Wikipedia talk:Humor

Ridiculous.. even for an essay this doesn't seem appropriate

This is utterly ridiculous and completely against the fundamental purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. As such, it's entries must be written with a neutral point of view and it's tone must be serious. If it isn't serious, it is easier to mistake what has been written here. Moreover, the brand of humor we would be forced into using to avoid misinterpretation or nonfactual information would not be.. *wince* err.. well.. popular. I understand why one would want humor, but don't put it into actual articles outside of essays, userpages, policies or suchlike. Repku (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think sarcasm or any other type of humor that would make the article untrue, inaccurate, or inaccessible when read in a literal or straightforward way, is entirely inappropriate. But...that doesn't mean that humor must be kept out entirely. I personally don't find sarcasm all that funny. But there are so many kinds of humor. I notice that wikipedia is a bit dry--and that's why I wanted to get some dialogue going on this page. As an example of the kind of thing I want to advocate/support/encourage, I recently added the mention of the term Traitor Joe's (which can be sourced in reliable sources) to the page on Trader Joe's. This enriches the article, and is rather amusing.  :-) Other articles just seem inherently funny to me, like Everything. I mean, there is a wikipedia page on everything! Cazort (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Humor in articles

I haven't seen anything like a clear consensus as to when humor is appropriate in articles. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue myself, but the point is that Wikipedia works by consensus, not the ideas of one person. As such, I have moved the following suggestions to this talk page, with the idea that Wikipedians can discuss the ideas:

• Add humorous images.
• Carefully juxtapose factual material in an amusing way, such as by highlighting irony inherent in how the world works.
• Find reliable humorous references so you can add such material to a page.

My major concern is humor tends to be very subjective, by nature. How do we reconcile that with [[WP:NOR] and [[WP:NPOV? If I find something ironic or funny (and I often do), others may not (and often don't).

My response to this would be that we ought to explicitly talk about the irony or humor in a topic if and only if it can be sourced in independent, reliable sources, via WP:Sources, without WP:Original Research. Example--if an article in The Onion makes enough of a splash that it receives coverage in a third-party source, as with this article: [1], then the Onion article could be mentioned and linked to in a sentence in the appropriate article(s).

About the humorous images, images can be both funny and a good image to include. Two examples: This image: [2] may be copyrighted, but if it were public use, it would be a good addition to the page on mobbing, or this (also not free use) picture: [3] might be a cute addition to the page on birdwatching. This is the sort of thing I had in mind. Cazort (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I also know that many consider any use of humorous propose to inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. While I do think that idea can be taken too far, I also think creating an "encyclopedia of silliness" isn't good, either.

Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a general guideline to be to welcome the insertion of as much humor as possible, given the constraint of keeping it accurate, true, straightforward, and accessible. There's really not that much leeway here, so I think it makes sense to use as much of that leeway as possible.

Humor has been shown in studies to be an aid to learning: [4], and to help cultivate a love of learning: [5]. This article: [6] is an industry review and shows connections of humor to both learning and overall health. Cazort (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, if someone describes their institution as "going from strength to strength", would it be naughty to juxtapose their most recent official evaluations which went from "outstanding" to "good"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

An example

I've only done this once, as I recall, and if I may say I think it's a good example of what should be considered OK. See this permalink, and note the juxtaposition of the final quotation in the "Harvard Lampoon" section against the first words of the "University of Massachusetts" section. EEng 03:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait, there's another in the same article: "natural habitat" in the infobox versus the same phrase in the caption at the start of the "Significance" section. This one's slightly less on the straight and narrow. EEng 03:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Shit, there's one more: search the phrase red herring. EEng 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Indication of humour

Humour should never be used without a clear concise indicator of such. What is "obvious" to you can be completely obscure to another reader and be misconstrued as an attack. Humour may also be used to conceal and backpaddle on an inappropriate comment.

Sarcasm is the worst form of humour used in text mediums. It is most often not obvious, to all, and construed as nasty or disruptive.

Humour can be marked in various ways. One of the easiest is to inline indicate it in parenthesis similar to this (sarcasm). A humourous article could be indicated at the top before the lede.

People using humour without indication should be issued warnings under the normal disruptive tags in order to correct this behavior. I am not against humour, as one that uses it frequently, but it needs to be clear of the intent. A simple look at WP:ANI will tell any editor how many cases are filed with disruptive behavior, only for the offender to state it was only humour. Either this was a backpaddle defence or the original statements were misinterpreted. Either way, unmarked humour should never be used, as disruptive, and this article should state that. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Help talk:Go ahead, vandalize

 You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Go ahead, vandalize § Namespace: Help vs Wikipedia. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Barbenheimer has an RFC

Barbenheimer has an RFC on whether a certain instance of humor is appropriate on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the RfC is not about humor but about the use of a full caption with explanatory cites and links (notice the cites and links are not included in the nomination text). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)