the xkcd article under Inspired Activities [wikipedia.org] and redirect the malamanteau page to that subsection and be done with it. And now for some humor directed back at Munroe:

*puts blanket over his head and grabs a webcam* How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Wikipedia after all it has been through! It lost its father, it went through a fundraiser. It had two fuckin libel suits filed against it. Larry Sanger turned out to be a user, a liar, and now he's accusing it of hosting childporn. All you people care about is ... xkcd readers and making money off of it. IT'S A WEBSITE! Wahhhh. Ooooh. What you don’t realize is that Wikipedia is making you all this money and all you do is draw a bunch of crappy web comics about it. It hasn’t been featured in the news in years. Its slogan is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” for a reason because all you people want is to EDIT! EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT! LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even is hosted for you BASTARDS! LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! Please. Randall Munroe talked about a fancy neologism and said if Wikipedia was a professional it wouldn't delete malamanteau no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash something that is going through a hard time? Leave Wikipedia Alone Please ... Leave Wikipedia.org alone! ... right now! ... I mean it! Anyone that has a problem with Wikipedia you deal with me, because it is not well right now.

LEAVE IT ALONE!

Re:Simple Solution (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198064)

TL;DR

Personally I've been done with Wikipedia for years, it takes itself too seriously... A lot of what humanity was, is and will be is nothing more than bullshit and tom foolery. And unfortunately Wikipedia has only nailed the bullshit part thus far!

Re:Simple Solution (5, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198240)

Ya, me neither. I just get on 4chan if I need to look stuff up these days. Much more reliable.

Re:Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198328)

Don't badger the wiki!

Re:Simple Solution (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198468)

Badger badger badger

Mushroom

Re:Simple Solution (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198264)

Wikipedia articles and wikipedia 'personalities' are two different things. You can use the articles while ignoring the personalities. Of course, if you want to edit the articles, you have to deal with the personalities, but who edits articles? Antisocial, egotistical wingnuts with too much time on their hands, that's who. You don't have to join the Cult of Wales to use wikipedia.

Re:Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198270)

>> Personally I've been done with Wikipedia for years

I say, Good Riddance.

Re:Simple Solution (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198414)

TL;DR

Then go watch the reference [youtube.com] .

Re:Simple Solution (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198484)

LEAVE IT ALONE!

Left to its own devices, Wikipedia would degenerate under the rule of deletionists until finally only one page--Wikipedia--remained on the site. This would then be nominated for deletion.

Actually, that sounds like a rather good outcome. Perhaps you're on to something.

Re:Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198512)

LEAVE IT ALONE!

Left to its own devices, Wikipedia would degenerate under the rule of deletionists until finally only one page--Wikipedia--remained on the site. This would then be nominated for deletion.

Actually, that sounds like a rather good outcome. Perhaps you're on to something.

Woosh. Way to post some pakistani squatter link to Slashdot.

LOL (1, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197882)

These guys take themselves waaay too seriously.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32197948)

Which ones?

Re:LOL (1, Interesting)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198018)

The guy who went about deleting the wikipedia entry initially.

Read his wiki entry, what a douche.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198220)

I'm not a douche, I'm just lonely so I delete all your crappy articles. The Language Cat has spoken.

Re:LOL (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198590)

Dude, this is Slashdot. No linky?

/lazy slashdot reader

Re:LOL (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198200)

I assumed the poster was referring to the XKCD readers who created the Wikipedia entry.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198030)

read the talk page on wikipedia last night, might have been one of the funniest things i've ever read. i do love wikipedia admins, never before in human history has anyone gotten so drunk on so little power.

Re:LOL (1, Informative)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198144)

Yes, UtherSRG is a douche.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198180)

This is what happens when you let a bunch of random self absorbed schmucks think what they are doing is actually important to the world.

While I'll use wikipedia as a starting reference point but lets face it, if you use Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative reference, you're an idiot. I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.

Re:LOL (2, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198368)

This is what happens when you let a bunch of random self absorbed schmucks think what they are doing is actually important to the world.

Self-absorbed schmucks like the xkcd fans who think that Wikipedia needs an article on yet another joke about Wikipedia?

Re:LOL (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198618)

Compared to the constant stream of Colbert Report fans screwing with Wikipedia?

