0739: "Malamanteau"

[ludwig_van2]

Does this make sense to anyone else?

No. Malamanteau is the way of the future. Stop trying to make malaprogism happen.

[Pesh]

Has anyone else noticed that the Wikipedia article on XKCD uses the word "portmanteau"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd#Characters

"A man who looks like a normal stick-figure xkcd character, but for the addition of a black hat. The man's hat is a reference to Aram from the now-defunct webcomic Men in Hats, not to black hat hackers as is often supposed.[27][28] This character first appeared in the comic Poisson (the twelfth comic published on the website).[29] The character refers to himself as a "Classhole" (a portmanteau of "classy" and "asshole")"

Luckily, neither "malapropism" nor "neologism" make an appearance.
Perhaps someone should edit the XKCD page to include a reference to the Malamanteau debacle?

[cream wobbly]

I love that someone made reference to "real world consequences", as if Wikipedia is the real world...

Okay, it's not nice to poke ants with a stick, but it's funny.

The "take home" humour in this is that yes, Wikipedia has favourites: there are longer articles about some films (Avatar) and TV programmes (The Simpsons) than there are about some African (Namibia) and Middle-eastern (Tajikistan) countries. (Examples were off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find better ones if I spent more than 23 seconds.)

[Lathe]

Funny comic that addresses a failing of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are intended to educate people. The problem is that wikipedia sometimes gets massively over-technical or over-precise to the point that the average person has little hope of comprehending because too many 25 cent words are used (education fail).

A related failing with Wikipedia is that it wants to also be where people go learn how to pronounce words, but for Pete's sake are people really expected to understand stuff like /ˌsuːpərˌkælɪˌfrædʒəlˌɪstɪkˌɛkspiːˌælɪˈdoʊʃəs/? I'm sure that there are valid reasons for using jibberish but the average person is just left scratching their head. Most smart people just go to a real dictionary site since they will get their answer faster rather than expending effort learning Wiki-jibberish. Most programmers look at this jibberish and figure that they've accidently read data past the end of the string.

[tastelikecoke]

Wikipedia does fail a bit, but that's where Simple Wikipedia goes to the rescue. Obviously a super special advanced topic like Deconstruction will be incomprehensible. Wikipedia doesn't regard your knowledge curve, more like writing the facts.

[DragonHawk]

I love that someone made reference to "real world consequences", as if Wikipedia is the real world...

Wikipedia is in the real world. (So's this forum.)

... there are longer articles about [some recent works of fiction] than there are about some ... countries

Unfortunately, the "anyone can edit" volunteer-driven aspect of Wikipedia means that pop culture tends to get more attention than many subjects which are usually seen as more serious and more deserving. This is something the Wikipedia community struggles with. The reaction to the "Malamanteau" page creation is something akin to an immune system response to this. And as with a real immune system, repeated exposure has perhaps made Wikipedia overly sensitive to this.
-----

... wikipedia sometimes gets massively over-technical or over-precise to the point that the average person has little hope of comprehending ...

This is indeed a challenge. There have been attempts to start a "simple language" variant, but it ran into problems with assumptions. Everyone's vocabulary and level of expertise varies. How do you define what the appropriate level of sophistication is? That said, there are a lot of articles which are truly more technical or precise than they need to be. This being Wikipedia, there are, of course, tags for that: {{technical}} and {{over explained}}.

A related failing with Wikipedia is that it wants to also be where people go learn how to pronounce words, but for Pete's sake are people really expected to understand stuff like /ˌsuːpərˌkælɪˌfrædʒəlˌɪstɪkˌɛkspiːˌælɪˈdoʊʃəs/?

FWIW, that's the International Phonetic Alphabet. The reason it's used is that Wikipedia is supposed to be global and as language neutral as possible. The pronunciation conventions used in dictionaries vary widely. Worst of all, pronunciation itself varies widely. "Correct pronunciation" will be very different for American vs British speakers. The IPA is seen as a lesser evil, which makes everyone equally unhappy. Nobody's been able to come up with a better idea. Do you have one?

