Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-28/Opinion essay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A couple of quotes from the intro to The New Barbarian Manifesto
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Ottre 12:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

Caesar

Paradoctor (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, too funny. I was raised in France and at 16 wrote an artillery game on my casio too (a PB-700 with 12K of RAM). I thankfully left France shortly after my 17th birthday. This story rings very true for the French attitude. Now for the bit about the barbarians: We are the barbarians. Those who think they are not are in denial. And I happen to be listening to Ayumi Hamasaki's Voyage as I type this. Gaijin indeed! Christopher Mahan (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poignancy of this comment on fuddy-duddyism is enhanced by the irony of characterizing an interest in popular culture as "unusual" and "nonstandard" ("Let's all be different same as me."John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider), for it underscores the sense of alienation often engendered, against all evidence, by those who promote one interest by attacking others. As a fuddy-duddy who thinks Wikipedia places undue emphasis on entertainment (and who remembers how to use a slide rule, thank you very much), I am nevertheless quite pleased by this charming essay. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? Ok, I'll probably regret this, but I'm a glutton for punishment: Just how does the fact that, by some metric or another, about a third of the English Wikipedia's articles are about pop culture support your contention that this is too high? The "average hits per day" graph would seem to indicate that this percentage is still too low. Looking at the other wiikipedias the idea of prescribing some "optimal" percentage for this topic or another becomes patently absurd. From the page you consider evidence: "Adding more content while the number of" ... "editors" ... "stagnates means" ... "the community is not longer able to guarantee the reliability of the content (vandalism free); the online-ecosystem gets out of control." It is quite ironic that you seem to think Wikipedia stands to profit from constraining (pop-) cultural content. After all, barbarians are generally understood to lack culture, rather than being overbred. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We digress, but I will attempt to clarify. I cited the evidence to support the proposition that those who share such interests need hardly feel alienated: they are in good company. My intent in supporting this essay was to chide those who belittle such interests. Even though I happen to feel that Wikipedia stands to profit from relatively more coverage of other topics, it is only a matter of degree. Expressing hostility towards such interests in ways that engender feelings of alienation is just plain wrong. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant. That sounded like what William Gibson was writing twenty years ago, except it is happening now. Technology, mind, culture. Video games, run on powerful reality machines, that have already changed young minds almost beyond the comprehension of adults. The master stroke is putting the finger on the attack by misdirection currently levelled at WP. How many times have I seen the story about everything being taken over my "elite editors". I guess if you can't shut something up then it's time to turn nasty and try and make everyone go away (I know, just ignore them). DJ Barney (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally absorbing! As for slide rules, I sported one in physics class, alright (before calcs.) What's it good for? Well, one day the yearbook photogs entered the classroom. Holding my slide rule in my right hand, I slowly brought the other end up to my cheek and held it there, intensely following 'teach' as he lectured. Got my pic in the yearbook! Ya gotta be ready for every op! BTW, I've visited Paris and Cannes, two of the most beautiful places in the world!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beautiful essay; to take nothing away from the translation, I look forward to reading the original. (Working on my French here). With the often delightful, but sometimes downright disturbing, sense of serendipity that's increasingly affecting me here, I landed on this page almost at random, having clicked just out of curiosity on the second half of a signature (still don't know how people do that stuff) of an editor who had kindly helped me with a question via IRC. What seemed odd about it is, I've been reading headache-inducing stuff in meta-wikipedia (or whatever it's called) relating to the dreaded term "Deletionist". I don't dare tell the supporters of this essayist's views what my take (as a long time reader, not active editor) on the specific points either there or here is, but even though there's not much in the author's perspective for me to share, I'm extremely grateful that Wikipedia permits people to share so many perspectives. Bacrito (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, took me awhile to make the connection: Does this essay imply we need more Vandalism? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well written, and well translated too, it seems. I have always wondered how many lives including mine would have gone were there more sane teachers and other adults in my childhood. Thanks to all concerned for putting it here, and leaving it here. Am surprised more people have not noticed this. Jusdafax 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]