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198632)

...And does it matter? You know, disk space and bandwidth is cheap. It would cost what? $.0001 to create an article about this? And the flamewars going on about it are costing more bandwidth and disk space than the article itself would have.

Honestly, Wikipedia editors are the worst, they take what should be an encyclopedia filled with -everything- and try to narrow it down to fit what they want.

Does Wikipedia -lose- anything if it accepts an article that is a word coined by xkcd? Of course not.

Re:LOL (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198378)

>> This is what happens when you let a bunch of random self absorbed schmucks think what they are doing is actually important to the world.

All your arguments can easily be applied to xkcd community as well.


>> While I'll use wikipedia as a starting reference point but lets face it, if you use Wikipedia as any sort of authoritative reference, you're an idiot. I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.

Add to the list all the idiots who speak for everybody and state the very obvious every time they open the mouth.

Re:LOL (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198474)

All your arguments can easily be applied to xkcd community as well.

[citations needed]

Re:LOL (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198562)

except the xkcd community doesn't think what it's doing is important, they think it's funny, and there's a world of difference there.

Re:LOL (5, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198588)

I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.

[Citation Needed]

The problem... (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198182)

The problem isn't really with xkcd. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of idiots out there who think they're as funny as xkcd. If the Wikipedia administrators only had to deal with the once-in-a-blue-moon comic vandalism by Randall Munroe or Stephen Colbert, this would be a non-issue. Unfortunately, when these idiots take it upon themselves to try to convince their buddies that they are as funny as the people who really are funny, it makes life awful difficult for people trying to maintain a useful site.

I'm GLAD they take themselves seriously. If we didn't have folks working on behalf of Wikipedia that did, looking up information on anything would be precisely as useful and informative as looking up information on malamanteau.

Re:The problem... (2, Insightful)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198290)

I'd say that being able to create a reference page for a brand new word is probably one of the strengths of wikipedia.

And nobody sees the irony in commenting on a page's lack of notability?

Re:The problem... (2, Insightful)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198298)

The problem isn't really with xkcd. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of idiots out there who think they're as funny as xkcd.

In my experience, those idiots are correct.

Who'd've ever thought that a stick figure comic would be guilty of trying too hard?

Re:The problem... (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198374)

No one is saying its XKCD's fault. I think just about everyone on slashdot would agree that since XKCD has poked fun at Wikipedia time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] and time [xkcd.com] again, that the comic has a reputation for this kind of thing and shouldn't catch anyone off guard.

The only thing that should have been unexpected was people flooding to Wikipedia to look it up, (in which case, Randall would have expected it surely, but not Wikipedia). Its not like it crashed the servers, people just got ridiculous about what it should say, and as such, the fault lies on those stupid individuals.

Had I coined a new word on Urban Dictionary, and it caught on, and people flooded Wikipedia as well to look it up, would I be blamed? I sure hope not.

Re:LOL (1)

Dunx (23729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198438)

Too right. Priggish to the point of idiocy. And yet so many of the articles in the 'pedia make no sense at all if you don't already understand the subject you are reading about.

If by today's you mean yesterday's... (2, Informative)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197884)

If by today's you mean yesterday's... How about xkcd number 739 published on Wednesday 5/13 introduced ...

Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (5, Interesting)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197984)

From the TFA - This is what I was looking for yesterday when I checked the wikipage:

Malapropism means to use a word in place of another word that makes the same sound, but doesn’t deliver an appropriate meaning, for example, odorous for odious, comprehended for apprehended and auspicious for suspicious and benefactors for malefactors. All these are Malapropos of each other. Now the second word portmanteau means to merge two words with each other in such a way that the sounds of the two words become merged as well as their meanings. In this case malamanteau is a portmanteau of portmanteau and Malapropism, whereas malamanteau is also a Malapropos of portmanteau. The meaning of the new word is still to be created properly.

Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198132)

That's a very hirsute observation.

Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (4, Informative)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198418)

Some readers at the XKCD forums pointed out that the term may have originated from this MetaFilter thread [metafilter.com] back in 2007:

[blockquote]It's not spoonerism. More like a portmanteau combined with a malapropism. So I'd go with malamanteau or a portmanpropism.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:31 PM on July 17, 2007[/blockquote]

Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (2, Interesting)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198444)

for example, odorous for odious, comprehended for apprehended and auspicious for suspicious and benefactors for malefactors.