[Asleep or Wrong]

A related failing with Wikipedia is that it wants to also be where people go learn how to pronounce words, but for Pete's sake are people really expected to understand stuff like /ˌsuːpərˌkælɪˌfrædʒəlˌɪstɪkˌɛkspiːˌælɪˈdoʊʃəs/? I'm sure that there are valid reasons for using jibberish but the average person is just left scratching their head. Most smart people just go to a real dictionary site since they will get their answer faster rather than expending effort learning Wiki-jibberish. Most programmers look at this jibberish and figure that they've accidently read data past the end of the string.

that jibberish is the global standard method of phonetic transcription. it is not intended that everyone already know it, but that anyone can look it up and learn the accurate pronunciation.
the dictionaries that you cite use essentially similar systems, except theirs are proprietary ad-hoc nonsense which only cover the spectrum of the language the dictionary uses. nobody's born knowing SAMPA.

[FoolishOwl]

I love that someone made reference to "real world consequences", as if Wikipedia is the real world...

What world is Wikipedia in, then?

I'm reminded of a comment from a friend of mine, who came back from a meeting with activists who were planning a political demonstration, at which the activists kept referring to each other as "kids." The activists were mostly in their mid-twenties, not children, and older than people he had known who had been killed or imprisoned for their political work in other countries. He said that these activists, by calling themselves "kids," were failing to take themselves, their actions, and their lives seriously, and that this was crippling them.

The Internet is new. That doesn't make it somehow not real. Science was once new, popular political assemblies were once new. Blood, sweat, and tears, as well as occasional laughter, have made them real.

[Mr. Burke]

I don't know if the concept is interesting or not, because the deletionism puritans censors have killed the page on wikipedia.

So sad Wikipedia is run by censors now

In my days, we called them “editors.”

[BioTube]

that jibberish is the global standard method of phonetic transcription. it is not intended that everyone already know it, but that anyone can look it up and learn the accurate pronunciation.
the dictionaries that you cite use essentially similar systems, except theirs are proprietary ad-hoc nonsense which only cover the spectrum of the language the dictionary uses. nobody's born knowing SAMPA.

Erm, that "ad-hoc nonsense" tends to be superior to the IPA in that it's simpler and, at least in the case of Webster, relative and therefore accent-neutral. The IPA is a solution in want of a problem.

[ludwig_van2]

Let's focus on the real scandal here, please: Randall is trying to take credit for malamanteau, a word that I invented three years ago. My lawyers are drafting some strongly-worded letters as we speak!

[DragonHawk]

Erm, that "ad-hoc nonsense" tends to be superior to the IPA in that it's simpler and, at least in the case of Webster, relative and therefore accent-neutral.

I agree with the simpler part. The people at Wikipedia seem to disagree with the "accent neutral" part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respelling I don't know enough about languages and dialects to form my own opinion on the later.

The IPA is a solution in want of a problem.

IPA is language-neutral and (with extensions) can represent all human speech sounds, even those which do not occur in English. Thus, it is suitable for any language. Perhaps the use of IPA on Wikipedia for English words is over-complicating things, but more generally, IPA is certainly not pointless.

[GunJack]

I don't know if the concept is interesting or not, because the deletionism puritans censors have killed the page on wikipedia.

So sad Wikipedia is run by censors now

In my days, we called them “editors.”

C'mon Mr. Burke, we all know the difference between censors and editors, and wikipedia is plagued by both.

[GunJack]

Let's focus on the real scandal here, please: Randall is trying to take credit for malamanteau, a word that I invented three years ago. My lawyers are drafting some strongly-worded letters as we speak!

citation needed


...and...I always laugh when reading "citation needed", my mind instantly starts an argument between a Cessna Citation X and a Cessna Citation Sovereign

[ludwig_van2]

IPA is certainly not pointless.

