Talk:Wikipedia in culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redundancy with Digital Devil Saga

Under Miscellaneous (2.4), the reference to Wikipedia in Digital Devil Saga is mentioned twice, in two separate paragraphs. One should be removed to prevent redundant information wasting space.Vegetable4 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al image

I am going to keep this short, but sweet. Why is his parts of this article seperated, and why in the world is the same image posted twice. Someone please fix this, i would, but I don't have an account and i don't know the procedure to remove a photo.

Daniel R. Tobias quote

"I think Wikipedia has achieved the pop-cultural status of being suitable for mention in humorous (and not entirely flattering) contexts; it seems to have a connotation something like "I've achieved a shallow, superficial, and quite likely inaccurate understanding of a subject the lazy way... and I'm damn proud of it!"" -- Daniel R. Tobias on WikiEN-l about the trend.

Until Wikipedia is also a dictionary word; claiming that it's anything like Google is silly and certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And people wonder why it gets such a bad reputation.--67.171.78.155 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

merge

Somebody please make this redirect to Wikipedia. I don't know how >.< Sorry! --JCipriani 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The deletion discussion reached a consensus of keep not merge or delete. Konman72 04:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless; this article does not need to be on it's own. It doesn't make much sense. The size of this article is roughly the same size as the other sections in the Wikipedia main article, so if this article is left alone then, for the sake of consistency, all other sections of the main article should also be placed in their own articles, I'd think. --JCipriani 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say or think, the discussion was made and the admin decided that the consensus was to keep the article. Konman72 04:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. What I say and think dictates the content in Wikipedia. That's what it's for. It's not like I'm vandalizing anything, or having an edit battle; it's an honest edit with a sensible reason. Also, if there was no deletion discussion to begin with, then there would have been no "keep" decision at all. Would the merge then have been OK with you? If so, that doesn't make much sense, logically. And looking at the deletion discussion, I see a lot more keep and merge than just keep. None of that really matters though. What's the real reason that you think it shouldn't be merged aside from "text above says 'keep' not 'keep and merge'?" --JCipriani 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I actually do think it should be merged, but that wasn't the decision. And, no, the point of Wikipedia is that the community decides what happens. You make an edit and then another person edits that and so on and so forth until a consensus is achieved. You seem to think that Wikipedia is a place to do whatever you want, it is no where near that, it is a place with rules that must be followed. We are supposed to be objective editors, my and your beliefs should not affect our editing practices in any way. I also noticed the many keep and merge votes, but that is not my or your role here. An admin looked at the discussion and decided that keep was the consensus and so that is what we do. Wait a month or two and nominate the article again if you are so adament about it, but as it stands a consensus has been reached and we must follow that decision. Konman72 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The community (or at least, the few that voted) seemed to arrive at the consensus to merge; I'd say the admin made the wrong decision but I don't know who they are or how to contact them to tell them that. Is there a way to nominate articles for merging rather than deletion? Or is it the same process? I don't want the information deleted. I just think it makes no sense by itself. Besides, if we both would like it merged, as well as all the other people that voted, then why don't we do it and wait for somebody to revert it who honestly doesn't want it merged for a good reason? --JCipriani 05:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The keep and merge votes were to merge this article with Wikimedia in popular culture. If you would like to make that merge then go right ahead. Konman72 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, that merge was already done, which is probably why the consensus is now to just keep the article. Konman72 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok something seems broken now... the Wikimedia Pop Culture article redirects to the Wikipedia Pop Culture article, which redirects to Wikipedia, which contains the link to the Wikipedia Pop Culture article (but not the contents of the article) that ends up taking you right back to the Wikipedia article itself. That just seemed to happen in the last 5 minutes but this article is no longer accessible from the Wikipedia main article. Perhaps somebody else is in the middle of making changes... --JCipriani 05:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, another editor turned this into a redirect a minute ago. I have already reverted it so things should be fine now. Wikimedia in pop culture redirects here and Wikipedia has a link here. Konman72 05:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was my fault. The bot reverted my first change, I pointed it out and the bot owner made the redirect apparently. Oh well, I guess I should nominate it for "deletion" again in a few days then? Eh whatever... --JCipriani 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this page? That's just not the way we roll. You can't keep nominating an article for deletion until you get your way. Isopropyl 05:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I was about to say the same thing. Perhaps in a few months another discussion could be tolerated but at the moment we have the decision, and unless something major changes we follow it for a while. Konman72 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "nominating it until I get my way"... I didn't even know about the deletion discussion until after the decision had already been made. I'd never nominate it more than once anyway, and if I had participated in the original deletion discussion then I certainly wouldn't consider nominating it again myself (no I didn't sit back and watch that discussion; I just never came to this page before that decision was made, and on coming here, my immediate observation was 'this should really be merged with the Wikipedia page'). Since my suggestion is different than anything that was discussed in the deletion discussion; it seems like there would be no need to wait, as it would be a fresh new suggestion, no? I mean if I have something I'd like to see done, waiting a few months because an entirely different discussion just happened seems arbitrary, and makes things take longer than they need to take... the only reason I'm not nominating it again right at this moment is because there's always a chance that I'm missing some major point, as I tend to do. I'll wait until tomorrow to do it, since there may be a real reason for not doing it again so soon after the last one. --JCipriani 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article would be way too long if merged. Just to let you know: to redirect, replace the page with #REDIRECT [[Wiki]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimospy (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This article deserves to exist...

...but as it stands it's just a listing of references to Wikipedia. Someone needs to do some through research and organize all the information into a coherent article. The title isn't List of references to Wikipedia in popular culture. Morgan Wick 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not coherent, needs more work, but better than it was now. -- Zanimum 17:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert's Edit.

--71.197.196.45 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC) "He checked Wikipedia to determine whether he had referred to Oregon as being California's Canada or Washington's Mexico before deciding to call it it Idaho's Portugal and pretending [citation needed] to adjust a Wikipedia article to say so."

He actually made that edit on Colbert Report recurring elements.

Major overhaul

I've tried to give this article the major rewrite it was tagged for. I've removed the following content because it is a series of Wikipedia references, but doesn't illustrate any points about Wikipedia in popular culture. — Reinyday, 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed references

Hank Scorpio, a character from The Simpsons, mocks intelligent girl Lisa Simpson for citing her knowledge of him and his illegal activities during a prison break scene in Simpsons Comics #117.

In 2006, commenting to the New York Times on the demands on Central Intelligence Agency analysts to produce instant information, John E. McLaughlin, former acting U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, stated, "intelligence analysts end up being the Wikipedia of Washington".

