Wikipedia Is Not Amused By Entry For xkcd-Coined Word

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."

Comments

NOT BBC NEWS!

[molo]

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

Re:NOT BBC NEWS!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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

Re:If by today's you mean yesterday's...

[SpeedyDX]

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]

Re:It exhibits no creativity.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

xkcd exhibits no creativity.

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

These seem reasonably original.

Re:Best. Joke. Ever.

[Tetsujin]

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

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

Or your mom.

Re:Simple Solution

[DavidTC]

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.

Re:Simple Solution

[Thinboy00]

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?