Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hear, hear! What does it take to get this as official policy? dbenbenn | talk 03:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I second that. This year was chaos. These are great guidelines. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Concur. Ambi 04:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes! r3m0t talk 11:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Fully agree. Also, I think that VFD for feautured articles should be off-limit too. It will really give first-time visitors a bad impression or, at least, confuse them. This year's EB buys WikiMedia announcement was great, but the other pranks were awful, Wikipedia should be accurate and usable every day of the year. Solver 13:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Its starting to sound like a game of Monopoly. "Do not pass go, do not collect.." - really, just make it clear that vandalism isn't allowed just because of the date. "One co-ordinated joke" takes the fun out of anything. Stuff like this1 is vandalism, and shouldn't be allowed, but other stuff like this2 and this3 shows that people do actually have a sense of humour and doesn't do any harm. Infact, I done more on Wikipedia on April Fool's than on most days, as it was more interesting (and I didn't vandalise one article). Hedley 17:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- this2 is allowed under the suggested policy. this3 would not be. r3m0t talk 17:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent! The heading did lead me to expect a broader essay on the ossification of "guidelines" in less-than-brilliant hands— but this was good anyway. Worth featuring in some fashion in the last ten days of March 2006 eh. --Wetman 17:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative
I'm not sure I like the idea of 'one "official" Wikipedia April Fool's joke to the outside world'. Frankly, I found most of the chaos to be fun. I thin that ETPH and the Britannica takeover were both great, as were the eyes snuck onto the front page. I didn't like the relabeling of buttons, because they probably interfered with some people getting work done.
What I think was good about ETPH and the Britannica takeover is that they were both clearly April Fool's Day pranks. And they were funny. No one was left wondering "is this a real story or an April Fool"? They fit in with the style of Wikipedia, but the substance was such as to place them clearly in the realm of humor. -- 23:28, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Although I don't think the navigation changes were particularly bothersome, I basically agree with this. To formalise: Not including the "official" April Fool's joke, other pranks are fine provided that they can be easily distinguished from actual article content.
- Of course, there'll be plenty of argument over what 'easily distinguished' means, but you need a suitably vague rule for what's essentially a judgement call anyway. CXI 00:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm all for out-and-out chaos -- provided it is limited to the 48-hour period of April Fool's Day. People should clean up after themselves. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 19:52, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
[edit] What makes an April fool?
Some people this time really seemed to forget what the day is all about - trying to trick someone into thinking something is true when it is not. April fool's day is not the same as "random silliness day". I loved some of the fun that was had this time around but some was just daft - the terminator vfd one, for example, is not an April fool, though it is amusing. I agree that people should work together towards an official hoax, but I doubt something as creatively excellent as ETPH would have been born under a strict regime. Perhaps it could be done as a competition, then a vote taken to see which one should be used. The disadvantage there though would be numerous people wasting their time on something that won't come to fruition. Maybe the lesser ones could be included as DYKs instead.
Or maybe we should just wait to see what ideas people come up with next year instead of formalising it too much. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Or trick people into thinking something is a hoax, when it is actually true... --Deathphoenix 05:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] life cycle of traditions
Seems to me that the Wikipedia April Fools' joke is a tradition we have outgrown. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Last year, and two years ago, there was sort of an unbridled sense of the absurd on April 1. This year, it was sort of like a church Halloween party, where nobody in charge was sure exactly how much fun was to be permitted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of church? Episcopal? Unitarian Universalist? Pentecostal? (I know what you mean, but I had a great time this April 1) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 19:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
