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)
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)
By the way, is April Fool's known/celebrated around the world? There's got to be some country in the world where the average people do not know about it? Or is this the case where 95% of Wikipedians or so have it where they live? *shrug* Neal ( talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
If, instead, we worked on a policy that only applies to February 29, we would have more time to perfect it before it was needed. Edison ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
@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)
We warn newcomers who don't know the rules. Admins should know better. -- m: drini 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
That would be December 28, at least in the Latinamerican countries I've lived in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Some of this is rehashed from my comments above, so sorry for that, but here we are:
So, how many managers and news presenters did the BBC fire when they ran a story about spaghetti being harvested from trees in Switzerland those long years ago? Surely it destroyed their credibility and confused their worldwide audience? In fact it was reported on US TV with amazement, that the BBC wasn't as stuffy as it was thought to be. Edison ( talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dumping my own thoughts here.
Which is why I think:
x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep it out of articles, keep it out of the public parts of the user interface, and if you're going to do anything on the main page, get consensus first. Other than that, anything goes. -- Carnildo ( talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Before reading the shitstorm that was/is April Fools day 2008, I was actually thinking that it would be a great idea to propose a pre-planned method of finding acceptable AF jokes that would be in visible areas of the site. We could decide what was acceptable and what wasn't, and all have a good time. Believe it or not, some visible humor is not only okay, but is something a very large part of the community supports and desires. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone commented above about the possibility of search engine crawlers having fetched Wikipedia pages while the tagline was vandalised. Here is a survey using a popular search engine.
Tagline | Duration | Ghits |
---|---|---|
From Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia | 6:45 | 248 |
From Britannica, the encyclopaedia that is slightly more accurate than Wikipedia according to a paper in the eminent journal Nature... | 1:06 | 48 |
From Whippetpedia, the free encyclopedia for dogs | 0:12 | 5 |
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway | 0:17 | 12 |
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that triples in population every six months | 5:02 | 199 |
Total | 13:22 | 512 |
We could probably estimate page reads from the logs, but we can't tell how many printouts. Bovlb ( talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we must "accept" that people will pull pranks on April Fool's Day. We can just block anyone pulling pranks. The rule of thumb should be: would it be acceptable on any other day? If not, what would be the customary penalty on any other day? I see no need for anything beyond that. Everyking ( talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We ought to agree.
all the pranks fill us with glee.
do you see, believe.
NonvocalScream ( talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedians Lie in wait, in the dark utter night, the time has come, 12 months of planning and its all here. The Admins wait shaking, holding their banhammers, then from the loudspeaker, a voice shouts, "there's something on radar, something big." As the Vandals come into sight, their eyes aglow with hate, unknowing they are being watched, the sleepers come to life as the sockpuppets arise, admins wait at AIV. ready for the great tide. And with the first spear thrown marks the start of a counterattack, the leader, Jimbo Wales, advances with his troops, with his invincible Dreadnought brother ClueBot NG on his side, as he screams "Lets get them boys!"
Happy Attack Dog ( you rang?) 14:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm of the guilty "seven" (as labeled on ANI, but anyway), so I'm going to try to make a solution to the MW pages.
Personally, I think #2 is the best, but if anyone has any other ideas, just shout them out. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 is our standard procedure. Is there some strong argument why we need to muck around with these pages on April 1? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Option #5, a modification of John's Option #4, where the group can be made up of non-admins. If we can approve the jokes before hand we will likely resolve the main issues about MW pages being edited. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing that impedes site functionality should be done, but there's no reason to avoid publicly-visible stuff. — Werdna talk 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Did these edits:
really harm the project? Did they cause server hiccups, bad deletions, bad blocks, etc.? Did they really harm the public's perception of the project? No. These were clearly not visible to the general public or 99% of our editors, and I assume that our admins are smart enough to identify a joke when they see one, and most agree it was quite amusing.
There were several other edits done to MediaWiki which were potentially harmful (as Hut 8.5 says above), and some were visible to regular editors and the general public. As a middle ground to these issues, I still support Kwsn's #2 proposal, but with the addition that this page include a warning as to which type of MediaWiki pages are off limits, and that even for other MW pages the editor must know what he/she's doing, how that MW namespace works, and how it affects many other project pages (the wording should still consider WP:BEANS though). It should also state that if you're reverted, please do not re-revert, since it may lead to immediate blocking. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support option #2. I really don't see the harm in changing a MediaWiki page to say "nuke this page" if only admins see it. Grand master ka 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we as a community should collaborate and reach a consensus on what jokes are appropriate, and go with them. Kind of like google gomes up with its pranks each year, i think there should be some level of centralized discussion prior the day and reach an agreement as to what is ok and what is not ok (mostly for what outside reader would see.) I think if we put our heads together, we could come up with some funny ways to modify the mediawiki interface that would be tasteful and appropriate, but still funny. It just becomes a problem with everybody out there is independantly trying to play there own prank in the mainspace/mediawikispace. I think it should be appropriate but a consensus should be reached on what should be done before hand. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 18:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How unfortunate that this has caused so much strife. As one of the April Fools Seven, I won't pretend I didn't do anything worth criticism (though I feel my single, self-reverted-in-under-a-minute, non-offensive edit was hardly worth a block). Some of the April Fools shenanigans were certainly of questionable taste, but the vast majority of the stuff I witnessed ( and participated) was simply not meant to be disruptive in a damaging sense. Of course, not everyone celebrates the nonsensical pseudo-holiday, humor often does not translate well online, and one's "sense of humor" is a wildly variable and context-dependent construct in which two distinct individuals may never share a laugh...but I've seen a few good users, on both sides of this dispute, get very upset (some to the point of leaving) over this sequence of events.