I have a young cousin that loves to talk... and he does this all the time, nearly every other sentence he is using the wrong word for what he's talking about, yet it isn't difficult to understand what he's saying. I've noticed this more often on the reality shows (when I catch glimpses on talk soup), the reality stars are constantly doing that, replacing the wrong word for the word they mean.

What is a person that suffers from this linguistical malady called? There must be a more clinical and less pejorative term than 'idiot.'

Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... (3, Insightful)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198594)

I've noticed this more often on the reality shows (when I catch glimpses on talk soup), the reality stars are constantly doing that, replacing the wrong word for the word they mean.

What is a person that suffers from this linguistical malady called? There must be a more clinical and less pejorative term than 'idiot.'

In the case of "reality" shows and daytime talk TV, I expect there is no more accurate word than idiot.
Who cares about pejorative? The truth hurts.

Best. Joke. Ever. (4, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197904)

This is the best example of why XKCD is an awesome web comic - a modern "funny" - I've seen in some time. In fact, I'd argue the societal commentary is often better - more cutting and intelligent - than you'll find most anywhere else (WSJ included). It's not always just "geeky" stuff, though Little Johny Normalization is a great example in that department, too.

It exhibits no creativity. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198300)

xkcd exhibits no creativity. The majority of the comics basically just take some semi-obscure geek-culture reference, and mention it.

People don't find xkcd funny because the comics themselves are funny. People find it funny because it makes a direct reference to something that somebody else has made funny in some way. xkcd is nothing more than a pointer to funny material.

Calvin and Hobbes is an intelligent, original and truly-funny comic. The Far Side is, as well. Dilbert is somewhere in between them and xkcd, where it makes references to other funny material, but does have significant originality and creativity. Then there's xkcd, which is unoriginal, and merely recycles the material created by others.

Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198358)

XKCD isn't funny per se. Most of them are like "Huh yeah, cool story bro"

Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.

Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (5, Funny)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198480)

Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.

1000 kg is only a dozen people though.

Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (5, Funny)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198518)

Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.

So that's like what, eight or nine Slashdotters.

Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198382)

Noticing that an encyclopedia likes two words.

Yes, biting social commentary.

Maybe the next comment they're notice Israeli contains RAEL, and it's like a RAIL GUN hahahahehehehehehahahaha.

But seriously, mod me troll if you want, but I find this as the opposite things: The reason XKCD has gone down in quality. It is no longer about funny things, and more Randall's Personal Weblog In Pictures! So you end up with things like this...which really in themselves aren't funny to me, but just point something out...or lots of graphs that are interesting, but once again, not funny...not really a comic. Then you have the legion of followers who try to make everything XKCD does relevant somehow, and see it as a lifestyle.

So yeah, XKCD has gone from something I liked to something I despise, mostly because it has gone from a funny comic to a comic that is basically talking about: Hey, this is how I live my life, isn't this neat? You do this too! Isn't that neat? Someone gets you, but like, in comic form! Isn't that neat? LULZ, 4CHAN REFERENCES, /. REFERENCE.

Just my $0.02...

Re:Best. Joke. Ever. (3, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198520)

All right then, since you find it so funny, could you explain the joke to me?

Because I have absolutely no idea what the joke is in the line "Ever notice how Wikipedia has a few words it really likes?", or even what it is trying to say. No, I haven't noticed Wikipedia having any words it particularly likes, whatever that means, and I have no idea what that has to do with a made-up funny word?

Love at first read. (1)

G2GAlone (1600001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197914)

And this is why I love xkcd. Revolutionizing the way we think about things with comics.

Re:Love at first read. (4, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198078)

This is also why Wikipedia should never be considered a good source of information. It's like two birds with one stone, a biavianlith if you will.

And now I need to go to go make a wiki page on biavianliths.

Re:Love at first read. (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198322)

This is also why Wikipedia should never be considered a good source of information. It's like two birds with one stone, a biavianlith if you will.

I know what two girls can do with a cup, don't know if a stone can make it much worse.

Re:Love at first read. (0)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198462)

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It may be true, but it does not follow. In order to show that wikipedia is not a good source of information, you would need to perform an analysis of the content to discover the average error rate, and you would need to show that the error rate is significantly greater than in other information sources. Wikipedia has been proven by independent analysis to be at least as accurate than other Encyclopedias.

