Fun fact - the question of the scale of the Evangelion model kits comes up from time to time - and while there is an official height for the Eva units, the scale of them in the anime changes so drastically from one scene to another that it's very hard to say one measurement is correct and another isn't. This inconsistency of scale goes beyond the usual animation errors - it was actually an intentional creative choice, fitting the size of the Eva to the effect they wanted in a given episode...
The robot's name isn't "Gigantor", it's "Tetsujin 28".
I understand people grow up with and grow attached to the localized names - but "gigantor" is a stupid name. It ranks up there with "Rick Hunter" or "Tranzor Z".
Nah, I understood the joke. I still think his post was badly written, even if it mimics the original material. I also think it was forced humor, because it was just not funny... at all. Whatever. I'm being a douche by continuing to complain about it.:)
Well, then, I'm glad I stuck the word "apparently" in there instead of just assuming...:)
Seriously, how often do you go through obscure pages of Wikipedia and think "this encyclopedia would be better without this"?
Oh, quite often, actually. People write some real crap sometimes - there's an unfortunate trend toward trivia hoarding on the site. Everyone has their own pet interests and wants to build up a little repository of what they've found. What's more, they believe that their interest is important enough that it deserves to be on a site people have heard of. Personally, I really believe Wikipedia is not the right place for that.
How often do you go through an encyclopedia and think that?
Well, to be honest, I haven't owned an encyclopedia set in years, and I haven't been checking the library's copy for anything, either. There's just been no need. I'm out of school and haven't needed that kind of reference.
It's an imperfect analogy, though: if you're talking about a printed encyclopedia, or even a computer encyclopedia delivered on digital media, then you're talking about some kind of professional effort - quality control and editing have already taken place. If I bought an encyclopedia set and it included a list of all the TV shows and movies to feature a giant, Godzilla-like monster destroying a city, then I might be a bit annoyed that valuable print space in my encyclopedia had been wasted with that. (And yes, this is another way in which the analogy isn't perfect - even an encyclopedia delivered on DVD-ROM would be much more limited in the amount of information it could contain than Wikipedia is.)
The point is to have a reference for everything. If it is not notable, people won't search it therefore any complaint about "standards" is negated because no one is seeing it.
If no one is seeing it, there's no point in having the article at all, and it doesn't matter if it's deleted. If someone is seeing it, then you're back to needing quality control.
I know, and it's certainly true that some of us (myself included) are given to particularly long-winded arguments. And the real kicker is that, often, a post that's too long quite simply fails to make the point as well as a shorter one could.
But I really think people take it too far. They've apparently lost all patience for reading (or even skimming) long messages, and the knee-jerk reaction for all such cases has become "tl;dr"
GP fails both #2 and #3. It's not only terribly written, it comes across as forced humor.
Actually, as someone else has noted - that's because you apparently missed the joke. I was never hugely into the whole "leave Britney alone" thing, so I didn't immediately get it myself... So I just skimmed enough to get the idea.:)
Just use the damn word; if it happens often enough, then Wikipedia can rightfully include it and the discussion is over.
Is that really a word I want to use? I mean, I'm not even entirely sure what it's supposed to mean. I never use the word "malapropism", and I rarely use "portmanteau"...
I mean, do people really care about this word that much, that they'd wedge it into their own everyday language, just for the sake of trying to get it to catch on? Seems like a waste of effort to me.
Wikipedias relevancy criteria is retarded. What is wrong with having more information on there?
The issue is quality control. The goal is not just to have a bunch of information, but for it to actually be useful, reliable information.
More than that, though, I think this sort of thing - someone with a bit of an audience inciting vandalism on Wikipedia - has gotten a bit too common. I can understand why they'd be a bit touchy about it happening again.
Not every good piece of comedy is biting social commentary. Not every XKCD strip is biting social commentary. grandparent post's point was that social commentary was often among the strip's strengths...
In this case - I think it's one of those observations that probably could have been turned into a funny joke, but this time around in XKCD it was pretty much just presented as an observation...
I do think Wikipedia has a real hard-on for "portmanteau" at least.
Maybe AC is more clever than you think... Maybe he was simultaneously ripping on XKCD for being fat, and saying that there's hardly any of them at all?
(Or, then again, maybe he just has no concept of powers of ten...)
Isn't there a wikipedia article on the fact that people that use wikipedia are idiots?
Heh heh, I was just thinking about what you just said and you know what I came up with that I thought was really clever?
Your joke is about an article that doesn't exist, right? Well, I can create that article! Wouldn't it be funny if the article from your joke really did exist? DERP!
Isn't that a great idea? I thought of it all myself.
Does Wikipedia -lose- anything if it accepts an article that is a word coined by xkcd? Of course not.