I ask that those who may be branded as troublemakers (like me, I guess), please recognize that your joking around may have legitimately annoyed or offended your fellow editors whom you would not normally actively wish to antagonize. Branding these antagonized editors as killjoys almost certainly does not help. (Who gains a sense of humor when told that they're lacking one?) I apologize to anyone who found my contributions disruptive enough to affect their willingness or desire to work on this project; such was not my intent.
I also ask that those on the other side please be somewhat lenient: this is a volunteer project in which a dose of levity can have a profoundly positive impact in the willingness of editors to donate their time and efforts. There is a long (sometimes ignoble) history of April 1 fun, here and across the internet. Rather than think of April 1 as a day on which people disruptively think the rules don't or shouldn't apply (as some have expressed, with irritation), the day can serve as a release valve for curiosity, build collegiality, and provide an ingredient to the enjoyment of many editors. That it is centralized on one day in particular has the built-in advantage of possibly leaving 364 other days untouched by some mischief and a greater likelihood of such mischief being more readily accepted by readers worldwide than on any other day.
In conclusion, some of what was done should not have occurred. Some of the responses probably made things worse. I think April Fools nonsense has some benefits, but more judicious application of any such frivolity would benefit all. I hope that those soured from recent events can overcome this and be welcomed by everyone. — Scien tizzle 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am completely flabbergasted by the amount of overreaction which has been generated by some of the community this year. April Fools is a day when people in many western nations traditionally let down their guard and have some good fun. Anyone who takes a look at this stuff on April Fools Day and takes it seriously is as naive as the guy who took an Onion article seriously, believing it to be true a woman was looking forward to her abortion. NewYorkBrad has it right above: we need to lighten up on both sides. Everyone knew this was coming. There have been April Fools Pranks since 2004. Is it disruptive? Maybe a little. Is it good to be able to lighten up and laugh at ourselves? Absolutely. If we are going to react this way yearly to April Fools Day, we are proving our detractors right: we really have become a site which has lost all its humour.
P.S. One of the most fun times I had was when I was doing support work for LiveJournal back in 2005 and some of the admins conspired to release a fake press release stating they had been purchased by AOL. We all got a good laugh about it and I think that's the spirit of April Fools. If you really think it's terribly harmful, I suggest you turn off your computer a while and take a Wikibreak. Redfarmer ( talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought I had a pretty clever idea that would brighten others' day, but the ensuing wikidrama pretty much ruined mine. I'm so frustrated with the constant ever-present antagonism throughout the project, but my attempt at lightening it up for a day just brought on even more. I proposed my idea beforehand, since it's a highly-visible area of the site, but receiving no responses, I just went with it. It's disappointing that some people were offended (though I think that says more about them than it does about my edits). I'm glad some others liked it. I made a Pokemon joke and a Colbert joke. Criticize them for their lack of cleverness or comedic value if you want, but of the few ideas I had, I specifically chose these as the least likely to offend.
Viridae's "sticks up their asses" edit was stupid and inappropriate, but is it really that big a deal? It's not any more offensive than the real vandalism that shows up in our articles (and Google caches, and printouts, and classrooms) dozens? hundreds? of times every day. It's certainly not any more offensive than our informative pictures of sex acts or dead bodies. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Scold him and move on.
But calling for editors' heads on pikes in the public square? Just because they had the audacity to make a joke? On April Fools' Day? Some people need to relax a notch or two.
No, there isn't a policy that designates the first of April as the one day we get to have some fun. But Wikipedia policy is made by the Wikipedia community, and the community has demonstrated that they want to joke around, just like all the other popular kids. We need to plan things out ahead of time, not prohibit them. And we need a lot less anger and bloodthirst.
