Funny Wikipedia edits

For what it's worth, I just added another "for X, see Y" line to the article on "ghoti".

I think you can tell which one I added. And I legitimately find that link useful, for what it's worth.

One that's less useful, perhaps, is an edit I did years ago to the Zebesian Space Pirate article (i.e. Metroid series). It said that they are a fictional, highly intelligent species.

I added one word: "highly", right before "fictional".

I perfer it when the whole article is a Stealth Parody

Like this one

Wikipedia oddities: The article for Billy Idol's forgettable early nineties album "Cyberpunk" is longer than their article for the actual literary genre it takes its name from.

Obligatory

^There it is.

More general wikisilliness

edited 11th Jan '11 11:26:25 AM by Tzetze

As immature as it is, I like when you have wiki-walked your way to a page about an accordion/piano player best known for playing with Lawrence Welk, and at the very bottom of the article you see a barely noticeable "x sucks mexican dicks". This exact thing happened once, and I always wondered why specifically Mexican dicks.

So long as we're glorifying vandalism, can I replace the page for Haruhi with ASCII dicks? Knock it off.

The funniest this I ever saw on Wikipedia: http://img580.imageshack.us/i/screenshotfk.png/ I saw it in an article relating to English grammar (I think) a long time ago, and took a screenshot in case it gets edited out (should have saved the url too).

edited 1st Jul '11 4:30:42 AM by fanty

No, adding "sucks dick" to an article, regardless of the type of dick sucked, is lame vandalism.

Funny vandalism actually has to do with article, and builds on it.

People always complain about obscure articles being more comprehensive than more general articles. Of course they are! Because they're easier to do. The subject matter area is more precise and easier defined. It's easier to say absolute things about obscure minutia than about big general topics.

In the case of cyberpunk-the-album, it's a definitive thing (one particular musical album) about which many factual things can be found to write about — from the facts about what it contains, the circumstances of its release, comments from the performer both at the time and more recently, things that well-known music critics have said about it, etc etc.

In the case of cyberpunk-the-artistic-genre, it's a fuzzily defined topic that talks about a artistic and creative trend that picked up a name. People disagree about the definition of the term and what it means and what artistic works can be considered cyberpunk. It's hard to find sources that everyone will agree on. It's hard to carve a workable article out of that. Especially when you get multiple people bickering.

Personally, I love Wikipedia's minutia. I love the obscure topics people have written excellent articles about. I've written a few myself. In some cases the Wikipedia article is the best general article about the subject ever written. That's an amazing thing.

edited 12th Jan '11 1:25:37 PM by Morven

Cyberpunk the genre has several subpages. As well as articles on each work published in it.

edited 12th Jan '11 1:25:57 PM by INUH

The point about the broader an article's scope the harder it is to write still stands, though.

Oh, yeah. I'm just saying that on top of that, the individual article's length is misleading.

I was really more making a comment on how ridiculously long the Billy Idol page is, and needed something to compare it to.

It's long because of fans.

And let's face it, we do the same. We have bigger pages for obscure manga than for some of the best-known canonical works of western literature.

Hmm...what factors in to the greater obsession that goes into the former compared to the latter? I'm thinking it's because with well-known "artistic" masterpieces, everyone knows about them, yet nobody knows about them. That is, those attract a lot of Praising Shows You Don't Watch.

Also, there's (a) the intimidation factor; if you screw up writing about something a lot of people know about, you'll be more easily found out; and (b) the fact that people like being the Number One Fan of something obscure much more than being one of many who like something better known.

A page on John Nolan of Taking Back Sunday fame had major edits; I dont really remember, except something about him being known for his gigantic genitalia length. Knowing John, he probably edited it himself...

Wait, what is wrong with the Wild Woody article apart from the fact it says it's redeemable?

oh wait, Cain and Abel 0.0

edited 17th Jan '11 7:45:45 AM by captaintheCaptaiN

One time, someone replaced all mention of Xemnas from Kingdom Hearts with Mansex.

It was pretty amusing.

The closest thing I've ever seen to this was, on the nine-ball page, "Cirno" being in the "see also" section. Not funny content-wise, but it lasted a long, long time.

edited 17th Jan '11 5:46:54 PM by SPACETRAVEL

Individual billiard balls have wikipedia pages?

Once I checked the page for Mark Antony and someone had vandalized it with "HE SMELLS LIKE POOP."

Who would have guessed there were still people with strongly partisan feelings about Roman politicians?

I saw one on the Sonic page that was a three paragraph rant about some dude being a furry. I don't remember if it was funny or not (probably not).

Scroll down to the first photo after infobox. The caption cracked me up.