The Signpost

In the media

Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Milowent

This Signpost "In the media" report covers media primarily from 19 February to 17 March.

Is Garfield male? Only the Creator knows. A silly edit war erupts.

In one of the more silly Wikipedia editing disputes of all time, an "edit war" over whether the comic strip character Garfield is really male received major press coverage. As evidenced at Garfield's talk page, a semi-well known internet troll found a 2014 interview with Garfield's creator Jim Davis, that said "Garfield is very universal. By virtue of being a cat, really, he’s not really male or female or any particular race or nationality, young or old." This springboarded a war over whether Garfield's gender in his infobox should be "none." The whole thing was chronicled in a number of lighthearted press stories, including this one in the Washington Post (which I am partial to because it ends with a dumb quote from me). The faux edit-war was put to a complete end, however, when Davis told the Post: "Garfield is male." (Heat Street (February 27); Washington Post (March 1); Mashable (March 1); New York Magazine (March 1); New York Daily News (March 2); Zet Chilli (March 3, in Polish); NTDTV (March 3, in Chinese); Helsingborgs Dagblad (March 5, in Swedish); Süddeutsche Zeitung (March 9, in German); El Nuevo Diario (March 13, in Spanish); and many more)

In brief

Editathons all over
The Daily Mail's answer to whether it has been treated unfairly by Wikipedia.

Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or contact the editor.
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

I guess we'll have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe your user name could be offensive to people without arms or hearts. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Arms & Hearts, Josh Milburn, and the IP: As the author of the title here, I must confess I had no idea it could have negative implications. I certainly only meant it to be humorous; my knowledge of the term comes from a sarcastic teenage son. I'll try to Google better next time (and consider Josh's point about adapting memes).--Milowenthasspoken 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A distinction without a difference. We all agree that the WMF has too much money, has wasted money already, and will likely waste more in the future. Money can be very corrupting. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0