The Signpost


Play with Your food

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Barbara Page
Play with your food.

Warning: Some readers will find this article tasteless. I can understand this sentiment and you will feel better and less queasy by skipping it and leaving your comments afterwards.


Mudpies have other applications.
Would you accept this trophy?
It's not food, kids. Really.

I sometimes find myself slipping down the rabbit hole and landing into the realm of the third-grade-wikipedia-reader. I can't help it since I had the privilege of raising four boys who always had dirty faces. They were connoisseurs of all things 'gross' and would laugh endlessly about the jokes they made up about bodily functions. What does any of this have to do with the English Wikipedia (you ask)?

We forget that a large numbers of our readers are boys who are bored. They are mired in school much of the of the day and can only fall into their default mischievous mode when they arrive in their computer lab at 10 am so their homeroom teacher can get a break. Vandalism rates also increase during this time slot. Why do you think the articles about female anatomy have such high page views, hmmm? I caught my boys plenty of times pretending they were doing something educational when they were actually studying the finer points of anatomy. I am NOT mocking any editors, cultures, genders, etc., etc., etc. – I am a product of my Midwestern US culture and only propose that different types of food strike me as funny and incomprehensible.

Tender stomachs be warned

Well, things probably haven't changed much, at least in my little corner of Western civilization. If Wikipedia had been around in the 1990s, you can bet my boys would be learning details about female anatomy and bathroom humor. They would have enjoyed Wikipedia's articles on food and nutrition while laughing their heads off while they read:


  1. ^ This just in: This newly expanded article is now on the docket for the 4/1/2019 DYKs. I am so proud.
  2. ^ See for attributions and then use Wikipedia:WikiBlame
  3. ^ You can have a party after a divorce!?!?!?
  4. ^ Amazing
  5. ^ a b Bellows, Alan (2009). "A Booger A Day Keeps The Doctor Away: A Medical Doctor Describes the Health Benefits of Nose-Mining". Alien Hand Syndrome: And Other Too-Weird-Not-To-Be-True Stories. Workman Publishing. pp. 28–30. ISBN 978-0761152255.
  6. ^ Lane, Carin (March 23, 2012). "Like to become a stranger to illness? Read on". Times Union. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
  7. ^ See for attributions and then use WP:WikiBlame
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.
Qwirkle Are you sure about that? It is marked PD in Commons:
"Copyright has expired and its author is anonymous.
This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity."
If this is in error, please nominate it for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qwirkle, 'semi'-revived? I would hesitate before belittling a lot of work that has been put in to reviving the last two issues by a team of mostly new contributors and editorial staff who think it's worth keeping going. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks boss for sticking up for me. I think Hilda might be notable enough for her own article. There really are some days when I actually feel semi-revived. Best Regards, Barbara   20:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know no more damning criticism, once people are past primary school, than praising something based on the input rather than the output. Qwirkle (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests otherwise, don't it? American, not French, claimed, not anonymous, &cet. The good news is that if anyone gets in deep trouble the copyright owner is known for hiring from the pen.... Qwirkle (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still likely to be PD if there was no copyright notice [1]. I don't see one there, nor on other stuff on the Internets, like a 1964 calendar. Probably you should take this up at Commons, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, just to be on the safe side. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every component piece of a work needn’t have a little circled ”cee” plastered on it, and just because you can find a copy of something with the signature airbrushed, or photoshopped, off doesn’t mean it is free for the taking. Qwirkle (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
US copyright law is complex. Read the Cornell link above (here it is again); until 1977 it did require a copyright notice. But this conversation should not be continued here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. US copyright law has never, ever required that every separable bit of a work be festooned with copyright warnings. A book might be marked once; that does not give the average yut on Wikipedia the right to excerpt all but that page as PD. Yes, copyright law is complex, but this aspect isn’t, and that primer doesn’t even pretend to address it. Qwirkle (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really have to use the word 'deliciously'? I am quite queasy. Barbara   20:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


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