Talk:Wikipedic

What the hell is this? This is just a bad joke, right? --mav

no, not a joke.

I recommend moving to meta. --Brion 23:36 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

an encylopedia of all knowledge would include meta knowledge.

Please stop cluttering Wikipedia with links to these silly articles until you can convince us that they belong here. You are currently the only one who thinks they do, so you'll need to do a better job than you're doing now. I understand the motivation: at an earlier stage of the project we had an article "recursive" that said basically "see recursive". Humor is not entirely out of place here, but the primary namespace of the encyclopedia shouldn't be cluttered with jokes like this when there are much better and clearer ways to express the ideas. By admitting articles like this, we give the mistaken impression that the title itself is actually a serious topic, and not just a cute way to illustrate some real topic. --LDC

(Note, the convention here is to put comments on their own, not inside the comments of others. Please follow our conventions here).

the number of people who hold a belief has no effect on the existence of that belief, as long as n>0.

True, and utterly irrelevant. The question is whether or not the belief is one that deserves to be covered in Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't your personal playground; it is a serious encyclopedia project, and we expect you to treat it as one.

while "wikipedic" may be an illustration of recursive, it is a necessary concept in the developement of "antiwikipedic", which is not simply a recursion.

You misunderstood me entirely--I did not imply in any way that your comments had anything to do with recursion. I merely used the old "recursive" article is an example of an article we used to have that was a humorous illustration of a concept, which we removed, not because it was humorous, but because there were better ways to explain and illustrate that concept. Your "Wikipedic" example is a fine humorous example of something similar to the Richard paradox or the Barber paradox. But we already have good articles on those, and there's no need to make up a term that doesn't really exist in any field of study and confuse readers that this is something significant. --LDC

can a field of study exist completely within Wikipedia?

Perhaps at some point. But our current policy is "no original research"; that is, the purpose of Wikipedia is to explain the present state of general academic fields, not to explore new ones. Your "Wikipedic" stuff mihgt be fine as a paragraph or two inside an article about paradoxes like Russel's and others--but that's all it is, a nice example. It is certainly not a "field of study" in any sense that ought to get its own article.

Brion VIBBER : (Please edit this page at its new home on the meta wiki)

You are completely missing the point that this is not "meta" content. It is antimetawikipedic by its very nature.

You seem to be otherwise a reasonable fellow, and contributing some good content to other articles. Why do you utterly refuse to follow our conventions in this regard? Our project here has a very specific goal; if you can contribute to that goal, you are welcome. If you continue to subvert it, and to ignore the rest of the community here, you are not. If you really believe this stuff belongs in Wikipedia, then show some personal courage and integrity to log in, sign up for the mailing list, and argue your point with the other members of the Wikipedia community here either in meta or on the mailing list. Unilaterally replacing what everyone else has removed for good reason is not the way to win converts here. --Lee Daniel Crocker

If you continue to refuse to abide by our policies here, you will be blocked from editing. Now grow up. --LDC

128.193.88.143, as warned, you've been temporarily banned from editing on the English encyclopedia wiki (www.wikipedia.org). Please calm down, grow up, and use the opportunity this meta page gives you -- you can continue to explore the idea of "wikipedic" and "antiwikipedic" freely here, without people clamoring for it to be deleted. And if it does turn out interesting and useful, perhaps it can be moved back into encyclopedia space with general consent. --Brion VIBBER

I recognize this IP: it's our friend Mr/Ms OsmosisTwo! The IP is the same up to the last .143, and I recognize the style. -- Tarquin

Add topic