An altmuslim.com review of a new television series about terrorists noted that the characters routinely gave detailed background of events in the history of Islam and stated, "no one, and I assume even terrorists, talks like a walking Wikipedia."

In May 2006, British chat show host Paul O'Grady received an inquiry from a viewer regarding information given on his Wikipedia page, to which he responded, "Wikipedia? Sounds like a skin disease."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

An Internet webcomic called Applegeeks mentioned several times "Why spend money for education when Wikipedia has the same information for free?"

Hannelore, a character in webcomic Questionable Content, suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder. She references Wikipedia's article on head lice as the reason why she cut most of her hair off.

also

8-Bit Theater once pardoyed Wikipedia with a fictonal "magipedia" that Red Mage unsuccessfully used to prove to Black Mage that "turtles are not fish".

Wikipedia was mentioned on the August 30 2006 broadcast of the radio program Marketplace during a feature on Wikia.

Added NPOV Warning

In regards to the subsection on Wikiality, which had this gem: "He suggested that viewers change the elephant page to state that the number of elephants has tripled in the last six months, although the addition of false information to Wikipedia is considered vandalism." This seems to me to indicate that Mr. Colbert knowingly committed an act ov vandalism, which may or may not be the case. To preserve NPOV and encyclopedic tone, we should avoid backbiting and defensive comments like these. Npovmaster 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. How hard would it have been to change "although" to "however" if you thought something was being implied (which it wasn't)? And what is the deal with your Scientology edit? — Reinyday, 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Move the Wikiality section to its own article?

I think we should move the section (or subsection, rather) to it's own article. The whole "Wikiality" concept is sort of being censored. Make it an article, elaborate on it, but include a link to Wikipedia in popular culture and say info on related topics can be found there. Discuss? aido2002 09:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What more is there to say? We must remember WP:OR. -- Ned Scott 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please have this dicussion at Talk:Wikiality or Talk:The Colbert Report/Wikiality. — Reinyday, 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mastermind reference

The episode of Mastermind broadcast on 21st August 2006 on the BBC2 television channel in the UK featured this question in its general knowledge round: "Which internet encyclopedia was founded by Jimmy Wales in 2001?" The contestant gave the correct answer: "Wikipedia."

Is this suitable to be put on this or another page? Carcharoth 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm moving this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio. Carcharoth 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality should get its own section

Wikiality is obviously an attempt at creating another word with the stature of Truthiness. They were both discussed in a very similar way.

If you dont think that the article is long enough to justify giving it its own section than we could easily expand it. Wikiality has been discussed three times on the Colbert Report. The third time being when Colbert made reference of the Sigmund Freud's article on Wikipedia. I know that Wikiality wasn't discussed specifically, but the concept of Wikiality certainly was. Furthermore, we could discuss the similarities between Wikiality and the original signature word Truthiness. The concepts of both are very similar. Wikiality is the substitution of your reality or your interpretation of reality (real or imagioned) and Truthiness is the substitution of what you want the truth to be or what you feel the truth is. Beyond that, we can discuss the effects of Wikiality on Wikipedia. This article deserves its own page, for these reasons. Please help me to do this because I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and I would probably screw it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark D (talk • contribs) .

First, you might want to read WP:OR. And remember, we don't just fluff a topic so that the text itself is large enough to make another article. Wikiality is discussed here (Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality), Truthiness#Wikiality, List of The Colbert Report episodes#ep128, and Criticism of Wikipedia#Difficulty of fact-checking (and Criticism of Wikipedia#Parodies on the same article). The "concept" of Wikiality is not much more than Consensus reality. A topic getting it's "own article" is not a sign of importance, it's just a method of information organization. As it stands now, repeating things that have already been said on these other articles is pretty much needless. The topic has been covered. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Scraps

I've rebooted the article to a previous version, then readded any worthwhile content. The scraps I threw away are here... talk:Wikipedia in popular culture/scraps. Feel free to reintegrate any of them as you see fit. -- Zanimum 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Cross space links to Wikipedia policy is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the use of Wikipedia-specific words such as "vandalism" creates a presumption that the critics of Wikipedia are somehow violating the law by editing Wikipedia and are in the wrong. SighSighSigh 20:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some vandalism is slander to living people, which I believe isn't allowed by some laws. Not only that, but it violates most if not all ISP terms of service to do such things. I'm no legal expert, but "vandalism" is a word that is not exclusive to legal matters, and I hardly doubt people will be confused on that matter. What does this have to do with WP:NPOV? -- Ned Scott 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is a Wikipedia-specific term that is used to refer to malicious or inaccurate edits to the online encyclopedia. However, the global meaning of vandalism is "the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure or symbol against the will of the owner/governing body." It is hard to argue that there is a tangible destruction of property with edits to Wikipedia. Furthermore, while Wikipedia policy may consider some edits to be malicious, the global public may not (i.e. the audience of Stephen Colbert). This article, which is in the main space, should be written without a pro-Wikipedia bias. SighSighSigh 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedia

Unencyclopedia should be one, right? Julz the wizkid

General

Wikipedia is parodied at several websites, including Encyclopaedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia.

Feel free to expand this paragraph. -- Zanimum 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Called it

{{editprotected}}On the October 19, 2006 episode of the Colbert Report, news of a Disney vet performing vasectomies on "overpopulated" elephants in Africa prompted Colbert to have another edition of his "I called it" segment. The "I called it" referred to the invented statistic that African Elephants had tripled in population during the last 6 months.

(should go in the "Wikiality" section after the paragraph on African Elephants) jholdaway 00:52 19 October 2006

I really can't understand what you want to change. :) NCurse _work 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is an improvement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Full protection

Are you f***ing joking? Why is this fully protected- to preemptively strike down Colbert vandals? If there was any indication that his mention of wikiality on last night's show, then mybe I would understand a semiprotect. But FULL PROTECTION?! -- Kicking222 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality Site

[this http://www.wikiality.com/index.php?title=Main_Page] link was mentioned last night on the Report. Its either a fan creation that was liked and thus mentioned on the show, or was an intentional creation of the show. Regardless, I think it should be mentioned as it is an explicit parody of wikipedia and is relevent to the discussion of Colbert's use of wikiality.--131.104.138.247 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

We should merge the sections that talk about Colbert into one section, possibly called "Stephen Colbert," what do you think? - Peregrinefisher 06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Toucher and Rich Show/Mantown comments removed

I note that someone attempted to add a comment about yesterday's vandalism to the Mantown page. Although the contribution was unsourced, the incident did indeed happen (a number of editors including myself heard it live on the radio), so can the reference not be re-added with a citation-needed tag for now? I would not be surprised if Toucher and Rich themselves post something about it on their show's website.--Caliga10 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Cuban and Wikiality