Can we at least all agree that the Main Page tradition is a fun and creative success? — Omegatron 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
...or entire policy. "If your April Fool's Day prank affects the reader, don't do it". John Reaves 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't want people messing with the interface for admins any more than we want them messing with the interface for readers. For example, I don't want to see "Nuke it!" replace the delete button. But I don't think the "readers" language will work on its own, because people who want to play pranks will read any restriction as narrowly as possible, and then complain when they are "blocked without warning" for making a joke that "doesn't affect readers". I added a second sentence reminding people not to play pranks with MediaWiki pages; that seems to be a good line in the sand. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose renaming this page to "Prank day", in order to be inclusive of Other prank days in the world. Also, making it an essay or guideline rather than a policy. It's not good for the number of policies to be too large. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
this tough stand is indeed necessary , 1/365 or even a half day to confuse users isnt good to hear , me a medico thinking from my side , if medical practitioners fools patients for a single day or he fakes surgery ...will any world accept it ?? likewise faking may be a fun to a few or a many but sure a big trouble to some and sometimes to many , and what i saw as jokes weren't jokes at all.. nominating humans as AFD since some third party reference is needed sounds like an alien must fix it ...and nominating USA for AFD and georgebush too , though i enjoyed them a bit i felt we went a bit more....but imposing rules wont be nice since wikipedians are wise enough to agree by soft words than by hard rules...-- @ the $un$hine . ( talk) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Move this to something like Wikipedia:Pranking or Wikipedia:Prank day (with a redirect, of course). I do love a lovely pun or bit of joshing in comments, and the occasional arch comment in an article even (though many times people include "ironic" facts in the sense of the Morrisette song, which is more in the realm of dramatic irony than anything really interesting or funny). But as for joke edits, joke AFDs, joke interface changes, I've had it. Hey, I've been on the internets since kremvax, and I've seen some lovely geek jokes like RFC 1149. But when you have a day online where practically every click leads to new levels of unexplored lameness, sometimes you just want to self- defenestrate. Particularly here, where the point is being informational.
Now, do I want this tied directly into blocking policy? Maybe. I really think the quirky-but-true angle is what we should focus on as an outlet, because it's win-win-win-win. Win for our reputation, win for the reader, win for the editors, and ultimately, win because it gets us featured articles like Ima Hogg. (Although I think the On this date feature is sort of stuck with the same small pool of articles.) It's a way of channeling this impulse into something constructive and limiting the tiresome what-will-I-find-next angle. But there ought to be some limits and some enforcement will be necessary. Still, I don't think we need be draconian except in breadth. Block liberally, but briefly, I say.
No, I don't know what the level of infraction should be, and yes, I'm volunteering people to go be rentacops who would rather do other useful things. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Very useful April 1 just past, in identifying editors without a sense of humour. DGG ( talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
... Empty
Frankly, there seem to be some goddawful sideways opinions about what is funny for WP on this particular day, so I propose the simple guideline: 'If the prank you pulled wouldn't be done by the BBC (or insert your own favoured but equaly respected contemporary internet content provider) then it shouldn't be done here, and hence will be RBI'd. Seriously, can you see the BBC doing any of the stupid crap detailed above to their interface, or publicly announcing the head of programming is to be disciplined? It basically makes WP editors look like a bunch of juvenile pricks imo. Let's stick to putting articles about flying penguins on the main page, just like the good old BBC, and be done with it. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I would completely support this guideline/policy. There are places that jokes are OK on April Fools. And there are places where jokes should be avoided. Vandalising the MediaWiki interface, making joke reports on AIV, UAA, or blocking people as a joke, are unacceptable in my opinion, and should be considered. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue I have is that April Fool's pranks could be "forgotten" and remain in legitimate article space after the 1st. There should be some aspect of policy that requires editors who add joke posts to register them with some central page, which can then be used to program a bot to make sure all joke changes are reverted once the day is over. What makes this tricky is the fact that many legitimate edits might well occur after the joke posting. I would also strongly suggest that Wikipedia management restrict the entire project to only registered users on April 1, as one wouldn't expect anonymous IPs to know - or care - about any AFJ policies. 23skidoo ( talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A user reported to the wikitech-l list that he got one of the April 1 prank pages on April 7, due to caching. These changes are not as short-lived as one might think. [1] — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A common prank on Uncyclopedia is to blank the front page -- 82.26.176.130 ( talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Neal. There's a reason Uncyclopedia is Uncyclopedia. KillTheToy ( talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with those who mentioned this April Fool's Day has succeeded in identifying those whose senses of humor left the building. Seriously. It's April Fool's Day. For years, high-profile Internet sites have done pranks. It's good PR. It inserts humanity into a company's image. If this dramastorm keeps up, it might just do the opposite.
I also think that anyone who has BLP issues with "Wikipedia, the free Pokemon enyclopedia" - on April Fool's Day! - has long since left the realm of overreacting.
The "lavender passage" comment was over the line for being potentially offensive, but I don't see a problem with any of the other stuff. Crystallina ( talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is in the real world, yes, but astronomically few real people would be at all distressed by someone claiming they are a Pokemon - and those cases would be overreacting. Besides, claiming that a notice reading "the free Pokemon encyclopedia" implies claiming an article subject is a Pokemon is a big stretch. Crystallina ( talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need a policy just for April Fool's Day? I agree that pranking can occur at other times, but this seems really to be a classic example of WP:CREEP. Administrators and others are bound by the rules we already have, and this is a serious site - it is not a game; it is not MySpace; all of which is contained within WP:NOT, and we should avoid adding unnecessary rules to complicate things excessively. I would oppose this proposal simply because it's redundant to the ones we already have.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I’m going to say “oppose” to this proposal. I don’t think we need specific rules for April 1 – everything relevant has already been covered by WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF, and that is sufficient. I support those who want to pull April Fool’s jokes, and I support those who want to quickly revert them. Let people have their fun, let them enjoy the consequences too. To my non-American friends: feel free to prank on your country’s national prank day, and you’ll get the same slap on the wrist that the April fools got. And if some admin reacts too strongly and bans someone without even a warning (you’re supposed to start with {{ test1}} and progress to blocking), they will have to face the consequences too (Oh no! A warning on my talk page!).