Certainly not, IPA is hoppy and delicious.

citation needed

http://ask.metafilter.com/67192/How-to- ... ke#1006932

[Mr. Burke]

I don't know if the concept is interesting or not, because the deletionism puritans censors have killed the page on wikipedia.

So sad Wikipedia is run by censors now

In my days, we called them “editors.”

C'mon Mr. Burke, we all know the difference between censors and editors, and wikipedia is plagued by both.

Censors come from the government (or similar institutions, most notably the Church) and meddle with works published by other people, while editors meddle with work published by themselves. I don't quite see why the latter would be a plague.

[GunJack]

I don't know if the concept is interesting or not, because the deletionism puritans censors have killed the page on wikipedia.

So sad Wikipedia is run by censors now

In my days, we called them “editors.”

C'mon Mr. Burke, we all know the difference between censors and editors, and wikipedia is plagued by both.

Censors come from the government (or similar institutions, most notably the Church) and meddle with works published by other people, while editors meddle with work published by themselves. I don't quite see why the latter would be a plague.

it was a "everyone can edit" proyect; if you have designated editors, then it misses the purpose. Also, in wikipedia editors meddle with work published by others; but there is the point, I agree that there must be regulation (the sad, sad case of Brock Lesnar entry comes to my memory), but I disagree with the method, and publicly acknowledge that I don't know how to improve this.
Totally agree with your church statement, come to South america and you will see how frightening is the power of the church here, christian and others too.

[Mr. Burke]

You're lumping author and editor together. Authors don't publish (neither do editors). The Wikimedia Foundation does. It's their right to decide what will be published; to enforce that right they put people in charge of the editing process (i.e. the admins).

[blumdude]

I could really go for a snowclone right now.

I read fiagrospeech and wikipedia regularly, so this actually made me chuckle.

[RabbitWho]

"...and the blogosphere will implode."

*Blogosfear*



The stir this has caused is so awesome, I'm glad I was around to see it.

[etherknight]

Like the term 'nee' for a woman's last name before she married. I have yet to read that term anywhere else, or hear it spoken even once.

[dummy account]

I agree with the simpler part. The people at Wikipedia seem to disagree with the "accent neutral" part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respelling I don't know enough about languages and dialects to form my own opinion on the later.

The link you posted (as of this moment, at least) actually says the opposite: /föhn/ is an accurate IPA transcription of "fern", but only for certain non-rhotic accents; in Webster's, the pronunciation guide gives "fern" as an example of how to pronounce /'ər/: that is, however you pronounce "fern" is how you pronounce /'ər/ wherever it appears. Likewise, "cat" and "hat" rhyme in every accent, but the vowel can be (IPA) /a/, /æ/, or /ɛ/ (possible /e/ or even /ɪ/). Since it's better for speakers to pronounce all their words in the same accent, you want an accent-neutral pronunciation guide. IPA does NOT provide that.

I once wrote up an article in Uncyclopedia about "Port Manteau", a town in Louisiana with a suspicious similarity to New Orleans, a few accidents of history that kept it forever out of the center of attention, and its one widely recognized contribution to the rest of the world (I think you can guess where that bit is going...)

It got deleted because, apparently, it wasn't funny. Maybe just sour grapes here but I thought it was good.

Uncyclopedia's preference for repetitive inside jokes and administrative fascism over actual humor is well-documented.

[Mr. Burke]

Like the term 'nee' for a woman's last name before she married. I have yet to read that term anywhere else, or hear it spoken even once.

You should visit France (or Québec, whichever is nearer) more often.

[etherknight]

So on the France version of Wikipedia (or French-Canadian version if there is such a thing) does it say 'maiden name' instead? Why toss in such an uncommon foreign word on a North American page? The claim it's an "English-adopted' term, but I beg to differ....

[Mr. Burke]

I wonder why I even bother linking ...