[Note: It's a safe assumption to say that "Mcuban" was, indeed, Mark Cuban.] When Mark Cuban edited his own page (and talk page) in August, he mentions Wikiality: [1] Is this worth mentioning, or is that even too self-referential for this article (since posting on WP is not, technically, WP in pop culture)? -- Kicking222 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur Comics and Chicken

The Nov. 8 comic for Dinosaur Comics mentions wiki and how the Chicken article should be the only one that gets vandalized so wiki becomes a better site. Ryan North also made a joke website about it and as of today (29 Nov) the Chicken article is still locked. Maybe some mention should be made of this? I know it was covered in at least one newssite.-- 68.148.32.58 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is based on another site. -- Zanimum 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And one just about POV battles

For whoever is working on this article: http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=774. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on Wikipedia in popular culture

what that mean? if it meant to discuss inaccurate portrayels of wikipedia shouldnt explanations be given as to why it inaccurate? such explanations would probably violiate WP:NOR, tho.

if it meant to discuss people who think wikipedia is inaccurate then it should be clarified. maybe commentary on wikipedia's accuracy in popular culture. 72.36.251.234 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why so many webcomics?

Huge tracts of this article consist of free advertising for various webcomics, with excessively detailed descriptions of individual jokes. It could be condensed into a paragraph or two.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've split it off into it's own article. Yes, I agree webcomic appearances aren't very notable. -- Zanimum 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

FTR, Zanimum split the web comics off into Wikipedia in web comics. -- Jeff G. (talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 08:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've merged it back, because there isn't really enough material (or enough significance) to merit a whole new article. It does need trimming down, though. Feel free to do so – Qxz 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The point was to "accidentally" kill it, by exposing how silly it was to include at all. Apparently that didn't work. -- Zanimum 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Stephen Colbert right?

Although his statement on "The Colbert Report" that "reality has become a commodity" is obvious hyperbole, his assertion that facts accepted unless challenged constitutes a subjective view of reality cannot be denied. Is there a real safeguard against "conventional wisdom" being mistaken for fact on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan4J (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

The need to provide reliable sources. If a whole lot of reliable sources are mistaking conventional wisdom for fact, which is rare but does happen, then the fault lies with those sources, not anyone who cites them – Qxz 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense; but is every attribution validated?

Not yet. And, because of the continually-expanding nature of Wikipedia, we will never reach a point where every source has been validated by multiple editors. But any articles included in the release version, Wikipedia 1.0 will be well-sourced. --Aervanath 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Foxtrot dates

{{editprotected}}

When this page is unprotected, would someone please add the dates for the Foxtrot cartoon(s). According to FoxTrot, the first was published on May 7, 2005, and the second on September 7, 2006. - Peregrine Fisher 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A copy of this article is now sitting in my sandbox here, as it needs attention and I've been planning to work on it, but can't now because it's protected, so I'm going to work on it there. I'll add your information to my copy, which should guarantee that it makes it into the article when I merge my changes – Qxz 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Someone should also fix the links Foxtrot -> FoxTrot. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All done. Proto::► 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

{{editprotected}}

Can someone change User:Stephencolbert into an external link so it doesn't break mirrors, kthnx. 31337 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note: the easiest way to do this is probably by writing the link as {{srlink|User:Stephencolbert|Stephencolbert}}.) --ais523 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the easiest way to do this is to remove the link. We should not be linking to user pages in articles, especially not ones like this one. It's not as if there's any useful information on the user page that isn't in the article – Qxz 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Link removed. Proto::► 12:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User Friendly Edit

{{editprotected}}

Under the "Wikipedia in web comics" section, the caption under the second comic (UserFriendly) has an extra "with" in it. Simple fix - I'd do it myself if I could. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wadester16 (talk • contribs).

Fixed. Proto::► 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilobbying

Another reference to Wikipedia by the infamous Stephen Colbert, "Reality has become a commodity." A new entry for Jan 29, 2007 should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.207.89 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 30 January 2007

The above text was added by 141.209.207.89 in this edit and reverted by Ryulong without good reason. As is seen from this Google search, "Wikilobbying" (lobbying for profit on wikis including Wikipedia) is being widely discussed in the media. It has been discussed in the deleted topic Wikilobbying, and per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikilobbying it is being resurrected as a well-sourced article at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying. It has even been discussed in Wikipedia Signpost: Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms. Why shouldn't it be discussed here?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb. 2 episode of The Office

See Ben Franklin (The Office episode). Jim tells the camera early on that he thought Michael misused the term prima nocta and confirmed that by looking it up on Wikipedia (it's actually a redirect to droit du seigneur), then went on to explain it.

Can/should this be added anywhere here? It seems like it qualifies as the second U.S. sitcom reference. Daniel Case 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a reference made to it in the article on the episode. Yea, i thoink it should be mentioned here (when I saw it, it was the first thing I thought of (and possible vandalism to office related articles) but that is beside the point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now in both the article on the episode and in references under Droit du seigneur. Still should be here, because I don't think it'll be the last time this happens. Daniel Case 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And to second my suggestion, I think we should create a talk page template for occasions like this similar to {{onlinesource}}. Daniel Case 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And I bet you're all aware that it was listed as 2006? :p. Can an admin fix that? The entire page is protected. Floria L 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sally Forth

The comic strip Sally Forth has mentioned wikipedia a few times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.164.135 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

RoadKill Bill

Why was this removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.164.135 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Please explain how this is at all notable? This page is not a laundry list of references, as there are hundreds. This is only for "firsts", and other truly notable references. -- Zanimum 14:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"American Dad!"

Someone was watching this show tonight when I was on the Internets and I heard something about wikipedia. Wikiquote says:

Black Mystery Month [2.13]

Steve: Now the world will never know the truth.

Stan: If only there was a place where you could make any outrageous claim you want with absolutely no proof, and millions of people would accept it as fact.

Steve: That's it!

[cutaway to Steve writing a Wikipedia article on "The Truth About Peanut Butter"]

--Indolences 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted Rall

Ted Rall has come out with a cartoon metioning Wikipedia and historical revisionism. Here's a link from his main site, so it probably won't be taken down, if someone can work it into the article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the first reference in a webcomic, so that doesn't make it notable. It is a unique topic matter they are discussing, but I'm still on the fence whether that raises it to the level of worthyness. -- Zanimum 14:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Namespace

While I realize that this article has been nominated for deletion and kept, rightly so, you must wonder about the mainspace applicabilities of this article. Is it truly worthy of an article in the mainspace, or should it be moved to a Wikipedia namespace? I really think it ought be in Wikipedia namespace. Opinions? DoomsDay349 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheerios Commercial

For some reason I can't edit this, so I'll just say it here. There is a recent Cheerios commercial where the father is going on a cheerios diet for six weeks while his son has 6 weeks to do a report on Shakespeare. In one scene, it is possible to see him scrolling down the wikipedia entry for Shakespeare. That is all

What country did this air in? -- Zanimum 14:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell?