Here’s the aftermath of April 1, 2008: some people pulled pranks, some were “good” some were “bad”, some got warned or blocked, the world didn’t end. I don’t believe any permanent damage was done. If any prank material still remains, go revert it. – jaksmata 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the April Fool's Edits are quite funny, especially to the MediaWiki: namespace. I suggest that MediaWiki:Tagline be changed to the following, and then left alone.
“ | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which you shouldn't be trusting as reliable on April Fool's Day | ” |
And then left untouched
Then any other MediaWiki: things can be edited; MediaWiki:Edit, :Go, :Search &c. as long as the joke is tasteful.
The Main Page should be left to be torn apart to implement what is already implemented on April 1.
Perhaps all edits made on April 1 can be reverted at the end, if that is plausible. Everyone should be prewarned not to make constructive edits to Wikipedia on April 1.
Jake the Editor Man ( talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which does embrace April Fool's Day | ” |
How about any semi major things the admins are going to do they have to have some of vote in their own area and they choose what is appriate for them to do (kinda self censorship i would call it) and that way other admins know what they are doing and they can oppose it if they want. and they would could still be banned from doing "major" panks. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
People keep saying "It's just one day". But with people making "jokes" from different timezones it's often not 1st April when many editors see the edits. (plus already mentioned caching) Also, I agree with Dhartung - many of the "jokes" just weren't funny. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not an administrator and my message will probably get deleted due to that, but I wonder if anyone saw the Wookieepedia main page on april fools day? The entire main page was written in the fictional star wars alphabet. For those who wanted to see the page in english, a link was included to an english version. So, if admins have a bit of fun with the main page they can include a disclaimer at the bottom, along with a link to a "non-april fools" version of the page. Also, I see nothing wrong with changing the "Go" and "Search" buttons to something humorous. And, corrosponding to the comment above, we could just use UTC time. T.Neo ( talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why editors, but especially admins, feel the need to use WP for their personal pranks. Unless you're Jimbo, it seems to me that this is not your web site, and you've agreed to abide by the policies which specifically prohibit edits designed to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. [1] And I can't see how any prank could be construed as meant to improve WP. As someone whose primary use for WP is actually using WP as a starting point for almost everything I research, I am not heartened by the display of "humanity" some have attributed to how some admins have broadcast their sense of humor. I WOULD have a greater confidence in the professionalism (yes, I know they're not paid for their efforts, and I DO admire them for it) expected from the stewards of the project if the consensus of these discussions was: "All editors are told the rules, admins have accepted a greater responsibility and are defacto warned against such transgressions without first committing them. Therefor, upon the first transgression, admins will receive a more harsh reaction."
If editors want to showcase their sense of humor, it seems to me that the only reasonable WP venue is their user page and talk pages. Other than that, they should do what everyone else does, get a blog. Comparing WP pranks to Google's is pointless. Google is run by a tiny number of top people who may have been presented with a dozen or so prank ideas and then ONE person has taken responsibility for the consequences. At WP, no one is responsible for consequences. Maybe that's where some of the respect is lost, no Editor in Chief. No ONE can say, "you knew better, so you get 2 weeks leave without pay." No ONE can say, "This isn't your personal bulletin board that you can decorate because it's April 1, so for the next 6 months you're going to be only fact checking articles about rodent feces and goldfish." Maybe I'm wrong. But even though the rules were the same, I got in more trouble than my little brother for the exact same violation. -- JJLatWiki ( talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My view towards "pranking" has become such that I see it as divisive, as while some find it funny and harmless, others do not. Technically most of what pass as "pranks" would be blockable and desysopable offenses any other day of the week, so what I think Wikipedia should do is make it clear that policy will be enforced on April 1 just like it would any other day. If Wikipedia, just makes it clear that this will happen, we will be able to put an end to the disruptive and divisive behavior without actually having to block or desysop anyone. There are ways to have fun without dividing the wiki community. Having a humorous featured article is one of them. And there's always Uncyclopedia.-- Urban Rose 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the following limits should apply to pranks:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to add another section for another two cents, but this discussion needs to get somewhere. So far we've had a lot of ideas and a lot of opinions (which are good) but even Newyorkbrad's absolute gem hasn't got us very far in getting any further past this being another failed essay.
The problem is of course that there's too much to read, and that's half the point. Pranks are no fun after you have to get through all this bumph (and what's here is just the cream of what's out there).
