Shall we use GASM to take care of Discordia-oriented Wikipedia articles?
We probably should have general, encyclopedic informationa about Discordia on Wikipedia. Consider, for example, the recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Mindfuck . Nothing about current/ongoing projects. I don't think that we or they want that stuff in Wikipedia. But the established and historical facets of Discordianism, along with what's bled off into the population at large (cf. Mindfuck) are appropriate for Wikipedia, and can further our diverse purposes.
So, I ask you: Shall we maintain an active/background level of Wikipedia participation? Shall we power it with GASM-juice?
in soviet discordia, WIKI EDITS YUO
As it stands, the O:MF article does deserve to be deleted - not particularly noteworthy or well written.
I'd rather not mess with wikipedia under the "don't shit where you eat" principle.
Now, if you want to go ahead and write good, balanced articles so people who are doing research can inform themselves, go right ahead.
Quote from: GA on December 08, 2008, 07:03:02 AM
As it stands, the O:MF article does deserve to be deleted - not particularly noteworthy or well written.
I'd rather not mess with wikipedia under the "don't shit where you eat" principle.
Now, if you want to go ahead and write good, balanced articles so people who are doing research can inform themselves, go right ahead.
I'm proposing that we "cook where we eat." Instead of just hopping on somewhere at random in the webs, I'd like to have a branded GASM that says "THIS ARTICLE IS FAIL. BRING IT UP TO CODE." I know it's not truely Discordian-proof, but I think that such an undertaking could benefit from being on the same network.
Repeat, THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR MAKING GOOD WIKI ARTICLES.
I applaud your motion. I've done my best to provide some decent citations over at wikipedia, but I'm not so great with the "encyclopedia voice" in which wikipedia articles are [supposed to be] written. Nor do I have any credibility within wikipedia editor circles.
Publicizing this as a GASM would be a good way to draw discordian attention to it... but that might be a hacksaw where what we need is a scalpel... What we don't want is a bunch of Discordians "fixing" the article in a way that the editors would interpret as vandalism. There are already Discordian wikipedia editors -- they're the ones who should really throw their cards on the table. We need to find them and bump them into action - I suggest checking out other Discordian articles and contacting the editors of those.
As far as providing more citations - I checked, and yes, Operation Mindfuck is mentioned in The Prankster and the Conspiracy, but I have yet to locate a good quotable passage. As I understand it, print citations weigh more than web citations. So if anybody knows WHERE in that book there is a good reference to O:M, it would be majorly helpful.
i like to think i saved that article by googling up the Ivan Stang quote (now mentioned just on the discussion page)