Let me know if I'm correct: this is an encyclopedia that has an entry about itself "in popular culture"? This has got to be a joke and a first for the information age. We have a similar page over at Uncyclopedia, titled: nobody cares. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

An encylopedia doesn't care whether anyone cares about any of its articles as long as the subject fits the criteria for inclusion. –Pomte 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then the criteria for inclusion are heavily biased. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 19:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bremner, Bird and Fortune

Last night, Wikipedia was meantioned in a sketch on the British satirical show Bremner, Bird and Fortune.

The sketch revolved about a news story around the most unread books, and a voice over giving inaccurate the plots to each story, most involving aliens. I think it should probably be entered. ISD 08:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was most popular but people never reached the end, for example war and peace, Goblet of Fire, The Satanic Verses etc. Defently warrents a mention in here in my opinion also Struds 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Error

The office reference says Fourth reference on a fiction-based television series. but it is the Fifth mentioned in the table Akubhai 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, someone beat me to it. I'd fix this myself, but the article's got the big ol padlock o' doom on it. Darquis 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Office, again

I think I heard a Wikipedia in there. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Get Fuzzy

The 2007-04-20 strip of Get Fuzzy shows Satchel looking up Bucky's first debut album on Wikipedia. Bucky tells him to scroll down to the part about him winning Wimbleton, which implies that Bucky edited the page himself. — Loadmaster 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and The Chaser

Jimmy Wales was given the "Mr. Ten Questions" treatment by Andrew Hansen of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything in early May. He got 4/10, which is pretty good. Here's the video - the file was uploaded legally as it's an Australian Broadcasting Corporation series. Hansen claimed to have vandalised Jimbo's article to read he was a "teenage druglord from Malaysia". An edit to this effect was made in late April - here's the diff. Other edits of similar content were made for the next few days by various users. I don't know how to cite this though as it was a TV episode and is not yet on DVD. It's discussed on Talk:Jimmy Wales. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that has little to do with Wikipedia, I'd say. Sure, Jimmy was the founder of Wikipedia, but the reference to Wikipedia itself is barely there. -- Zanimum 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Penn and Teller Bullshit

there was an episode about breasts, and during the part about "topfreedom", penn says "look, its even got its own wikipedia page!" or something to that effect. could someone look this up and add it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.189.189 (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Colbert and Wales!!

Stephen Colbert just said at 11:30 PM Eastern Time that "Wikipedia found Jimmy Wales" is one of his guests tonight!! Somehow this probably deserves being mentioned on Wikipedia!!! --164.107.223.217 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wales was on, and they discussed Wikipedia including the infamous "elephants" incident and free speech vs. vandalism, etc. He also put up a captain that Wales couldn't see saying "Libraians are hiding something" (which, is being vandalized,go figure), and asking Wales how he could stop vandalism he didn't know about - Wales assured Colbert Wikipedia users that watch his shows will be protecting the pages. This does seem notable, given Colbert's history with the site. The Clawed One 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sally Forth

Wikipedia was metioned as the punchline in the July 1st 2007 comic strip of Sally Forth, Can someone put it in??... Stormin' Foreman 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move. GrooveDog (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia in culture → Wikipedia:Wikipedia in culture — IMO this article is of the same type as Wikipedia:Press_coverage and must go into the "wikipedia" namespace, because in its curent status it is a mere collection of references with no encyclopedic discussion, so it is even impossible to call it original research :-) `'Míkka 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) —`'Míkka 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Oppose - It is written like an encyclopaedia article and not a Wikipedia guideline. Reginmund 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Runs the risk of just being a list, until secondary sources come up with analysis it's just a collection of mentions. However, much more than just press coverage and contains dates and firsts. Provides a sense of the progression of wikipedia throughout culture. WLU 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, with constant control to eliminate trivial references, it's fully worthwhile. -- Zanimum 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The Wikipedia plays"

See this news article:

Ars Nova will present The Wikipedia Plays, a mini-marathon of short plays that surf the Wikipedia wave through seventeen related entries ... 'What is The Defenestration of Prague? And how is it seventeen steps removed from Castration Anxiety? Wikipedia knows. In this brave new world of instant gratification where the internet can live in your pocket, one group of writers has created a mini-marathon of short plays that surf the wikipedia wave through seventeen related entries,' as described in press materials.

. Worth mentioning? Grover cleveland 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so. ISD 13:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, though it currently doesn't qualify for its own article. -- Zanimum 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Story (BBC Radio 4)

On BBC Radio 4, there is going to be a documentary about Wikipedia called The Wikipedia Story. It is to be broadcast at 11:30 (BST) on 24 July 2007. Should it be mentioned here? ISD 16:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsure. Have there not been other radio programs about Wikipedia on nation-wide channels? Yes, BBC is a biggie for sure, but is it a landmark? We have to make sure that all landmarks are quantitatively so, to not add qualitatively. -- Zanimum 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is probably best to wait, and see what is mentioned in the actual programme before it is added. ISD 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

News Knight with Sir Trevor McDonald

Wikipedia was referenced on News Knight with Sir Trevor McDonald last night. I added it to the article but I may have got the information wrong. Luckily the episode is repeated on Thursday 9 August, at 11pm. ISD 07:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the article style