Seeing as most of the opinions are now going the same way, I want to distil this to a bunch of points which we're agreed on, so that reaching a consensus doesn't have to be a reading contest. So here goes:
Please register your agreement—or disagreement—how you see fit. This is not a vote.
There are some who hold stronger views than this—i.e. that it is not professional, or is a waste of time, to carry out any other sort of prank. Can we all at least agree that some guidelines on what is definitely not funny will save people time next year?
The way I envisage the page is this:
This seems, at least to me, a very acceptable starting point which would already save a lot of time next year bickering about what's acceptable, particularly repeating the reasoning behind some of the things which are not. If we need to get even more specific then that's great too, but what do people think about this for starters? BigBlueFish ( talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think there's any need for a policy, here, a page listing prior jokes that generated considerable controversy might be handy as a guide for what to avoid. Pranks causing real problems or damaging mainspace content in any way have historically just been treated as vandalism; most of the latitude is in project space, primarily in areas where newcomers and readers will be out of harm's way. Anything which harms normal operation of the site is bad, I think that's generally agreed upon even without a new page saying so -- "do no harm" is a great mantra, there. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as discussion seems to have faded, this is a non-binding straw poll to gauge whether a consensus exists to implement this policy, or any part of it. Please sign under one or more (hopefully non-contradictory) headings. Add a new one if your point isn't covered. Any comments longer than a sentence or two should be made under Discussion. Stifle ( talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The status quo (i.e. no pranks are explicitly prohibited, people are expected to use common sense), and troublesome edits are reverted.
Joke Today's Featured Article summaries are not permitted on the Main Page.
Text visible to all users (like MediaWiki:Tagline) and so on should not be changed for pranks.
The only pranks that are allowed are those which only admins can see, like changing MediaWiki:Delete or the like.
Joke policies (like Wikipedia:Requests for process) are permitted.
One issue with straw polls is they are vulnerable to framing, and that has happened here. The status quo, after this year, is that admins who play around in the mediawiki namespace are likely to be blocked, and the pranks in other places need to be done with some amount of clue. That status quo is fine with me. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we have an option for the actual "Status quo", please? The FA/DYK can be humourous but factual, and pranks are prohibited and can lead to blocks. Bovlb ( talk) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I know there is no section of Wikipedia that says "no pranks", but most of the behavior that falls into the category of "pranks" is explicitly prohibited. Bogus afds, false reports to AIV, and unconstructive edits to MediaWiki namespace would fall into the category of disruptive behavior that is not allowed any other day of the year, so in reality Wikipedia DOES officially disallow most of what falls into the category of "pranks", but on April Fools day, it's just overlooked. If we're going to say that Wikipedia doesn't disallow pranks then our policy is meaningless because a person could just violate policy as he or she chooses and excuse himself or herself for it by calling it a "prank". Wikipedia:Use common sense isn't policy.-- Urban Rose 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
By the way, is April Fool's known/celebrated around the world? There's got to be some country in the world where the average people do not know about it? Or is this the case where 95% of Wikipedians or so have it where they live? *shrug* Neal ( talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
If, instead, we worked on a policy that only applies to February 29, we would have more time to perfect it before it was needed. Edison ( talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
@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)
We warn newcomers who don't know the rules. Admins should know better. -- m: drini 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
That would be December 28, at least in the Latinamerican countries I've lived in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Some of this is rehashed from my comments above, so sorry for that, but here we are:
So, how many managers and news presenters did the BBC fire when they ran a story about spaghetti being harvested from trees in Switzerland those long years ago? Surely it destroyed their credibility and confused their worldwide audience? In fact it was reported on US TV with amazement, that the BBC wasn't as stuffy as it was thought to be. Edison ( talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dumping my own thoughts here.
Which is why I think:
x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep it out of articles, keep it out of the public parts of the user interface, and if you're going to do anything on the main page, get consensus first. Other than that, anything goes. -- Carnildo ( talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Before reading the shitstorm that was/is April Fools day 2008, I was actually thinking that it would be a great idea to propose a pre-planned method of finding acceptable AF jokes that would be in visible areas of the site. We could decide what was acceptable and what wasn't, and all have a good time. Believe it or not, some visible humor is not only okay, but is something a very large part of the community supports and desires. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone commented above about the possibility of search engine crawlers having fetched Wikipedia pages while the tagline was vandalised. Here is a survey using a popular search engine.
Tagline | Duration | Ghits |
---|---|---|
From Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia | 6:45 | 248 |
From Britannica, the encyclopaedia that is slightly more accurate than Wikipedia according to a paper in the eminent journal Nature... | 1:06 | 48 |
From Whippetpedia, the free encyclopedia for dogs | 0:12 | 5 |
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway | 0:17 | 12 |
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that triples in population every six months | 5:02 | 199 |
Total | 13:22 | 512 |
We could probably estimate page reads from the logs, but we can't tell how many printouts. Bovlb ( talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we must "accept" that people will pull pranks on April Fool's Day. We can just block anyone pulling pranks. The rule of thumb should be: would it be acceptable on any other day? If not, what would be the customary penalty on any other day? I see no need for anything beyond that. Everyking ( talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We ought to agree.
all the pranks fill us with glee.
do you see, believe.
