![]() |
Essays High‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Department of Fun Project‑class Bottom‑importance | |||||||||
|
This is utterly ridiculous and completely against the fundamental purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. As such, it's entries must be written with a neutral point of view and it's tone must be serious. If it isn't serious, it is easier to mistake what has been written here. Moreover, the brand of humor we would be forced into using to avoid misinterpretation or nonfactual information would not be.. *wince* err.. well.. popular. I understand why one would want humor, but don't put it into actual articles outside of essays, userpages, policies or suchlike. Repku ( talk) 07:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything like a clear consensus as to when humor is appropriate in articles. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue myself, but the point is that Wikipedia works by consensus, not the ideas of one person. As such, I have moved the following suggestions to this talk page, with the idea that Wikipedians can discuss the ideas:
My major concern is humor tends to be very subjective, by nature. How do we reconcile that with [[WP:NOR] and [[WP:NPOV? If I find something ironic or funny (and I often do), others may not (and often don't).
I also know that many consider any use of humorous propose to inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. While I do think that idea can be taken too far, I also think creating an "encyclopedia of silliness" isn't good, either.
Thoughts? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've only done this once, as I recall, and if I may say I think it's a good example of what should be considered OK. See this permalink, and note the juxtaposition of the final quotation in the "Harvard Lampoon" section against the first words of the "University of Massachusetts" section. E Eng 03:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh wait, there's another in the same article: "natural habitat" in the infobox versus the same phrase in the caption at the start of the "Significance" section. This one's slightly less on the straight and narrow. E Eng 03:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Shit, there's one more: search the phrase red herring. E Eng 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Humour should never be used without a clear concise indicator of such. What is "obvious" to you can be completely obscure to another reader and be misconstrued as an attack. Humour may also be used to conceal and backpaddle on an inappropriate comment.
Sarcasm is the worst form of humour used in text mediums. It is most often not obvious, to all, and construed as nasty or disruptive.
Humour can be marked in various ways. One of the easiest is to inline indicate it in parenthesis similar to this (sarcasm). A humourous article could be indicated at the top before the lede.
People using humour without indication should be issued warnings under the normal disruptive tags in order to correct this behavior. I am not against humour, as one that uses it frequently, but it needs to be clear of the intent. A simple look at WP:ANI will tell any editor how many cases are filed with disruptive behavior, only for the offender to state it was only humour. Either this was a backpaddle defence or the original statements were misinterpreted. Either way, unmarked humour should never be used, as disruptive, and this article should state that. 99.251.120.60 ( talk) 13:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Help talk:Go ahead, vandalize § Namespace: Help vs Wikipedia. —
andrybak (
talk)
10:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Barbenheimer has an RFC on whether a certain instance of humor is appropriate on Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)