These types of articles shouldn't list every appearance in fiction; this article should provide an overview (without long lists or proseline) of how Wikipedia is notable in popular culture. This can be done by citing secondary sources covering Wikipedia in Popular Culture, while citing the occasional example. If this cannot be done, then this article needs to be merged as a summary into Wikipedia, or deleted. — Deckiller 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a list of appearances a) does not mesh with the title (otherwise it should be List of appearances...) or something like that, and b) it is done in a lazy fashion. Up with Dec's suggestions. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This article has seen a great deal of trivia creeping in. Wikipedia is popular. Listing a bunch of appearances may satisfy an egocentric impulse, but it's detrimental to the project. I intend to remove them. --Eyrian 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Simply stating "I'll remove it" and then using "per tlak" [sic] in the edit summary is a little misleading, as it implies that consensus has already been reached. While bold, it is customary to discuss and reach a consensus first before removing half the article. — Edokter • Talk • 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An unfortunate typo. I opened the floor to discussion, nobody answered. I assumed that nobody cared. Now, getting down to the substantive matters, the removed entries were simple mentions of Wikipedia, that have no real significance to its growth and cultural relevance. That is well covered by the existing examples. --Eyrian 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did you open this discussion? Your message appeared here 3 hours after you removed half the article. I really need to see some more people supporting your view, because you are now edit-warring. I have reverted once again, and until there are at least one more editor(s) think that you are right, your actions are disruptive and putting you at risk of being blocked. Remember the golder rule on Wikipedia: discuss first. — Edokter • Talk • 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the date stamp, friend. --Eyrian 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops... missed by two days. However, this is irrelevant to your edit warring, so I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. With only less then 50 edits under your belt, you have a lot to learn about how content disputes are handled. If someone does not agree with your edit and reverts it, you discuss it first and wait for other editors to respond. You do not simply keep reverting to your preferred version. — Edokter • Talk • 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I haven't violated 3RR. I reverted twice. Also, I've been here two years, I'm an admin, and I have nearly 10K edits. --Eyrian 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) Like I said on 3RR, you being an admin does not excuse you from edit warring, and you clearly were. And it doen't neccesarely have to be 3 reverts in order to violate 3RR. No doubt that I would have been blocked if I were to revert you again. Now, you want change, so you have to make your case. I happen to disagree with your opinion that only major events referring to Wikipedia should be listed here. Though it could be trimmed down, I certainly think removing half the page is overkill. Everything should be checked for it's merits. Other editors, please give your input. I will be reverting tomorrow if there is no more input, meaning that it should stay the way it was, as you are the only one that wants to change it, which hardly constitutes consensus. — Edokter • Talk • 18:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Threatening to revert helps nobody. How you can insist that revert warring is bad while making such a threat is delightfully ironic. How about we just discuss things as they are now. Here's what I think: Wikipedia is big. It's been referenced a lot. Listing all of those references is pointless; where do we draw the line? And why are we doing it? Wikipedia's public perception most certainly can be covered encyclopedically. That's why the Colbert Report and WikiScanner are in there; because they had an independently-mentioned impact. The gaggle of trivial references that I removed didn't really increase understanding of the way people perceived Wikipedia, it just served as a place for people to add a new line every time someone says the word "Wiki". --Eyrian 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic, but none the less neccesary. I still see an editor who removed half the page and revert warring without consensus. Can you honestly tell me you don't see anything wrong with that? Go read WP:BRD and WP:ROWN. Content issues aside, I still think you broke just about any dispute rule in the book and I intend to put that right before we can even discuss the change itself. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you avoid the substantive issues under debate? We're talking now, why shatter that? Please, I urge you to discuss the issues I've raised rather than reverting. --Eyrian 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please revert it yourself. I have explained why I don't feel like discussing the changes just now; you didn't play by the rules. And I truly have a problem with being forced into a duscussion in this manner (but that's my shortcoming) and I'm just miffed about it... especially with an admin incolved. I spend every day around WP:AN and WP:ANI, so I know how things should play out. And you know what, I probably would have agreed with you, had you discussed it before reverting, like everyone else does. But I do not agree with your method. — Edokter • Talk • 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you aren't happy with the way things went. In this case, I really did try and be as sensitive as possible to people's concerns. If you're happy with the way things are, why worry? --Eyrian 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy. You deleted too much. So if I'm still not hearing from other editors in a couple of days, I am still going to revert. Then we can discuss what can go. And yes (before you ask), I am that retentive about following procedure (another shortcoming, I know). — Edokter • Talk • 21:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you're simply refusing to discuss substantive issues, insisting instead on edit warring? Yeah, good luck with that. I'll be here when you're ready to talk. --Eyrian 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you abviously have no intention to change your ways, so I'm going to take this to WP:ANI if you keep refusing to see the point. I have told you form the start: I will talk if you abide by the rules. The heart of the matter remains: discuss first. I'm not the one edit-warring, you are! I know I am in the right here. Change requires consensus, and you don't have it. What part of that don't you understand? — Edokter • Talk • 10:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? You are flat out refusing to talk about the problem until the page looks like you want it to. You are edit warring. And you've refused my offer to talk about the substantive issues. You can report this where you like. As I said, when you're ready to discuss instead of edit war, I'll be here. --Eyrian 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to put process before content first in this matter. Sorry, that's the way I am. See WP:ANI#User:Eyrian and Wikipedia in culture. — Edokter • Talk • 14:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in cartoons

This page should document the first reference to Wikipedia in print cartoons since may other forms of firsts are documented. The race is on .... is New Zealand the first? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia in cartoons. -- Alan Liefting talk 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert And Wikiscanner

It says in the "Relevance" column that Stephen Colbert's referencing of the Wikiscanner was the "First nationally-broadcast television program to mention WikiScanner," when I'm sure it had been mentioned previously on various news broadcasts. Fatla00 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm British, so I don't know if it was also mentioned elsewhere in the American media. It is certainly the first satrical programme to mention WikiScanner. ISD 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

As is usual for an edit war, the page has been protected until this is resolved. Eyrian, I know you're an admin, but do not edit the article until the dispute has been resolved and the protection removed. As I say on WP:AN/I, please use this talk page to discuss your changes; I suggest listing the sections you don't think should be there, and the reason why you think they should be removed. A compromise solution can then, I hope, be achieved. Neil ム 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with whatever the dispute is, but am I the only one who noticed the gaping WP:OR violation for the "why it was a landmark incident" section? As nice to have as the section may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.175.36 (talk) 07:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - part 2

This page has a rather turbulent history, with an AfD, moves to/from Wikipedia in popular culture, forks and mergers, where each category has been moved to their own pages and merged back again. So what is the scope of this article, and what should (not) be included? If "trivia" is to be removed form this page, I think it's important to first define what "(popular) culture" means, and what is notable enough to be included. — Edokter • Talk • 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is when the piece in question has no real impact on general perception of Wikipedia. That means it must change perceptions of Wikipedia, which should be demonstrated with a reference. The legions of trivial references to Wikipedia, just saying things like "I looked it up on Wikipedia", don't add anything to this article. Even large scale references, when they don't affect people's views (or are minor in the context of that work), are trivial. --Eyrian 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And what defines "culture"? — Edokter • Talk • 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? I suppose I would define it as "general perceptions shared across a population". --Eyrian 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would define it as "general expression of a society", not perception. As such, I think any expression, be it via TV, radio, print, and in today's world, the internet defines culture. — Edokter • Talk • 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Culture is the sum of all expressions. But not all of those expressions are significant. Listing them all in an article is akin to listing individual census entries in an article about demographics. What we need to do is determine what particular cultural works have impacted the overall perceptions. We can really only do that through cited sources. --Eyrian 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, isn't "impacting/affecting people's perception" a rather strong definition of non-trivia? How about references that make people at least aware of Wikipedia? — Edokter • Talk • 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If that increasing of awareness is referenced, then that's fine. --Eyrian 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiality anchor