NonvocalScream ( talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedians Lie in wait, in the dark utter night, the time has come, 12 months of planning and its all here. The Admins wait shaking, holding their banhammers, then from the loudspeaker, a voice shouts, "there's something on radar, something big." As the Vandals come into sight, their eyes aglow with hate, unknowing they are being watched, the sleepers come to life as the sockpuppets arise, admins wait at AIV. ready for the great tide. And with the first spear thrown marks the start of a counterattack, the leader, Jimbo Wales, advances with his troops, with his invincible Dreadnought brother ClueBot NG on his side, as he screams "Lets get them boys!"
Happy Attack Dog ( you rang?) 14:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm of the guilty "seven" (as labeled on ANI, but anyway), so I'm going to try to make a solution to the MW pages.
Personally, I think #2 is the best, but if anyone has any other ideas, just shout them out. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 is our standard procedure. Is there some strong argument why we need to muck around with these pages on April 1? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Option #5, a modification of John's Option #4, where the group can be made up of non-admins. If we can approve the jokes before hand we will likely resolve the main issues about MW pages being edited. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing that impedes site functionality should be done, but there's no reason to avoid publicly-visible stuff. — Werdna talk 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Did these edits:
really harm the project? Did they cause server hiccups, bad deletions, bad blocks, etc.? Did they really harm the public's perception of the project? No. These were clearly not visible to the general public or 99% of our editors, and I assume that our admins are smart enough to identify a joke when they see one, and most agree it was quite amusing.
There were several other edits done to MediaWiki which were potentially harmful (as Hut 8.5 says above), and some were visible to regular editors and the general public. As a middle ground to these issues, I still support Kwsn's #2 proposal, but with the addition that this page include a warning as to which type of MediaWiki pages are off limits, and that even for other MW pages the editor must know what he/she's doing, how that MW namespace works, and how it affects many other project pages (the wording should still consider WP:BEANS though). It should also state that if you're reverted, please do not re-revert, since it may lead to immediate blocking. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support option #2. I really don't see the harm in changing a MediaWiki page to say "nuke this page" if only admins see it. Grand master ka 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we as a community should collaborate and reach a consensus on what jokes are appropriate, and go with them. Kind of like google gomes up with its pranks each year, i think there should be some level of centralized discussion prior the day and reach an agreement as to what is ok and what is not ok (mostly for what outside reader would see.) I think if we put our heads together, we could come up with some funny ways to modify the mediawiki interface that would be tasteful and appropriate, but still funny. It just becomes a problem with everybody out there is independantly trying to play there own prank in the mainspace/mediawikispace. I think it should be appropriate but a consensus should be reached on what should be done before hand. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 18:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How unfortunate that this has caused so much strife. As one of the April Fools Seven, I won't pretend I didn't do anything worth criticism (though I feel my single, self-reverted-in-under-a-minute, non-offensive edit was hardly worth a block). Some of the April Fools shenanigans were certainly of questionable taste, but the vast majority of the stuff I witnessed ( and participated) was simply not meant to be disruptive in a damaging sense. Of course, not everyone celebrates the nonsensical pseudo-holiday, humor often does not translate well online, and one's "sense of humor" is a wildly variable and context-dependent construct in which two distinct individuals may never share a laugh...but I've seen a few good users, on both sides of this dispute, get very upset (some to the point of leaving) over this sequence of events.
I ask that those who may be branded as troublemakers (like me, I guess), please recognize that your joking around may have legitimately annoyed or offended your fellow editors whom you would not normally actively wish to antagonize. Branding these antagonized editors as killjoys almost certainly does not help. (Who gains a sense of humor when told that they're lacking one?) I apologize to anyone who found my contributions disruptive enough to affect their willingness or desire to work on this project; such was not my intent.
I also ask that those on the other side please be somewhat lenient: this is a volunteer project in which a dose of levity can have a profoundly positive impact in the willingness of editors to donate their time and efforts. There is a long (sometimes ignoble) history of April 1 fun, here and across the internet. Rather than think of April 1 as a day on which people disruptively think the rules don't or shouldn't apply (as some have expressed, with irritation), the day can serve as a release valve for curiosity, build collegiality, and provide an ingredient to the enjoyment of many editors. That it is centralized on one day in particular has the built-in advantage of possibly leaving 364 other days untouched by some mischief and a greater likelihood of such mischief being more readily accepted by readers worldwide than on any other day.
