The Signpost

Humour

Good faith gibberish

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Barbara Page
A simmering activity that not arrive
Not one of his better moments
No. 12 is the Lemniscus.
An experienced editor (from the order of the Enochian Angels) guiding new editors away from contentious talk page editing.
Cabal of IRS agents using "shadowy techniques."
DNA created by mind control though it resembles a holiday decoration as well.
Not a rapper but the man with the longest name.

Preamble

Please assume that all this content was created and edited in good faith. There is no need to disparage the efforts of well-meaning contributors to the encyclopedia. And some editors do not have a full grasp of the English language. You can't read the following content without multiple question marks appearing over your head (assuming that you are a cartoon character) and we often take ourselves too seriously. Some readers may be appalled that such content exists for the whole world to see on their cell phones, but so it goes. Reading Wikipedia for its entertainment value is a hobby of some (author included) and for the rest of you, well, you just don't get it. See if you can guess the article.

Your clues

You'll never guess this one. Yet it is a distant relative of Umbral calculus which is described as "polynomial equations and certain shadowy techniques used to 'prove' them." Guess the name of the article and then click on the equation to see if you got the right answer.

Attribution

Almost all content in this article is taken from the linked articles; see their page histories for attribution.

S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
Hi, Yngvadottir. Do you know where the shortcut SOFIXIT shortcut leads to? It leads to a Wikipedia namespace article entitled Be bold. Why shortcut to a six letter article via an eight letter shortcut? That is like spending $8 for $6 of value. It is very mean, condescending, and misconstrues the target article. It is not humourous. I am not laughing. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Checkingfax:? They're both seven keystrokes. And you misspelt "humorous". Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...um..If I could understand the content, I could probably fix it. I love distinguished experts, I spend a lot of time hanging out with some. I am poking fun at the content not the contributor(s). I am perfectly fine if you don't laugh. Welcome to the majority. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not just a general encyclopædia; we're a comprehensive one. Links make it much easier for readers than it was with print works (and we also have more pictures). And we should of course have basic and survey articles (and do). But difficult topics exist and we should cover them; for another example, we are consulted by medical students, so we should have specialised medical articles (like one of the other examples here) and not just basic material for laypeople. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to the inclusion of some advanced materials, but to use Context switch as an example, that gobbledygook is in the article lede. I don't think it is unreasonable that articles should at least start off with some text that is comprehensible to a layperson, or even a first year university level student, before getting into the heavy jargon. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps I am making fun of my own ignorance.Barbara (WVS)   13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a techie, but I live among techies, and I don't find that excerpt objectionable. It endeavours to explain or contextualise each term a little, and presumably the body of the article clarifies further. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday DNA
Even prettier holiday DNA, but you'll get cancer from this one.
It still looks like a holiday decoration and I am tickled that DNA can be synthesized by mind control. It will make a marvelous barnstar. I am putting my image as I spread Christmas cheer on talk pages. Barbara (WVS)   13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kingsindian. According to surveys, 25 percent of English Wikipedia readers/editors are between the ages of 10 and 17. The average reader/editor has a sixth grade reading level. The lead of an article is supposed to be a hook. It should include running prose from each section in the article. A good distillation of the lead creation guidelines can be found here. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Age pyramid from the 2012 editor survey
@Checkingfax: According to which surveys exactly (link)? Not the 2012 editor survey, where only 15.6% of editors were 18 or younger. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tbayer (WMF). The survey that I read, silly. LOL. It blended editors and readers as "cohorts". Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read where? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]




       

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