I was trying to create an HTML anchor so wikiality would redirect to the relevant section, but I'm not familiar enough with Wiki-markup to do it. Hopefully someone else can create one - the only way I could find was to create a sub-section separate from the table. Romperomperompe 08:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think giving it its own section might be appropriate since its noteworthy enough and relevant. Either way works. Romperomperompe 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Onion and Wikipedia

I just picked up a copy of The Lantern for Wednesday, September 19, 2007, which had The Onion 43.00 as an insert. Anyway, the lead front page article is titled "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence: Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honoroed." The article continues onto page 6. Should we mention this article somewhere? I also posted this information on the talk page for The Onion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Mercer's Monday night report

I was watching an episode of this show today, and wikipedia was referenced in a skit. However, this doesn't appear to be in this article. I believe it is a recent show, probably within the last week or two because Rick 'ranted' about harper's speech.

Please forgive any spelling error's I'm making this post from my iPod touch, and the keyboard isn't great.--142.68.44.196 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

William Gibson's Spook Country

Cyberpunk and literary author William Gibson has a Wikipedia biography of the character Hubertus Bigend in his novel Spook Country, which was fictional when it was published this August 2007, but which now exists as a real Wikipedia entry.

William Gibson wrote this novel, in a "cloud of hyperlinks" with references to Google and to Wikipedia, something which is also true of the reviews and literary analysis of the novel, both by mainstream media reviewers and by fans.

MemeticSynthesis 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The same conceit appears in Yellow blue tibia (Adam Roberts, 2009); an "article" (complete with stub notice and monobook styling) is included at the end, after the end of the text and before the author's note. Reminds me somewhat of the fake Who's Who entries you used to get in the Flashman novels. Shimgray | talk | 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chaser

Add the episode of The Chaser's War on Everything with the 10 questions to Jimmy Wales? (Most questions satirize Wikipedia) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Trivia Tag

I have removed the trivia tag from this article. It was placed by the AfD nom and I feel that under the circumstances it is inappropriately prejudicial. Specifically, whether this article is composed of trivia or substantive and notable information (or whether it contains a mix of substantive and notable information and trivia) is an underlying and key component of the AfD discussion. By tagging the entire article as trivia, rather than pointing to specific subjects on the talk page, nom appears to be asserting his case in multiple fora. as well as Requesting that appropriate information be moved to its own subject's respective article, this puts the information in this article in potential conflict with the guideline WP:SELF. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

College Humor professor Wikipedia

I found Collegehumor's Professor Wikipedia video: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1830262 - as this was made by the CH staff this has to go somewhere in the article WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wikiality.jpg

The image Image:Wikiality.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Onion wikipedia.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for File:Onion wikipedia.jpg has been fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia plague

This is getting to be a mess. Can we please set some kind of minimum notability standard here, so that we don't have the current situation of "Webcomic I read mentioned Wikipedia, twice!" reeling on and on? It's worse than the "OMG! Somebody mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer on My fave copshow; I must add it to the article right away!" situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess Wikipedia has reached that level of fame where passing mentions are becoming way too numerous to list. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia mentioned on Coast to Coast AM

Anyone remember hearing George Noory joke about how Catherine Austin Fitts' Wikipedia article is only a few lines long, and wondering about who's doing his bio on Wikipedia? It was about a month ago. Might be something to add to the Radio mentions section. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope; trivial. See my comment directly above. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Wikipedia Art controversy

An editor has proposed that the article Wikipedia Art controversy be merged to this article, indicating that while there are some sources mentioning the event, there is not curently enough substantial coverage to merit a stand-alone article. I support the IP editors reasoning. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see the logic in merging this minor but just about notable matter into an article about similar matters so that it acquires a bit of context. I am not 100% convinced that this article fits the bill as it is mostly about cultural references to Wikipedia, rather than disputes involving Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but I am open to persuasion. It seems to me that Criticism of Wikipedia might also be considered as a merge location. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a culture matter. It's a trademark legal matter. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I support merging to here (not to Criticism of Wikipedia because whereas the subjects of the article did not like what happened to their attempt to put "art" on a WP page, that hardly qualifies as criticism).

The issue certainly falls within what "culture" means here: two artists wanted people to create dynamic art by editing a certain page according to their creative juices; the page was deleted as nonencyclopedic.

It's also true that the issue involves trademark concerns and a legal letter. But the extremely brief flurry of activity is not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedic article. Merging to here would be ideal because this article lists several events that are more notable (and this article is bound to expand). All related items should be here. Per WP:DENY, we should not create separate articles that would celebrate people who get a thrill from disrupting or misusing Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that the trademark legal issue is of sufficient notability to warrant an article, even though it is a relatively contained event. As a complicated legal matter, I don't see that it fits well with entertainment references or the like. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, how many trademark disputes actually enter the legal system each year and we dont consdier them worthy of stand alone articles. Why should we give differential preference to a dispute simply because it involves wikipedia?-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate, here is some news from two days ago: "Devotees of Green Man's Radler might wonder why it is now called Cyclist. DB Breweries ... threatened legal action if the Dunedin brewery did not drop the name, because it owns the trademark to Radler." We do not need an article on that, not do we need an article on the even more trivial issue being discussed here which was resolved by the web site adding "It is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way" to their home page (no name change)! The event is notable only in the eyes of those who want to poke WP. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While I understand the objection, I would point out that this particular dispute had a relatively high level of notability, having attracted strongly worded coverage from the EFF, a pro-bono legal defense from a Public Citizen lawyer, and, if I may be immodest, a tough, critical, _Guardian_ column. As neither the EFF nor Public Citizen can fairly be described as "those who want to poke WP", I would submit that on the other side, there is an impulse to minimize the notability, by those want to whitewash bad conduct by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia's coverage of legal matters is notoriously weak, due to the mismatch between the required interest/expertise and the bulk of the article-writers, so I think such relative arguments are thereby flawed. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also notorious as a haven for POV pushers and what better way to push your POV than installing attack articles theoretically about lawsuits. So I take your analysis that the lack of articles about minor lawsuits as being solely because wikipedia lacks editors with legal backgrounds to be flawed. We dont have them because they are generally non-encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I really doubt this article is going to matter much one way or the other. I can't see it being any great beachhead of attacking Wikipedia. It's not like the Essjay Controversy, because that involved lying to important media people, while this was just about threatening and mudslinging against two obscure (no offense meant) artists. But as to any claim about "We don't have them because they are generally non-encyclopedic", well, I have to admit I like List of The Simpsons couch gags -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be overdoing your insistence on high standards by repeatedly casting this incident as more than what appears at face value. If you have any evidence of a secret conspiracy, spell it out – we won't mind, but please keep it brief. At the moment, there is no reason to believe this case is more than it appears.