In conclusion, some of what was done should not have occurred. Some of the responses probably made things worse. I think April Fools nonsense has some benefits, but more judicious application of any such frivolity would benefit all. I hope that those soured from recent events can overcome this and be welcomed by everyone. — Scien tizzle 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am completely flabbergasted by the amount of overreaction which has been generated by some of the community this year. April Fools is a day when people in many western nations traditionally let down their guard and have some good fun. Anyone who takes a look at this stuff on April Fools Day and takes it seriously is as naive as the guy who took an Onion article seriously, believing it to be true a woman was looking forward to her abortion. NewYorkBrad has it right above: we need to lighten up on both sides. Everyone knew this was coming. There have been April Fools Pranks since 2004. Is it disruptive? Maybe a little. Is it good to be able to lighten up and laugh at ourselves? Absolutely. If we are going to react this way yearly to April Fools Day, we are proving our detractors right: we really have become a site which has lost all its humour.
P.S. One of the most fun times I had was when I was doing support work for LiveJournal back in 2005 and some of the admins conspired to release a fake press release stating they had been purchased by AOL. We all got a good laugh about it and I think that's the spirit of April Fools. If you really think it's terribly harmful, I suggest you turn off your computer a while and take a Wikibreak. Redfarmer ( talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought I had a pretty clever idea that would brighten others' day, but the ensuing wikidrama pretty much ruined mine. I'm so frustrated with the constant ever-present antagonism throughout the project, but my attempt at lightening it up for a day just brought on even more. I proposed my idea beforehand, since it's a highly-visible area of the site, but receiving no responses, I just went with it. It's disappointing that some people were offended (though I think that says more about them than it does about my edits). I'm glad some others liked it. I made a Pokemon joke and a Colbert joke. Criticize them for their lack of cleverness or comedic value if you want, but of the few ideas I had, I specifically chose these as the least likely to offend.
Viridae's "sticks up their asses" edit was stupid and inappropriate, but is it really that big a deal? It's not any more offensive than the real vandalism that shows up in our articles (and Google caches, and printouts, and classrooms) dozens? hundreds? of times every day. It's certainly not any more offensive than our informative pictures of sex acts or dead bodies. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Scold him and move on.
But calling for editors' heads on pikes in the public square? Just because they had the audacity to make a joke? On April Fools' Day? Some people need to relax a notch or two.
No, there isn't a policy that designates the first of April as the one day we get to have some fun. But Wikipedia policy is made by the Wikipedia community, and the community has demonstrated that they want to joke around, just like all the other popular kids. We need to plan things out ahead of time, not prohibit them. And we need a lot less anger and bloodthirst.
Can we at least all agree that the Main Page tradition is a fun and creative success? — Omegatron 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
...or entire policy. "If your April Fool's Day prank affects the reader, don't do it". John Reaves 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't want people messing with the interface for admins any more than we want them messing with the interface for readers. For example, I don't want to see "Nuke it!" replace the delete button. But I don't think the "readers" language will work on its own, because people who want to play pranks will read any restriction as narrowly as possible, and then complain when they are "blocked without warning" for making a joke that "doesn't affect readers". I added a second sentence reminding people not to play pranks with MediaWiki pages; that seems to be a good line in the sand. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose renaming this page to "Prank day", in order to be inclusive of Other prank days in the world. Also, making it an essay or guideline rather than a policy. It's not good for the number of policies to be too large. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
this tough stand is indeed necessary , 1/365 or even a half day to confuse users isnt good to hear , me a medico thinking from my side , if medical practitioners fools patients for a single day or he fakes surgery ...will any world accept it ?? likewise faking may be a fun to a few or a many but sure a big trouble to some and sometimes to many , and what i saw as jokes weren't jokes at all.. nominating humans as AFD since some third party reference is needed sounds like an alien must fix it ...and nominating USA for AFD and georgebush too , though i enjoyed them a bit i felt we went a bit more....but imposing rules wont be nice since wikipedians are wise enough to agree by soft words than by hard rules...-- @ the $un$hine . ( talk) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Move this to something like Wikipedia:Pranking or Wikipedia:Prank day (with a redirect, of course). I do love a lovely pun or bit of joshing in comments, and the occasional arch comment in an article even (though many times people include "ironic" facts in the sense of the Morrisette song, which is more in the realm of dramatic irony than anything really interesting or funny). But as for joke edits, joke AFDs, joke interface changes, I've had it. Hey, I've been on the internets since kremvax, and I've seen some lovely geek jokes like RFC 1149. But when you have a day online where practically every click leads to new levels of unexplored lameness, sometimes you just want to self- defenestrate. Particularly here, where the point is being informational.
Now, do I want this tied directly into blocking policy? Maybe. I really think the quirky-but-true angle is what we should focus on as an outlet, because it's win-win-win-win. Win for our reputation, win for the reader, win for the editors, and ultimately, win because it gets us featured articles like Ima Hogg. (Although I think the On this date feature is sort of stuck with the same small pool of articles.) It's a way of channeling this impulse into something constructive and limiting the tiresome what-will-I-find-next angle. But there ought to be some limits and some enforcement will be necessary. Still, I don't think we need be draconian except in breadth. Block liberally, but briefly, I say.
