Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Is Not Amused By Entry For xkcd-Coined Word

Posted by timothy on from the didn't-confuse-me-for-one-frobnitzjibber dept.

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."

25 of 553 comments (clear)

  1. If by today's you mean yesterday's... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    1. Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's... by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some readers at the XKCD forums pointed out that the term may have originated from this MetaFilter thread 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]

  2. NOT BBC NEWS! by molo · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    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

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:NOT BBC NEWS! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:NOT BBC NEWS! by RabbitWho · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      it's under construction
  3. Re:LOL by TheKidWho · · Score: 1, Informative

    Yes, UtherSRG is a douche.

  4. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    TL;DR

    Then go watch the reference.

  5. And then it gets even better... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently the malamanteau page may (or may not) be the place to pre-order battletoads. I was wondering what happened to the other battletoads pre-order site, now I know!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:And then it gets even better... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can make your own pirated version of Battletoads at home or work! If you need them, buy a hammer and a permanent marker at a dollar store. Write "Battletoads" on the side of the hammer. Now strip down, lay your penis on a hard surface, and then start smacking it with the hammer as hard as you can, repeatedly and consistently. Do this until you either succumb to the pain and give up or pass out. This is known as "Level 3". This has been scientifically proven to give the exact same experience as playing the retail version of battletoads.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  6. Re:Real Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    cause spontaneous gatherings at random locations

    Influencing Doctor Who storylines too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arcs_in_Doctor_Who#Cracks_in_the_universe

  7. Re:It exhibits no creativity. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Informative

    xkcd exhibits no creativity.

    http://xkcd.com/195/
    http://xkcd.com/249/
    http://xkcd.com/426/
    http://xkcd.com/681/

    These seem reasonably original.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  8. Way to kill the joke by zill · · Score: 2, Informative

    The entire joke rests on the fact that there's no such wikipedia article. Even Randall admits there shouldn't be article on the word.

  9. Simpsons did it! by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's perfectly cromulent.

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  10. Re:Best. Joke. Ever. by Tetsujin · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    Or your mom.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  11. Re:Best. Joke. Ever. by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ummm, you must not read many non-technical pages, if you haven't seen Malapropism, Portmanteau, and Neologism a billion times each. Also, Wikipedia is itself a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia, with wiki being both a very recent neologism, and also, a loanword from Hawaiian.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  12. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unfortunately, the sum of 4chan's > 3 million articles rarely diverts from the topics of penises and lolcats.

  13. Re:Best. Joke. Ever. by BenFenner · · Score: 2, Informative

    +4 Informative for a "your mom" joke. =D

  14. Not BBC! by hrimhari · · Score: 2, Informative

    The link in the article is a blog. It has no ties with the "real" BBC. This is the real one....

    Poor Wikipedia...

    --
    http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
  15. Re:screw wikipedia by Renevith · · Score: 3, Informative

    First-hand experience is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all, regardless of how good it is. That's because there's no way for anyone later to verify your friend's level of experience. All information on Wikipedia is supposed to be cited (or common knowledge). Do you really think it would be a good idea to just trust all contributors who claim to have knowledge of some subject?

    The official name of this policy is No Original Research. "The term 'original research' refers to material--such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories--not already published by reliable sources."

    Disclaimer: I don't know about the particulars of your friend's edits, nor do I have any particular association with Wikipedia (beyond having an account with a handful of trivial edits).

  16. Re:Simple Solution by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem I have with Wikipedia is that it refuses to create strict rules and follow them. It has stupid 'Notability' nonsense instead where it's just totally arbitrary.

    For example, I'd be entirely okay with the idea that fictional things do not belong on Wikipedia, period. No fictional characters, no fictional places, nothing.

    But that's not the rule. You can find, for example, 'Sunnydale California' on it, the setting of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

    But I'm sure there are plenty of TV shows that don't have their setting on there, and if you tried to put them on there, you'd be removed for notability reasons. Why one fictional place is more notable than the other, I don't know.

    The problem with Wikipedia is that the rules are totally arbitrary about what is and isn't on there. And enforced in a completely random manner.

    Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if they weren't operating with a single namespace. But they are.

    ...yes, I know about wikia.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  17. Re:Simple Solution by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem I have with Wikipedia is that it refuses to create strict rules and follow them. It has stupid 'Notability' nonsense instead where it's just totally arbitrary.

    Do you know how many pages of rules (and whatnot) there are on notability?

    --
    $ make available
  18. Re:You people have no patience! by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

        Decision makers shouldn't have the power to make decisions.
        Decisions should be left up to their advisors (staff) with expertise in their field.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  19. Re:You people have no patience! by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

        Well, I couldn't shorten the report much. It included detailed information that was actually requested. Consider just the network maps. The maps themselves were a dozen pages. Anything smaller became unreadable. Well, it didn't matter since he didn't go past the first page. It was to be a comprehensive report of all the available providers, from the ones who distinctly met our criteria, to the ones who barely made it.

        If you want a comprehensive report, it won't fit on one page. The executive summary was all of like 3 paragraphs taking up about 1/3 of the first page.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  20. That's not a BBC site by fiddlesticks · · Score: 2, Informative

    The site ("BBC News of America") mentioned isn't a BBC site.

    It's registered to an individual in Pakistan, is full of odd typos, doesn't have the BBC logo and seems to only have one contributor

    --
    http://milkshake.dexy.org
  21. Re:screw wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    fyi Swedish is a Germanic language and not Slavic.. (+5 insightful )

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