Wikipedia talk:Pranking

My thoughts

I'm okay with developing policy on this provided that it's brief and general. I'm thinking something like "Pulling pranks in the article and mediawiki spaces on April Fool's day is a blockable offense and may, in extreme cases, be grounds for de-sysopping". I trust it's obvious to all why regulating April Fool's Day jokes with page after page of policy is a bad idea, but I do think it would be nice to have a general guideline that we can point to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The many threads started today prompted me to start this proposal. We need some clear guidelines of what is and what isn't acceptable, and how to deal with problematic pranks. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Waaaay too much nonsense today from people who supposedly know better. Having fun is all well and good, but there is a limit. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

Do we really need a policy that is only applicable for 1/365 of a year?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? And it'd be more of a guideline if anything. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Sarcasticidealist's post I now understand the need for this guideline.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If on april fools sysops are allowed to vandalize system pages (against our rules) just becuase of the date? Why should other rules not be broken as well? -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They won't be allowed under this new proposal. Majorly (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the do not do any real harm? Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ones that only sysops can see would probably be harmless I suppose. Vandalising the tag line and other widely shown site messages is what I'm really referring to. Majorly (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why are we so different from any other web site? Google did something for April Fools, along with Yahoo (though their was more discreet). I am pretty sure that when people (readers) see that (a silly message in the tag line) they are going to know it is for April Fools, and probably think it was planned. Tiptoety ^talk 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have interesting articles on our front page. That's our contribution. We're supposed to be a factual reference site. Majorly (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no room for fun within all those facts? Tiptoety ^talk 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So i can go change Giraffe to piglatin? that'd be fun, and no *real* harm is done. Should I be allowed? -- m:drini 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's only for a 24-hour period. Everyone agrees that once that period ends all the jokes end. So I don't really see the necessity, as it's all temporary. Hate to go this route but if what happens in that 24-hour period bothers you that much, just take a 24-hour wikibreak during that time. 1 day out of 365 won't kill you. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:46, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because people, say, print Wikipedia articles more often than Google's homepage? Mess with the interface and anyone who prints the page will have that messy interface. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and I think any pranks, if at all, should be limited to anything in the project namespace, and especially not the mainspace. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Google may scraped a "vandalised" version of an article. That wouldn't be good would it? Majorly (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that wikipedia is read in countries all over the world, and not everybody follows or is aware of usa culture. -- m:drini 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then blue link some text in the silly message, and direct the to a page in relations to April Fools, maybe they will learn something. That is why we are here right? Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Equazcion: it isn't bothering me at all. It has bothered a lot of other people though, and maybe some of our readers. We need some kind of clear guideline here on what is acceptable jokes and what is blatant vandalism. Do you agree? Majorly (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The critical distinction between Wikipedia and Google is that Google doesn't damage its usefulness by including April Fool's Day pranks. If Wikipedia includes pranks in the article space, then its usefulness is damaged. I'm all about pranks in user and project spaces, but not in the mainspace. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No, not really. I don't see this as any kind of real concern. Lots of sites do crazy things on April Fools Day; deceptive things that people with no sense of humor undoubtedly complain about. But there's no lasting effect, and the people who complain are seen for what they are: humorless people who can't accept that even serious websites can relax for a day. This is not an issue, IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:54, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I proposed this as someone who has taken part and made some pranks today, and last year. I'm the last person to say "ban all jokes". I do, however, believe that some jokes today went too far. There are also issues with things like: should we block admins who vandalise the MediaWiki space? Or not? If so, how long for? Etc etc. Majorly (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there becomes a point when enough is enough, but the user/admin in question really needs to be properly warned first and let know that maybe they need to lay off for a bit. But blocking for one joke? Tiptoety ^talk 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We warn newcomers who don't know the rules. Admins should know better. -- m:drini 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think common sense is enough to deal with those who go too far. Yes things should be done in those cases, but no I don't think a guideline is necessary. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Agree, redirect this page to WP:RRULE instead. Tiptoety ^talk 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to WP:TROUT. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias and Racism

I demand then the right to vandalize on DEcember 29, the equivalent of "april fool's" for all latinamerican countries and spain. This reeks of racism and USA-centrism -- m:drini 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then go right on ahead, but according to this new policy you will be blocked and (possibly temp. de-syoped) like everyone else. Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I will, I really hope this could be enforced. -- m:drini 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, Drini. You have foiled my sekrit plan of putting Teddy Drini on Spanish Wiki's main page for one day. :-) miranda 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

The Main Page was great: strange-sounding facts that turned out to be true, e.g. a DYK that the Wiener sausage is named after the mathematician Norbert Wiener. The policy should IMO be worded carefully so as not to be seen as prohibiting that type of April Fools' Main Page. (By the way, did we send out a press release about the April Fools' Main Page, e.g. towards the end of the day or in time to get on the news? I think it would be a good idea. Maybe next year if we didn't.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant differences between Wikipedia and other sites

Some of this is rehashed from my comments above, so sorry for that, but here we are:

When Google has an April Fool's joke, Google's primary service (web searching) isn't affected by it. When ESPN has an April Fool's joke, its primary service (sports reporting) isn't really affected by it, because even though there is a fake article on the site, the article is obviously fake, and the joke is confined to the one article. If there are pranks in Wikipedia's mainspace, Wikipedia's usability as a reference source is harmed.
Other websites are centrally-managed, meaning that somebody decides "Okay, this will be our April Fool's prank, and we'll put it in this section of our front page, and that will be that." I would have no objection to a similar thing for Wikipedia's mainpage (although I think what's there now is actually much cleverer) decided by consensus in advance. However, that doesn't happen, and we get a mix of the truly funny (somebody nominating Human for deletion for WP:COI reasons, Kurt Weber self-nomming for RFA, and even - I would say - changing the tagline to "the free Pokemon encyclopedia") and the disruptive and inane (changing the tagline to "the encyclopedia administered by people with sticks up their lavender passages", etc.). Because we have no centralized authority to sort out which is which, I think a guideline isn't a bad idea. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own thoughts

Dumping my own thoughts here.

While "From Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia" may be funny at first, it may not be so funny on a BLP article (can anyone see why?).
Not everyone celebrates April Fool's Day...
... But it's no excuse not to be funny. The featured article is tasteful and funny yet "correct". Having connotations to my various body parts put near the title of every article is not tasteful, isn't necessarily funny and is nowhere near correct.

Which is why I think:

Keep pranks out of the mainspace (I think this should be obvious), except perhaps the featured article. If someone wants to do something in the mainspace like this, discuss beforehand, rather than spontaneously sticking random words in.
Keep pranks out of MediaWiki space which affect the mainspace - such as the sidebar and the title bar. If anyone wants to mess around with Administrator-related stuff, then sure, "in-jokes" are fine by me. Obviously, there are people that might disagree.
Consequently, keep pranks out of template-space, portal-space, etc. too, or at least those that directly affect the mainspace.
If someone doesn't find it funny, don't wheel-war over it.

x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]