NEWS: Wikipedia, Groaning, and The Shape of the World Around Us

GEEK: Wikipedia, Groaning, and The Shape of the World Around Us

Have you ever seen one of those fancy educational world maps, where the size of its countries are adjusted to proportionally represent their populations? We had one hanging in my sixth-grade class, and while all of the facts on the map were arguably correct enough, the curiously out-of-whack proportions -- a tiny sliver of Canada, and an India threatening to devour the entire Asian mainland -- were enough to make me stare.



Wikipedia is, I think, the abstract equivalent of a population-adjusted map of the world. On paper, compiling facts from myriad voluntary sources around the globe is simple and perfect, and as such, it has as recently as this week been touted as the premiere one-stop information shop on the intertubes. Not to even mention that it is, indeed, a indisputable and vast wealth of facts. It isn't the facts themselves that make the übersite such a curious thing; it's the potential for skewed scope and distribution of the information within that makes it (much like a population-adjusted map) not so much my primary resource for any future cross-continental hiking trips.

If anything, Wikipedia should probably be viewed less as an objective font of knowledge and more like a mirror held up to the priorities of modern society. Oh, it's a scathing indictment of our society all right, but there is solace in this: it is worlds of entertainment. Which brings us to today's topic, the fine art of Wikigroaning.

Wikigroaning, named for the "aw, gawd" or equivalent interjection you are likely to make while playing, was born in the murky depths of Something Awful, and it is the ultimate time-wasting hunting sport of the internet. It is quite simple, really, combining creative thinking and competitive spirit with that special feel-good erudite thrill that comes from knowing you're only on the outer boundaries of a truly bizarre world.

Though the game has spread like wildfire within the past month or so, even garnering fancy illustrated write-ups in The Wall Street Journal, it might cross your mind that, somehow, these entries are being taken totally out of context and used unfairly. Stop that. From an entirely objective viewpoint, is it not impossible to look at the data and come to the conclusion that Jedi Knights are a larger part of modern literate Western culture, more important and revered, than the knights of the medieval era? This is the heart of Wikigroaning. As seriously as the writers and editors of Wikipedia tend to take themselves, in the end it is an amateur endeavor -- that's the whole point of it, after all. The "experts" are mostly only experts inasmuch as they can inject the sum of knowledge of their own trivia-filled lives into digital form. So what we're asking through this game is: with what do we, a culture that seems to be comprised of absolute nerds, fill our lives? What do we hold most dear?

Pop culture, of course. As if it wasn't obvious. A favorite comparison to quote is that of John Locke: the philosopher's entry logs 3,800 words, while the character on Lost has 7,400. Meanwhile, a 11,000 word entry for The Sopranos dwarfs the Mafia's 6,300, Emperor Palpatine crushes Emperor Constantine, and the entry for C.A.T.S. and the gang is more comprehensive than pretty much any other definition of the word "base." (Not that we necessarily want to delve any deeper into our Wiki-writers' psyches than pop culture, anyhow: after all, this is a place where love is no match for masturbation.)

It's a fun game, no doubt, but troubling nonetheless in the same way that making fun of someone's bad fashion is fun. An article in Globe and Mail tries to make sense of why it's so bothersome, and it makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps also, along the same lines, what's kind of irksome is that, even as we're turning that indicting mirror sardonically on the material, we're also kind of turning it on ourselves every time we think of a new potential pairing, secretly hoping that we will be perversely proven right.

Who knows, but it sure is fascinating. Today, for example, I discovered that TRON is bigger than the whole internet by two hundred words. It's a funny thing, that internet. So, what can you find? Shock and depress me. Do your best. (Or your worst.) It will only make it all the more fun.

On the census, I put Jedi Knight down as mine and my 2 sons religion.

I think this is part of Operation Mayhem (but I can't discuss that).

Wow, I thought I didn't have much free time... then I found my self doing this after reading said article. Did you now the article for "Wikipedia" has 2842 words, however the article for "Encyclopedia" has 2789?

"Get a life" has it's own article of 291 words, however Wikigroaning is only mentioned in an article and is talked about with 136 words, most of which are a quote.

Awesome article. I first noticed this when someone showed me that the entry for Klingon (language) is longer than the one for Spanish (language).

I need to stop, but "Suicide Girls" word count = 1862. "Myspace" word count = 5128...WTF? That was even more than "Playboy."

It's going to be an interesting record of the culture of internet users at the turn of the century.

Umm... Jedi Knights are more relevant and a larger part to modern society than the Knights of old...

Just because something doesn't have it's basis in reality is not an indictment on it's impact on society.

I think you also have to realize that television shows have a definitive beginning and end so of course people will have more information about them then historical groups and people. It is possible to watch every episode of the Sopranos. It can clearly be defined in print whereas nobody is entirely sure about the activities of the Mafia. The good thing about Wikipedia in this instance is that everyone who knows a little about the Mafia will eventually add their info to the Mafia page and if it has any merit it becomes part of the definition. It might take longer but eventually the Mafia page might exceed the Sopranos. Maybe.

Someone wrote recently in the British press that we're witnessing the dawn of history, a time where everything is being documented and made readily available by the internet, as opposed to locally stored and restricted to a lucky few. I think this idea kind of explains why pop culture should be better explained and explored; the information is much more easily gatherable, so anyone can add to the wiki with little effort.

Also, Tron is an awesome movie, way better than any movie featuring the internet, so it deserves the higher word count

wow.

+1

I'll take Quality over quantity any day.

But I like the wiki for a quickie. It seems to be a great jumping in spot.
But I fail to see how word count equates to relevance.
I guess I'm just not gamey enough.

Wikipedia will devour us all.

I think he's right. (Though "indictment" is not the word I'd choose )

People have a better idea of what "Jedi Knight" means than they do about the distinction between (say) Templars, Hospitallers, and feudal knights; the political and religious and economic structures they existed in are almost entirely ignored.

Conspiracy theory is a fine example of his second point. Many, many people believe all sorts of wingnut stuff - most of historical anti-Semitism is based on stuff that simply is not and never was true.

hilarious

Edward R. Murrow--4,530

Rush Limbaugh--3,852
-----------------------------------
Phew--that was close!

It's official: Jesus, more popular than The Beatles


Take that! You long-haired heathens!

Hold on just a second.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Who's who ?

It's like watching a movie that's "based on a true story"

The length of the articles does pose an interesting quirk, and the game sounds like a bit of a lark, but the whole concept, the deeper relevance, I don't think stands up, because it fails to grasp that like the map, it exists to provide a starting point for inquiry. If you read the Jedi article after watching the films, you might in all likelyhood click through to the article on knights, and then you might end up at Arthur, and then you go to the library and check out Le Morte D'Arthur, and then you read the Once and Future King.

Popular culture is what thrives, hence its popularity. Why do we think the bible is still around, or The Iliad, or Beowulf? They're bloody fucking popular! But they create, in the minds of individuals who don't choose to sit around look at the world on the 2D of a computer screen, the desire to know and understand more of the world around us. Wikigroaning should only affect you if you've stopped actually looking at the world.

But Jedi Knights are fictional, whereas knights have existed and continue to exist currently.


Incidentally, the wikipedia entries for pi and infinity are about the same length, but I have no idea what to make of that.

But, of course, length is always the best measure of worthiness, right? My guess is part of this speaks to the tendency for inverse proportinaility between brevity and relevence. Spend some time in faculty meetings. You'll see what I means, sharpish.

tb

Exactly - real knights are so much more relevant than fictional Jedi knights. Sir Elton can be my knight in shining armour anyday.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)