Really, guys?
-
Do you ever get the impression Wikipedia is a little too extensive?
-
Wow that's a long article...
-
There are 114 cited references.
And over 400 edits.
Granted, over 25% of the edits are from a single user, which means this article might be a troll. But even if so-- that's an amazing amount of work.
-
I don't blame wikipedia. I blame the university system/culture and post modernism. Publish or perish leads to people getting paid to think up ingenious and probably incorrect rationalizations for things that don't really matter.
-
Most bizarre sentence:
Sometimes toilet paper is simply entertaining.
Uh, if you say so.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Most bizarre sentence:
Sometimes toilet paper is simply entertaining.
Uh, if you say so.Welll....
-
@boomzilla said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Most bizarre sentence:
Sometimes toilet paper is simply entertaining.
Uh, if you say so.Welll....
I must have this because of reasons.
-
@DOA said:
No, I think Wikipedia has omit many things that should be mentioned (I mean any articles in general, not necessarily this one)Do you ever get the impression Wikipedia is a little too extensive?
-
@DOA said:
Do you ever get the impression Wikipedia is a little too extensive?
There are lots of Wikipedia articles that seem a bit excessive and unneccessary, like this one that Blakey mentioned in another thread, or having a separate article for every song on an album. But, since Wikipedia isn't bound by the constraints of a traditional dead-tree encyclopedia, and as long as they have a decent search function, what the heck, why not?A while back I was reading about a big flame-war/deletion battle that erupted on Wikipedia over an article about a game review website called Old Man Murray. My favorite comment was:
@ said:
If Wikipedia and its current admins had been around in 1890, they would have deleted the entry for Vincent Van Gogh due to "lack of notability". History shows that people are extremely poor at determining what's really worth recording at the time something happens. The best service that could ever be provided to the future would be to put a lot of effort into recording as much as possible. With proper organization and search tools, no one is going to miss the information they're looking for just because a page for "Old Man Murray" exists on the site.
Or maybe the toilet paper article is just a troll.
-
@boomzilla said:
I don't blame wikipedia. I blame the university system/culture and post modernism. Publish or perish leads to people getting paid to think up ingenious and probably incorrect rationalizations for things that don't really matter.
I'm just disappointed that this article is for the book and not the underlying concept (which the article nonetheless does a fine job of summarizing).
-
Over without a doubt. I can't stand under.
-
@Anketam said:
Over without a doubt. I can't stand under.
Oh yeah!? Well, your walls must be smeared in shit, then!
Ugh.. just trying to start a debate. I'm so bored. Jesus Christ, I'm so bored I'm posting in the LOLcats forum..
-
@DOA said:
Do you ever get the impression Wikipedia is a little too extensive?
I lol'd!
+1
Then i look up that column they're talking about.
I rofl'd (and thought wtf a few times when reading some of the arguments)
+10
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Anketam said:
Over without a doubt. I can't stand under.
Oh yeah!? Well, your walls must be smeared in shit, then!
Ugh.. just trying to start a debate. I'm so bored. Jesus Christ, I'm so bored I'm posting in the LOLcats forum..
My wife and I used to argue about this constantly. The solution we arrived at is to unspool the entire roll and put it in a shoebox by the toilet.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
The solution we arrived at is to unspool the entire roll and put it in a shoebox by the toilet.
But which side of the toilet?
-
@Cassidy said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
The solution we arrived at is to unspool the entire roll and put it in a shoebox by the toilet.
But which side of the toilet?
What do you think we are? Perverts?
The left side of course (if you're on the toilet) which makes it on the right of the person watching.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
What do you think we are? Perverts? The left side of course (if you're on the toilet) which makes it on the right of the person watching.
-
@mott555 said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
What do you think we are? Perverts? The left side of course (if you're on the toilet) which makes it on the right of the person watching.
.. so it doesn't get confused with popcorn on the other side.
-
@Cassidy said:
@mott555 said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
What do you think we are? Perverts? The left side of course (if you're on the toilet) which makes it on the right of the person watching.
.. so it doesn't get confused with popcorn on the other side.
On Cassidy's suggestion I have added a box of popcorn to the facilities in our toilet. I have to say I'm not a fan. It's not nearly as absorbent as normal 2-ply paper.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
On Cassidy's suggestion I have added a box of popcorn to the facilities in our toilet. I have to say I'm not a fan. It's not nearly as absorbent as normal 2-ply paper.
Try omitting the butter topping. It takes up valuable absorbing space.