A small measure of dignity perhaps? I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to maintain some semblance of standards despite the site being constantly inundated by this kind of crap.
Compared to the constant stream of Colbert Report fans screwing with Wikipedia?
I wouldn't put the XKCD thing in contrast with Colbert Report stuff - to me, it's just two different examples of the same thing - people inciting vandalism on Wikipedia.
Basically, I think it's a pretty shitty thing to do.
Oh, come on, it wasn't that long. I'm sick of people being so short in their attention span that they have to complain about any piece of text not short enough for Twitter.
Gasp! An eight line paragraph!
on
Hacking Vim 7.2
·
· Score: 1
"I hate to ruin..."
Wow! a meagre 218-word paragraph to define "consistency".
Huh? "consistency" is not at all what I just described.
I was making a point about how it's possible for software to have really great facilities to help you learn how to use it - but still be a complicated piece of software to learn.
It's really not very much text. If it's "tl;dr" for you, then just take a fucking hike.
You don't understand the underlying joke, that is, the only time you find a laywer arguing for following the spirit of the law is when the spirit of it is blatantly miserly, arrogant and insincere:)
No, a lawyer will argue for the spirit of the law if they think that will improve their chances of winning the case...
Well, the logical way would be to phrase it like that, but the clauses have been reversed since the 1800s, and has been pretty commonly accepted in it's
The story was why Google should stop working on Chrome. The answer is that it is limited and will have a microscopic market.
That may be true. <shrug> I'm not too interested in the particulars of their business operation, honestly. I assume that if they continue to develop this thing, they've probably got a use in mind for it. Whether or not they continue, whether or not they make any money off it, etc. - that's their problem.
I'm going to do some extensive testing to confirm this theory...
And in keeping with proper scientific methods, this will be a double-blind test, and so simple visual inspection of the pubes will be out of the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Just one question...
Has the Japanese government finally settled on which ministry is in charge of Gundam yet?
Yes, they're leaving it to Sunrise and Bandai.
. . . story.
And then a Megadeus.
They actually had one in the works - it was about 80% complete, but then a massive stage-light fell on it and most of it was wrecked.
Fun fact - the question of the scale of the Evangelion model kits comes up from time to time - and while there is an official height for the Eva units, the scale of them in the anime changes so drastically from one scene to another that it's very hard to say one measurement is correct and another isn't. This inconsistency of scale goes beyond the usual animation errors - it was actually an intentional creative choice, fitting the size of the Eva to the effect they wanted in a given episode...
The robot's name isn't "Gigantor", it's "Tetsujin 28".
I understand people grow up with and grow attached to the localized names - but "gigantor" is a stupid name. It ranks up there with "Rick Hunter" or "Tranzor Z".
Nah, I understood the joke. I still think his post was badly written, even if it mimics the original material. I also think it was forced humor, because it was just not funny... at all. Whatever. I'm being a douche by continuing to complain about it. :)
Well, then, I'm glad I stuck the word "apparently" in there instead of just assuming... :)
Seriously, how often do you go through obscure pages of Wikipedia and think "this encyclopedia would be better without this"?
Oh, quite often, actually. People write some real crap sometimes - there's an unfortunate trend toward trivia hoarding on the site. Everyone has their own pet interests and wants to build up a little repository of what they've found. What's more, they believe that their interest is important enough that it deserves to be on a site people have heard of. Personally, I really believe Wikipedia is not the right place for that.
How often do you go through an encyclopedia and think that?
Well, to be honest, I haven't owned an encyclopedia set in years, and I haven't been checking the library's copy for anything, either. There's just been no need. I'm out of school and haven't needed that kind of reference.
It's an imperfect analogy, though: if you're talking about a printed encyclopedia, or even a computer encyclopedia delivered on digital media, then you're talking about some kind of professional effort - quality control and editing have already taken place. If I bought an encyclopedia set and it included a list of all the TV shows and movies to feature a giant, Godzilla-like monster destroying a city, then I might be a bit annoyed that valuable print space in my encyclopedia had been wasted with that. (And yes, this is another way in which the analogy isn't perfect - even an encyclopedia delivered on DVD-ROM would be much more limited in the amount of information it could contain than Wikipedia is.)
The point is to have a reference for everything. If it is not notable, people won't search it therefore any complaint about "standards" is negated because no one is seeing it.
If no one is seeing it, there's no point in having the article at all, and it doesn't matter if it's deleted. If someone is seeing it, then you're back to needing quality control.
TL;DR doesn't always imply literal verboseness.
I know, and it's certainly true that some of us (myself included) are given to particularly long-winded arguments. And the real kicker is that, often, a post that's too long quite simply fails to make the point as well as a shorter one could.