Just above you say "It's a trademark legal matter" which exactly agrees with the single legal letter sent by the Wikimedia Foundation to the registrant of the domain name wikipediaart.org (see article). It is quite reasonable to accept what the letter says and recognize that visitors to a web site called "Wikipedia Art" with domain name "wikipediaart.org" could easily think they were visiting a site run by Wikipedia. The entire incident was resolved by the inclusion of the text "not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way" on the site. You are demanding a totally unrealistic standard by calling this "threatening and mudslinging".

It is true that there is a great deal of material on Wikipedia that is not (yet) encyclopedic. Particularly in the modern culture area, the norm is to accept anything with a reasonable amount of notability or notoriety. In the case we are discussing, a thorough discussion decided to delete the "Wikipedia Art" article. The only article that should be discussed here is Wikipedia Art controversy which "is a domain name ownership dispute". Therefore, standards of notability for a domain name ownership dispute (a trademark dispute) should apply. WP:GNG shows that the article is not notable. Since we have Wikipedia in culture, it may as well include a merge of any useful content from Wikipedia Art controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misreading me somewhere. I do indeed make a distinction between the "Wikipedia Art" page, and the trademark legal issue. Perhaps the "Wikipedia Art" page itself should be mentioned in Wikipedia in culture, while the "Wikipedia Art controversy" article should be renamed to something like "Wikipedia Art trademark fair use dispute". I don't know what you mean by "secret conspiracy". I have previously discussed the politics of the dispute, see the article linked above (and it's clear they're on display here too - not conspiracy, but more of a where you stand depends on where you sit). It is quite mistaken though, to minimize the dispute as "single letter" - again, please read my article - if I post it here, I'll get attacked for that (likely all sorts of names). I reiterate my view that all the coverage listed indicates sufficient notability for this particular trademark dispute. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My "secret controversy" comment was intended to find out if any information is known (or suspected), other than what appears in the places we have been (Wikipedia Art controversy and its talk page, and the links on both those pages, including to your article). The issue concerns a single legal letter, plus some very mild emails, plus an indignant response by the wikipediaart owner, plus hand-wringing by someone from the EFF, plus your article.

My point is simply that the published facts (I read them all) do not indicate notability of the trademark/domain name dispute. I posted a link from a quick search showing a more notable case where something real happened (a product was renamed) – but that's not notable either because it probably happens once a week or more somewhere in the world. It's terribly exciting when something not-nice happens at Wikipedia, but the trademark dispute is not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, you are drawing conclusions about the notability of this based on what you think of the legal matter at hand and your interpretation of them from the above text, rather than who has written about them in the mainstream and what they have said. godwin's letter, and what he says in an email to a private list about how to read it, is not a notable and reliable source worthy of either notability or verification through citation. The journal sentinel and the guardian are. If you want to publish your opinion, which is what you describe above, in a reliable source then cite it back here, grand. Until then, though, "reading all the published facts" - and paying most attention to those by the Wikimedia spokesperson rather than in those sources normally considered worthy of citation on WP - does not make your opinion the authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.91.155 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there have been reports of an incident is not a reason to have an encyclopedic article on the incident. For good reason, that is an official policy. You have not addressed my point that I could create a new article each week describing a more notable trademark dispute, for example this report describes how a product had to be renamed (more notable than a web site having to display "not affiliated with Wikipedia"). Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an important free speech aspect here with regard to trademark fair use which elevates the legal incident beyond a run of the mill trademark dispute. After all, the Electronic Frontier Foundation considered this significant too. And note also that while I of course personally have detractors, writing a column for the Guardian required editorial approval of the topic, so the judgment of event notability in that context should not be lightly dismissed. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Free speech is wholly admirable, but "free" does not appear in the article or on the wikipediaart.org page. The EFF was sufficiently concerned to write a blog, but since it was one of about thirty during April, they did not think the incident was very significant. I respect your apparent desire for total freedom, but why should "Wikipedia Art" (a trademark/domain name dispute) be kept as a separate article? There are plenty of more notable free speech issues at Internet censorship and Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics and Burma and more. If I were the editor of The Register or a newspaper, I'd publish Wikipedia stuff-up stories as well – they're great fun and often interesting. However, Wikipedia does not have to celebrate every attempt to use its name with an article, particularly single events that are unlikely to be remembered by more than half a dozen people in six months. Johnuniq (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh ... I used the term "free speech" as a reference to the trademark fair use issue. I'll just repeat again that the amount of coverage indicates this was a particularly notable dispute, including but not limited to coverage by EFF, Guardian, PBS Mediashift, Journal Sentinel -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: argument that it is a "legal" topic and not an "art" topic. Within Wikipedia, "Culture" is not limited to a definition equating it solely to "art" - "culture" is frequently used in a broader "art and society" in which the relationship of art and legal context/"controversies" surrounding it is perfectly at home.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of boundaries, I just don't see "trademark vs fair use" as within the same functional grouping as "references in TV/radio/comics". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Update Following the result of an AFD discussion, the article discussed above (Wikipedia Art controversy) was merged to Scott Kildall. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Parodies of Wikipedia

Besides Uncyclopedia, there are many other parodies of wikipedia, such as the encyclopedia of stupid and encyclopaedia dramatica. Should they be included on this page?Kayau (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would say no. Have a look at the history of Internet meme where every couple of days someone adds the latest fad they noticed. I would recommend only adding cases backed by a reasonable analysis (preferably a secondary source), otherwise the list could be expanded indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Wikipedia used as a verb

Its become fairly common for people to use wikipedia as a verb (i.e. I don't know what that is, I'll wikipedia it.)and that should probably be mentioned in this article or the main wikipedia article

Common where? In North America you mean? -- œ^™ 01:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, otherwise WP:OR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 Not done. No, if you want this remove from mainspace, you're going to have to use AfD. Fences&Windows 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Wikipedia in culture → Wikipedia:Wikipedia in culture — This is a move to a Wikipedia space. According to the previous AFDs, this article is not of much interest to anyone else besides us Wikipedians; and if they decide to visit this page, well, they might end up attempting to write YOU SUCK! somewhere, or worse,delete the main page while they're at it. Also, it is a list of trivia that lacks some references and may not be WP:notable, depending on how you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia on the Web

There are a few but not many sites devoted entirely to Wikipedia but hosted elsewhere. Perhaps they should be listed in this article. Thoughts?