[GunJack]

Like the term 'nee' for a woman's last name before she married. I have yet to read that term anywhere else, or hear it spoken even once.

You should visit France (or Québec, whichever is nearer) more often.

LOL

[DragonHawk]

You're lumping author and editor together. Authors don't publish (neither do editors). The Wikimedia Foundation does. It's their right to decide what will be published; to enforce that right they put people in charge of the editing process (i.e. the admins).

On the English Wikipedia, at least, admins are more like traffic cops or referees than editors (at least, as far as admin duties go). Conduct disputes, vandalism, privileged operations, that sort of thing. Admins are the ones that have to actually click "delete, but they nominally don't make the decision to keep or delete; that's done by discussion open to everyone. (Speedy deletion is a semi-exception to this, but it's nominally only for clear-cut cases of obvious garbage.)

*Anyway*, what I'm really leading up to is that Wikipedians (people who contribute content to Wikipedia) are all both authors and editors. It's a collaborative writing/editing process. Anyone can write anything, and anyone else can modify it. In theory, over time, consensus leads to a reasonable quality. It actually works better than I would have expected.

I think strife arises because the Wikipedia community has decided certain standards should apply. People see "anyone can edit" and think it's open season for anything and everything. Sorry, no. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "everyone gets what they want".

[lesmith11]

Somehow this comic led me to Wikipedia, which lead to me looking at a lot of useless shit, which led to me downloading a PDF copy of the Principia Discordia.

What the fuck?

I think I can beat that. I just discovered "The Great Led Zeppelin Wine Pairing" on Wikipedia. I am so going to try this!

[Haxel]

Unbearable (or perhaps sweet, sweet) irony when I googled this word, only to find that there's a discussion on the Wikipedia talk pages about whether there should be a reference to it on Wikipedia...

[Throtex]

Variants of 'eponymous' are also severely overused on Wiki.

[horizonstar]

As opposed to the non-obscure manuscripts from the 1490s.

[ARandomDude]

Based on the length of the discussion after less than a day, I would say Wikipedia really does like the word

[uiri]

/ˌsuːpərˌkælɪˌfrædʒəlˌɪstɪkˌɛkspiːˌælɪˈdoʊʃəs/?

Is it bad that I understood that? Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

I think that anyone who takes their time to learn IPA ultimately benefits from it as it is very helpful when explaining how to pronounce words in other languages properly - although I suppose knowing linguistics in general helps.

[neoliminal]

Comma in the wrong place.

And stop vandalizing, Wikipedia cunts.

fix'd

[tetsujin]

Uncyclopedia's preference for repetitive inside jokes and administrative fascism over actual humor is well-documented.

"I don't think that's true at all!" - Oscar Wilde, responding to claims that Uncyclopedia's style of humor is excessively mired in a small collection of cheap, overused gags

[SocialSceneRepairman]

The sad thing about Wikipedia is that sometimes I look up a term of art, have no idea what they're talking about, then find a much clearer definition, of the same length, in some textbook, then look back at Wikipedia and realize they're saying the exact same thing.

Very, very rarely, the Wikipedia definition is broader in scope, but still.

[kismet]

The citation from the 1490's about malamanteau struck me as odd.
The term malapropism came about from the play The Rivals from 1765, which I learned in my Grade 10 English class.
Wikipedia agress and confirms the earliest use of malapropism was in 1630.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism

so its weird that the word could be derived from a word that came after it... making its origin a reconstruction of origins...

[MarcyMarc]

Comma in the wrong place.

And stop vandalizing, Wikipedia cunts.

fix'd

you, sir, are the winner.

[Truck_Driver]

Legend holds that Buckminster Fuller coined the term 'debunk' and started dropping it in at parties, then tracked how long it took to make into the lexicon... It's a shame he didn't have access to wikipedia. No telling what our language might look like now

[iamed2]

Mal manteau.