But I really think people take it too far. They've apparently lost all patience for reading (or even skimming) long messages, and the knee-jerk reaction for all such cases has become "tl;dr"
GP fails both #2 and #3. It's not only terribly written, it comes across as forced humor.
Actually, as someone else has noted - that's because you apparently missed the joke. I was never hugely into the whole "leave Britney alone" thing, so I didn't immediately get it myself... So I just skimmed enough to get the idea. :)
Just use the damn word; if it happens often enough, then Wikipedia can rightfully include it and the discussion is over.
Is that really a word I want to use? I mean, I'm not even entirely sure what it's supposed to mean. I never use the word "malapropism", and I rarely use "portmanteau"...
I mean, do people really care about this word that much, that they'd wedge it into their own everyday language, just for the sake of trying to get it to catch on? Seems like a waste of effort to me.
Wikipedias relevancy criteria is retarded. What is wrong with having more information on there?
The issue is quality control. The goal is not just to have a bunch of information, but for it to actually be useful, reliable information.
More than that, though, I think this sort of thing - someone with a bit of an audience inciting vandalism on Wikipedia - has gotten a bit too common. I can understand why they'd be a bit touchy about it happening again.
LOL. That story is in wikipedia's article on quiz...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz
And, according to wikipedia, the tale is indeed appocryphal.
Or, at least, wildly inaccurate...
Noticing that an encyclopedia likes two words.
Yes, biting social commentary.
Not every good piece of comedy is biting social commentary. Not every XKCD strip is biting social commentary. grandparent post's point was that social commentary was often among the strip's strengths...
In this case - I think it's one of those observations that probably could have been turned into a funny joke, but this time around in XKCD it was pretty much just presented as an observation...
I do think Wikipedia has a real hard-on for "portmanteau" at least.
Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.
So that's like what, eight or nine Slashdotters.
Or your mom.
Posted AC because xkcd has 10^3 kg of fanboys.
1000 kg is only a dozen people though.
Maybe AC is more clever than you think... Maybe he was simultaneously ripping on XKCD for being fat, and saying that there's hardly any of them at all?
(Or, then again, maybe he just has no concept of powers of ten...)
Isn't there a wikipedia article on the fact that people that use wikipedia are idiots?
Heh heh, I was just thinking about what you just said and you know what I came up with that I thought was really clever?
Your joke is about an article that doesn't exist, right?
Well, I can create that article! Wouldn't it be funny if the article from your joke really did exist? DERP!
Isn't that a great idea? I thought of it all myself.
Does Wikipedia -lose- anything if it accepts an article that is a word coined by xkcd? Of course not.
A small measure of dignity perhaps? I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to maintain some semblance of standards despite the site being constantly inundated by this kind of crap.
Compared to the constant stream of Colbert Report fans screwing with Wikipedia?
I wouldn't put the XKCD thing in contrast with Colbert Report stuff - to me, it's just two different examples of the same thing - people inciting vandalism on Wikipedia.
Basically, I think it's a pretty shitty thing to do.
TL;DR
Oh, come on, it wasn't that long. I'm sick of people being so short in their attention span that they have to complain about any piece of text not short enough for Twitter.
"I hate to ruin..."
Wow! a meagre 218-word paragraph to define "consistency".
Huh? "consistency" is not at all what I just described.
I was making a point about how it's possible for software to have really great facilities to help you learn how to use it - but still be a complicated piece of software to learn.
It's really not very much text. If it's "tl;dr" for you, then just take a fucking hike.
What is it with people thinking the law should be what they want it to be instead of what it is?
This is the first step in the process of changing the world.
You don't understand the underlying joke, that is, the only time you find a laywer arguing for following the spirit of the law is when the spirit of it is blatantly miserly, arrogant and insincere :)
No, a lawyer will argue for the spirit of the law if they think that will improve their chances of winning the case...
I vote for "undernet" - a system of hidden tunnels under the surface of the internet...
And the Super Mario Brothers underworld theme could play the whole time you're on!
Well, the logical way would be to phrase it like that, but the clauses have been reversed since the 1800s, and has been pretty commonly accepted in it's
parser error
The story was why Google should stop working on Chrome. The answer is that it is limited and will have a microscopic market.
That may be true. <shrug> I'm not too interested in the particulars of their business operation, honestly. I assume that if they continue to develop this thing, they've probably got a use in mind for it. Whether or not they continue, whether or not they make any money off it, etc. - that's their problem.
I'm going to do some extensive testing to confirm this theory...
And in keeping with proper scientific methods, this will be a double-blind test, and so simple visual inspection of the pubes will be out of the question.