Mydogtrouble (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY it is not our role to construct lists of links. Further, there is no encyclopedic reason to promote sites wanting to comment on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BrainPOP

In the BrainPOP video "Internet"[2], the Wikipedia URL is shown. Should that be added?--BRAINULATOR9 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainulator9 (talk • contribs)

If that's the same as this humorously misrecorded DMCA Exhibit A, it's a 4-minute flash animation explaining the mechanics of the Internet in general. The Wikipedia URL (but not page) is shown for 3 seconds in a list with 5 others, not mentioned in the voiceover, and is never seen again. So I wouldn't think it's notable enough by itself, since Wikipedia is not really important to the scene or show. Also, it's a one-time, individual event, for a small, paying audience. The general notability guideline lists the criteria for notability of a thing. Notability for an item to be listed in an article still relies upon WP:Reliable sources reporting about the thing, and in this case I doubt any have. In other mentions listed here, Wikipedia is central to a scene, plot point, or joke, in well-known media, and is supported by a reliable independent source or two. --Lexein (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

mentioned in Get Back Up (T.I. song)

Wikipedia is mentioned in Get Back Up (T.I. song). 76.241.108.220 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mere mentions of that sort don't merit inclusion here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Colbert

The word "Colbert" is on the page 51 times. He's funny and all, but does it seem like overkill to anyone else? Brandonrush Woooooooo pig sooie 04:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Smurfs film reference?

While having a character read wikipedia in a film is not anything all that special, the 2011 Smurfs film might warrant a mention as the article is shown, but made to look like it describes mythical (but it turns out real-life) creatures documented by Peyo. I also seem to recall that the Patrick Winslow character gets a picture of the moon from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.251 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In film

I hoped to find a section about Wikipedia in films, but there isn't one. I wanted to see if a mention should be made for El hombre de al lado (the main character complains about Wikipedia listing his home as open for visits (which it actually is in real life)). --Error (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

XKCD References

I've created this section to hold extra information previously held in the article about references in the webcomic, xkcd. I felt that this information should be kept in case it is needed in future, but appeared a bit excessive to include the whole thing on the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another issue which showed Randall Munroe's Google search history following the AOL search data scandal revealed that Munroe searched the Wikipedia domain for "surviving a raptor attack". xkcd comic #333, entitled "Getting Out of Hand," shows a couple in bed together, with one of the two stick figures reading the Wikipedia article on foreplay on a laptop. Returning to the Wikipedia theme, xkcd #446 depicted a fictional "In popular culture" section in the Wood article, riffing on the tendency to include minor pop culture trivia in articles, with tooltip text theorizing that "the blogosphere will implode" if the tooltip text is mentioned in an "in popular culture" section for an article on the "In Popular Culture" sections. xkcd comic #545 also references Wikipedia, attempting to describe a situation in which the Wikipedia policy of neutrality could not apply. xkcd #739 comic satirized certain word choices and writing styles used by Wikipedia editors. This comic spawned a debate about the continued existence of a page dedicated to the word Malamanteau, which was invented by Randall Munroe and presented in xkcd, following creation of the page by vandals.

http://xkcd.com/978/. --Túrelio (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Roger Ebert is dead

Without saying "the late" in this instance, the article implies that he is still recommending Wikipedia, but he cannot because he is obviously dead. This is the correct use of "the late", although I agree Wikipedia cannot do that on every article, but this is a good example of a time that we should,--JOJ ^Hutton 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Satisfactory now? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedification of knowledge

How about this: "It's the Wikipedification of knowledge, and it doesn't matter if it's true." From here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Letterman

Could mention the time about five years ago that David Letterman read out the Cougar (slang) article (as it then existed) on his show... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oatmeal Edison vs Tesla incident?

Not sure but is this article a place where that would aptly be mentioned?

(As you may all know, the Edison article was full-protected some time after The Oatmeal ostentatively rated Edison as a Douchebag for some reasons given, concluding a need for a Wikipedia edit...)

Cheers, --217.81.164.128 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposing that List of films about Wikipedia be merged into this article. The list of films is of dubious notability, but more importantly with only two blue linked list items, it just doesn't make sense as a stand-alone article when this article exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. This article is a better place to put a list of films, rather than having a separate article. J4xh4x123 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Two out of the three films are obviously notable. The 3rd I will try to do some research on. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Cirt and subject matter. There could be coverage on this page with a link to the films page where a longer elaboration of the data can occur. Randy Kryn 12:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A separate article seems redundant because films are a huge part of culture. 68.186.160.22 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The article about films only has three entries; I don't think that a list so short merits its own article. Max0987654321 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Long term, this list will grow. I'd again suggest that the films be listed and summarized here but that the separate page be kept and enlarged. Randy Kryn 18:22, 2 June 2016 )

Appearances on the waves

I don't think it's feasible to list or even just select (based on secondary sources or other methods) the mere mentions of Wikipedia on TV or the radio. The Internet Archive alone knows about over 500 mentions of Wikipedia per year on the relatively few TV channels it monitors. Nemo 20:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia in the media" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia in the media. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 10#Wikipedia in the media until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Tag spam

• Only one refimprove tag is needed - there are {{citation needed}} tags which should be addressed.
• Removed the {{original research}} tag - there are no inline {{Or}} tags.
• Removed the {{cleanup-laundry}} tag: it's actually an invalid tag. WP:N does not address content or sections, only whole articles. "Unencyclopedic" requires discussion. "Not helpful" does not apply.

--Lexein (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing expansion tags for "feature films", "literature", "music", etc. since there are 5+ examples. Leaving the tag on "Art". Revert back if there's a reason why these should be left on. BBQboffin (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Crime?

Should notable mentions of Wikipedia relating to criminal cases be included either here or elsewere on the site? This could include: Wikipedias coverage of a criminal case if the coverage is itself notable (Gabby Petito comes to mind, maybe similar to the Wikipedia and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article); significant mentions of Wikipedia during a court case (similar to the existing "in politics" section); and direct involvement of Wikipedia in the crime (like the recent D.C. shooter editing Wikipedia articles of his target before and during the crime, and his profile here that has been mentioned in the coverage). That last one might be considered giving perpetrators too much publicity, though there is probably a balance to include a selected few major cases on a relatively low trafficed page like this, I doubt anyone would argue that the List of mass shootings in the United States is encouraging more mass shootings.

--jonas (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)