Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-06-08/Concept



← Back to Concept

Discuss this story

  • This joke appears to be over my head. Regardless, I'm not sure how to feel about my apparent promotion to Administrator of FutureWikipedia; I definitely don't remember submitting that RfA. (Unless I haven't done it yet? Weebly-wobbly...) FeRDNYC (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To editor FeRDNYC: I could be wrong, but I don't see a joke in there. This is just another concept related to what we do here on WP. If you look up palimpsestuous in Wiktionary, you will be led to how this creepy ol' word applies. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought this was an [unintentional] allusion to Neurocracy, a game that similarly uses diffs to worldbuild an alternate reality and to allow players to explore the story of a murder. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Paine Ellsworth: Aha, thanks. Although, given that the wiktionary entry basically defines "palimpsestuous" as a joke itself (a humorous blend of palimpsest +‎ incestuous), I suppose that's where the joke is here, as well.
      @Rotideypoc41352: Huh! The Neurocracy connections are definitely interesting, perhaps especially if unintentional! FeRDNYC (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The headline The New York Times, NPR and Reuters block Wikipedia editors from citing their articles is seriously misleading because the problem is limited to editors using the visual editor and Citoid. I use the source editor and citation templates, and have no problem creating references to these publications. I may be wrong, but I believe that most highly productive editors use the source editor. Is there evidence to the contrary? Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]