Just remember, lots of great things were created by assholes. The fact that they were assholes does not negate the value of their creations. Yes, anyone can edit wikipedia, but there are thousands of power hungry jerks watching every page for a chance to deny an edit. And that means that the only edits that stay are those that can stand up to the scrutiny of people looking for any excuse to remove them.

Jorge Luis Borges (3, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32197932)

Salute your spiritual heir, xkcd.

The library is witness to both truth and falsehood
I'd check the quotation properly in my translation, but currently it's hiding somewhere in L-space, probably afraid to come out.

This is news? (-1, Offtopic)

Mabbo (1337229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198008)

There's a still-growing oil leak destroyed the gulf. The UK Government is in a major changeover, the likes of which haven't been seen in decades. There's even Jon Stewart's fight about what kind of tie a CNN reported wears- all things that BBC America could be talking about that would matter more to the world than this story. I love xkcd, but seriously, this is not news.

Re:This is news? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198110)

It might not be important, but it is still news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198192)

Oh.. So you're saying that 99% of the internet, along with 99% of daily speech and even thought should be cut, and all dialog focused solely on the oil spill and Britain's government? I didn't know that suddenly banality, quirkiness, kitsch, trite, and other etceteras that make living in this world somewhat tolerable and fun were suddenly not worthy of discussing due to more serious topics occurring.

Re:This is news? (1)

wood_dude (1548377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198448)

Yes, it is. I think you misunderstand what is at the driving end of the universe. !

The most scary part is the number of googleresults (5, Interesting)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198014)

I still think that the most scary(And interesting) part is that google now have 152,000 hits for the word. So a: Google is fast at picking up new words. It really generated a lot of interest and there are quite some spammers with some effective automatic page generation systems.

Re:The most scary part is the number of googleresu (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198140)

The answer is "Both"

Google is amazing at indexing new pages, especially if you know what you're doing.
Spammers are amazing at getting pages out quickly with "hot" words on them. And when it comes to getting those pages indexed, they know what they're doing.

Re:The most scary part is the number of googleresu (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198304)

Yup, odds are most of those are spam, but I note that portemanteau gets about 400,000 hits, as does neologism.

Malaprop gets 150,000 and malapropism only gets 76,000

Malamanteau is already more referenced than one of its parts.

Re:The most scary part is the number of googleresu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198326)

At 8am CDT yesterday it was the #4 most popular search on google.

Real Power (5, Funny)

thepike (1781582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198028)

And people say kids these days put too much stock in wikipedia. Come on, they won't even let an undefined word be added even after it clearly becomes defined by xkcd.

Now the power to change google search results [xkcd.com] , make new words [xkcd.com] , and cause spontaneous gatherings at random locations [xkcd.com] . That's power that only stick figures can be trusted with.

ROFLCOPTER!!!!! (1)

quatin (1589389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198052)

If ROFLCOPTER [wikipedia.org] is cited in Wikipedia then so can malamanteau.

Re:ROFLCOPTER!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198210)

that's a user page.

i don't think every web comic that makes a wikipedia joke should get a wikipedia page. it'll just add clutter.

Re:ROFLCOPTER!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198576)

No you terrible moron. People have USED the word ROFLCOPTER. malamanteau is just a childish thing xkcd came up with last night.

It's sad that there are SO MANY blinkered fans prepared to make excuses for this.

Could somebody please tell me why the comic is "cutting-edge and intelligent"? Can you describe actual qualities that make it better than any other thing somebody has made a snarky nonce word, other than "it was thought of by Randall"? No? Fucking useless mindless apes, all of you.

I Love xkcd (1)

invalid216 (1496711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198060)

he's so clever :P

I guess.. (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198094)

He was wearing his black hat on Wednesday then.. :)
Silent hammers be damned, the invisible Wikipedia page trumps all the rest of the practical jokes..

Serves them right (3, Funny)

Sir.Cracked (140212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198114)

It serves them right for deleting all that porn. Karma's a bitch!

