The Daily

Posts Tagged ‘Wikipedia’

Printing Wikipedia, and Other News

April 3, 2014 | by

Printers_(Trousset_encyclopedia)

“Printers,” from the Trousset encyclopedia, Paris, 1886–1891.

 

NO COMMENTS

The First-Ever Fuck, and Other News

February 12, 2014 | by

Fuckfirstusage

Image via io9

  • Behold: the first written use of fuck, from 1528, inscribed by a monk who seems to have been pretty pissed off with an abbot.
  • “Kicking against the pricks becomes rather less impressive when the pricks have melted away.” Taking a hatchet to the Hatchet Job of the Year.
  • Wes Anderson’s new film, Grand Budapest Hotel, is by his own admission “more or a less a plagiarism” of the works of Stefan Zweig. Will the movie renew American interest in Zweig’s writing?
  • An “edit-a-thon” aims to close the gender gap on Wikipedia, to which far more men contribute than women. Though as the Newsweek reporter Katie Baker tweeted, “Maybe few women edit Wikipedia because they do enough thankless unpaid labor already.”
  • “Emptying the Skies,” Jonathan Franzen’s 2010 essay on the poaching of migratory songbirds, is soon to be a documentary.
  • Toby Barlow’s Write-a-House, a residency program that gives houses to writers, is still a bit shy of its fundraising goal, but there’s a week left in the campaign—help out.

 

1 COMMENT

Visualize It

February 6, 2014 | by

Screen shot 2014-02-06 at 6.01.42 PM

Many thanks to Ed Summers, who writes code for libraries—the Library of Congress among them—and who has generated this impressive visualization of authors, their Paris Review interviews, and their links to one another. More specifically, this charts the way our interviews interact with Wikipedia—that is, which Wikipedia articles cite our interviews. As you can see, it’s … complicated.

Ed has written about his methods here. Apparently all but forty of our interviews are linked to Wikipedia in some capacity. From this I can only infer that we’re headed inexorably toward a state of total Internet domination, and that anyone who stands in our way will be crushed under the weight of our burgeoning link-connection-web-computer-sphere-thing.

 

NO COMMENTS

The Best in Wikipedia Prose

July 10, 2013 | by

Timothy Dexter

Timothy Dexter.

For those of you looking to go down some seriously deep rabbit holes or just appreciate the outsider art that is Wikipedia prose at its best, may we suggest this beautifully curated list of the fifty most interesting articles on Wikipedia? While this compendium is indeed fascinating, we can’t help feeling that Timothy Dexter is a glaring omission.

 

4 COMMENTS

Nobel Tweets, and Other News

May 21, 2013 | by

NobelTweetLarge

  • From The Hairpin, “Etymological Origins of Words Related to Insults.” (And we really like that nice is on there.)
  • A little reading-room escapism to brighten your Tuesday.
  • “5 candidates have been selected for 2013 #NobelPrize in #Literature according to Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy.” A rather innocuous tweet by the Swedish Academy (yes) has launched a flurry of Nobel speculation.
  • Angry Wikipedia revenge-editor Qworty turns out to be novelist Robert Clark Young. Writes Andrew Leonard, dramatically, “Qworty’s edits undermine our faith in this great project. Qworty’s edits prove that Wikipedia’s content can be shaped by people settling grudges and acting out of spite and envy. Qworty alone, by his own account, has made 13,000 edits to Wikipedia. And Qworty, as the record will show, is not to be trusted.”
  •  

    NO COMMENTS

    A Sport and a Pastime

    May 9, 2013 | by

    red-rover-small1

    Art credit Kiersten Essenpreis

    Wikipedia has, of late, been in the crosshairs for its regrettable classification of certain American writers as “women authors” (and businesswomen) and its utility as a platform for petty “revenge editing.” You can watch battles play out in real time now, as people edit and re-edit each others’ work, manipulating facts and public perception at will. With very little power comes, apparently, no particular sense of responsibility.

    And yet at its best, Wikipedia is, if not the objective repository of all human knowledge its founders envisioned, a rather delightful showcase of human weirdness. The enforced aridness of the site’s format only serves to heighten the brilliance of those moments when the peculiarity shines through. I was reminded of this the other day when I decided to look into the origins of the game red rover. (Why? Don’t worry about it.)

    I had hoped to learn that the game had some sort of specific historical significance—maybe involving the Gunpowder Plot, or the Reformation, although I would have settled for the Black Death—which it doesn’t. (The name might, or might not, allude to pirates.) But the Wikipedia entry had greater treasures to offer the armchair investigator. I refer, specifically, to the following:

    As with any game involving physical contact between players, there are those who maintain that its inherent risks, however unlikely, must be weighed against the pastime’s potential to generate personal enjoyment. For example, when the runner breaks through a link (or attempts to break through), it is worried that the action can hurt the linkers’ arms or body or knock these individuals to the ground. Practices particularly discouraged are linking players hand-to-wrist or hand-to-arm (rather, players should hold hands only), “clotheslining” an opposing player at throat height, or extending the hands so an onrushing player runs into a fist.

    It’s at moments like this when misanthropy is most alien to me.

    True, my interest might be keener than most. As a child I had an almost unlimited enthusiasm for red rover. From the moment I first played it—at the home of an intermittent best friend with whom I had very little in common (now a wedding planner)—I recognized it as my sport. (I suspect it may still be my sport.) Read More »

    7 COMMENTS