NOT BBC NEWS! (5, Informative)

molo (94384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198120)

The link in TFA: http://www.bbcnewsamerica.com/malamanteau-wikipedia.html [bbcnewsamerica.com]

This site does not appear to be related to BBC News, it is actually registered to a guy in Pakistan:


Domain Name: BBCNEWSAMERICA.COM

Registrant:
        Digghost.net
        Shahbaz Ali (info@digghost.net)
        DHA Lahore
        Lahore
        Punjab,54000
        PK
        Tel. +092.3218830642

Creation Date: 16-Feb-2010

For reference, BBC World News America has this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/default.stm [bbc.co.uk]

-molo

Re:NOT BBC NEWS! (5, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198370)

Unfortunately, I only realised this mistake after I posted the submission. This particular story has in fact been copied around an endless list of such spam sites, but I was totally unable to find the original source, so I couldn't make a proper submission update in time. It'd probably be best if the link was taken out of the story altogether as the site linked to is essentially plagarising whoever initially wrote it.

Re:NOT BBC NEWS! (3, Informative)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198376)

I was just thinking that, I mean BBC would never be so unprofessional (I hope). The "article" was even copied and pasted from somewhere else. Loads of poor quality little websites made articles about Malamanteau yesterday to try and cash in on the fact it was the 4th most searched topic in Google trends in the hours following the posting of the comic.

Indeed not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198476)

I came across this on google earlier. I thought something was awry when my work filter blocked it.

wikipedians, take a chill pill (1, Insightful)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198134)

"whose meaning is defined via the Wikipedia page for that word"

it's not. it's defined by xkcd _pretending_ that it's defined by wikipedia.

now, wikipedians, chill out. IIRC, there's an entry on the wikipedia's rules saying that you can throw away all the rules if appropriate. this is one instance where this could be use, so stop being so anal about it, include the fucking word and move on.

munroe is trying to throw a classic mind fuck on you guys. the more you bitch and moan, the more childish you look, which will have the effect of every cartoonist out there trying to do the same. every kid in the world knows that it's a lot funnier to poke the bitchy guy, and everyone knows the best thing to counter is to just ignore.

Wikipedia Is Not Amused by Entry For xkcd-Coined W (1)

hellraizer (1689320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198146)

i wonder if they even read the damn thing .... i did ...seemed pretty good :P

Objectionatory XKCD link: (1)

odd42 (1370641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198148)

would someone put up a wikipedia page for me? (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198158)

for the word

temppot

or

teapest

this is not new (4, Interesting)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198168)

There is a possibly apocryphal tale of two gentlemen in England int he 18th century who made a bet that in 48 hours a new word could be entered into the English Language. One found every ragged street urchin in London, handed him some chalk and showed him how to write "quiz". Soon Graffiti adorned every wall and park bench and by the next day it was on every lip.

Re:this is not new (2, Funny)

Jhyrryl (208418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198244)

[citation needed]

Re:this is not new (1)

Jhyrryl (208418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198278)

[citation found] [askoxford.com]

Re:this is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198392)

Oddly enough, wikipedia says that Etymology is a myth, but this might be more of XKCD screwing with us...

Re:this is not new (4, Funny)

soliptic (665417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198416)

Here you go [askoxford.com] .

Protip: this was the first result of googling "etymology quiz", which is actually 3 fewer characters to type than "[citation needed]".

Re:this is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198294)

LOL. That story is in wikipedia's article on quiz...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz

And, according to wikipedia, the tale is indeed appocryphal. It's still cool though.

Re:this is not new (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198452)

Unfortunately, the story itself does not appear to be a real one (although, it is a cool story). http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-qui1.htm [worldwidewords.org]

QFTD. (3, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198178)

"Your obscure Pokemon obsession is no more valid than my XKCD fetish" - Anonymous

--
BMO

Hair Trigger (1)

trurl7 (663880) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198194)

I haven't followed the Decline and Fall of Wikipedia Editing Standards melodrama in close detail, but it seem that more and more agenda-pushing axe-grinders are dominating the editing process. To some extent, I think xkcd is culturally more significant than wikipedia - xkcd creates; wikipedia catalogues, and not quite impartially at that. It can be replaced, if not in immediate recognition, then certainly by any ambitious community builder (behold the glory of open source). I do hope Wikipedia's editors acquire at least enough humour and humility to recognize that their institution is not beyond, or above, a little gentle teasing before that turns into genuine vitriol-fueled outrage. Admittedly, it may already be too late.

screw wikipedia (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198208)

So, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis for quick reference and as a jumping point to the sources. However, as a community/culture, I think its really just sort of gotten out of hand. Arguing for pages and pages about something which is really sort of inconsequential? Who do they think they are, Slashdot? (but seriously...). I first realized a few years ago that there was no point in trying to actually participate when I watched a revision war/flame fest between some random Swedish guy and an exchange student friend of mine who was from Georgia (the country), over stuff in the Georgia article. J. Random Swede decided that being born in a country, growing up there, and having had 20+ years of first-hand experience wasn't good enough to contribue some relatively minor points to the article, iirc. It turned into quite the little bru-ha-ha between Soso (my friend) and that guy, who wasn't exactly a Slavic languages and culture scholar himself, either. There is some value in wikipedia, but not enough to justify a bunch of bored, pissed-off nerds thumping around like some stiff-collar Britannica editors at the East India Club.

Define this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198254)

PeterSymmonds : A butthurt admin that blocks entire ISPs because they make fun of his male chicken.

Also XKCD likes playing with Wikipedia, as with the citation needed protester and the Wood in popular culture section.

Awesome. (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198288)

This is hilarious. It's like hundreds of people are experiencing a mental stack overflow. "Whoa... We didn't ever... uh... You can't do that... Well... Wait a second, are we in some kind of loop?"

What about a petition ?!? (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198314)

Filing a petition [petitiononline.com] could possibly give more relevance to the case for malamanteau to exist in wikipedia...

Re:What about a petition ?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198500)

Yeah, because dictionary compilers always add new words based on anonymous untraceable Internet votes on a site that has never made any difference to any issue ever.

Slashdot members could solve the problem... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198324)

... since several slashdot members seem seldom (if ever) hesitant to use undefined terms.

ITs alive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198352)

Looking at this and laughing I checked my favorite non-word word, Strategery, well sure enough its there on the 'Bushisms' wiki entry, and defining it? malamanteau.

fun.

Problem solved (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198354)

Now it has a legitimate page because of the controversy and the /. entry.

Why delete information? (0, Redundant)

thenextstevejobs (1586847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198426)

Wikipedias relevancy criteria is retarded. What is wrong with having more information on there? It's like slashdot stories you don't like--nobodys forcing you to read them

Another XKCD link (1)

MSG (12810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198542)

All this puts Wikipedia in the confusing position of not allowing a page for an undefined word whose meaning is defined via the Wikipedia page for that word

...which makes it a tautology [xkcd.com] !

Seems like a good word to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32198556)

Tweak the definition a little and it looks like a good name for things such as "misunderstimate".

Wikiality (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198596)

Is that not the entire point of Wikipedia? If most people agree that something is a fact, then it is so. Period. Unless it offends some revert-or-ban "moderator's" delicate sensibilities...then it's shot down pretty quick.

Malamanteau (1)

unwesen (241906) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198612)

Just use the damn word; if it happens often enough, then Wikipedia can rightfully include it and the discussion is over.

Everyone is wrong for partaking in this (1, Insightful)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32198624)

Yes, I checked wikipedia right after reading xkcd when the comic came out. I was pleasantly reassured when I saw that wikipedia did not have an article for Malamanteau prior to the xkcd comic being published. Simultaneously and unsurprisingly, I was saddened by the fact that some xkcd fan had decided that since Randall said it, it shall be so, and created the page. And then I was even more saddened the next day when a co-worker sent me the link to the talk page... Holy crap, what is wrong with you people? Just because it happened on xkcd doesn't mean it gets an encyclopedia entry. No, the wikipedia editors aren't being assholes, they aren't killjoys, they're doing what editors do (slashdot editors should take a note: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1651380&cid=32198120 [slashdot.org] ).

Also, it seems like half the people commenting here are saying that because this article even existed, however briefly, it shows how bad wikipedia is and that they'll never use it again (or have already abandoned it). Completely ignoring the fact that the article was deleted. While the other half is denouncing that very deletion. They claim it shows how bad wikipedia is because the editors don't have a sense of humor by not allowing the article to exist. If you want a wiki with a sense of humor, the sites are out there for you. Go add an entry to Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica or Everything2.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?