No, I don't know what the level of infraction should be, and yes, I'm volunteering people to go be rentacops who would rather do other useful things. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Very useful April 1 just past, in identifying editors without a sense of humour. DGG ( talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
... Empty
Frankly, there seem to be some goddawful sideways opinions about what is funny for WP on this particular day, so I propose the simple guideline: 'If the prank you pulled wouldn't be done by the BBC (or insert your own favoured but equaly respected contemporary internet content provider) then it shouldn't be done here, and hence will be RBI'd. Seriously, can you see the BBC doing any of the stupid crap detailed above to their interface, or publicly announcing the head of programming is to be disciplined? It basically makes WP editors look like a bunch of juvenile pricks imo. Let's stick to putting articles about flying penguins on the main page, just like the good old BBC, and be done with it. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I would completely support this guideline/policy. There are places that jokes are OK on April Fools. And there are places where jokes should be avoided. Vandalising the MediaWiki interface, making joke reports on AIV, UAA, or blocking people as a joke, are unacceptable in my opinion, and should be considered. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue I have is that April Fool's pranks could be "forgotten" and remain in legitimate article space after the 1st. There should be some aspect of policy that requires editors who add joke posts to register them with some central page, which can then be used to program a bot to make sure all joke changes are reverted once the day is over. What makes this tricky is the fact that many legitimate edits might well occur after the joke posting. I would also strongly suggest that Wikipedia management restrict the entire project to only registered users on April 1, as one wouldn't expect anonymous IPs to know - or care - about any AFJ policies. 23skidoo ( talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A user reported to the wikitech-l list that he got one of the April 1 prank pages on April 7, due to caching. These changes are not as short-lived as one might think. [1] — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A common prank on Uncyclopedia is to blank the front page -- 82.26.176.130 ( talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Neal. There's a reason Uncyclopedia is Uncyclopedia. KillTheToy ( talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with those who mentioned this April Fool's Day has succeeded in identifying those whose senses of humor left the building. Seriously. It's April Fool's Day. For years, high-profile Internet sites have done pranks. It's good PR. It inserts humanity into a company's image. If this dramastorm keeps up, it might just do the opposite.
I also think that anyone who has BLP issues with "Wikipedia, the free Pokemon enyclopedia" - on April Fool's Day! - has long since left the realm of overreacting.
The "lavender passage" comment was over the line for being potentially offensive, but I don't see a problem with any of the other stuff. Crystallina ( talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is in the real world, yes, but astronomically few real people would be at all distressed by someone claiming they are a Pokemon - and those cases would be overreacting. Besides, claiming that a notice reading "the free Pokemon encyclopedia" implies claiming an article subject is a Pokemon is a big stretch. Crystallina ( talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need a policy just for April Fool's Day? I agree that pranking can occur at other times, but this seems really to be a classic example of WP:CREEP. Administrators and others are bound by the rules we already have, and this is a serious site - it is not a game; it is not MySpace; all of which is contained within WP:NOT, and we should avoid adding unnecessary rules to complicate things excessively. I would oppose this proposal simply because it's redundant to the ones we already have.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I’m going to say “oppose” to this proposal. I don’t think we need specific rules for April 1 – everything relevant has already been covered by WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF, and that is sufficient. I support those who want to pull April Fool’s jokes, and I support those who want to quickly revert them. Let people have their fun, let them enjoy the consequences too. To my non-American friends: feel free to prank on your country’s national prank day, and you’ll get the same slap on the wrist that the April fools got. And if some admin reacts too strongly and bans someone without even a warning (you’re supposed to start with {{ test1}} and progress to blocking), they will have to face the consequences too (Oh no! A warning on my talk page!).
Here’s the aftermath of April 1, 2008: some people pulled pranks, some were “good” some were “bad”, some got warned or blocked, the world didn’t end. I don’t believe any permanent damage was done. If any prank material still remains, go revert it. – jaksmata 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the April Fool's Edits are quite funny, especially to the MediaWiki: namespace. I suggest that MediaWiki:Tagline be changed to the following, and then left alone.
“ | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which you shouldn't be trusting as reliable on April Fool's Day | ” |
And then left untouched
Then any other MediaWiki: things can be edited; MediaWiki:Edit, :Go, :Search &c. as long as the joke is tasteful.
The Main Page should be left to be torn apart to implement what is already implemented on April 1.
Perhaps all edits made on April 1 can be reverted at the end, if that is plausible. Everyone should be prewarned not to make constructive edits to Wikipedia on April 1.
Jake the Editor Man ( talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which does embrace April Fool's Day | ” |
How about any semi major things the admins are going to do they have to have some of vote in their own area and they choose what is appriate for them to do (kinda self censorship i would call it) and that way other admins know what they are doing and they can oppose it if they want. and they would could still be banned from doing "major" panks. Peachey88 ( Talk Page | Contribs) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
People keep saying "It's just one day". But with people making "jokes" from different timezones it's often not 1st April when many editors see the edits. (plus already mentioned caching) Also, I agree with Dhartung - many of the "jokes" just weren't funny. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not an administrator and my message will probably get deleted due to that, but I wonder if anyone saw the Wookieepedia main page on april fools day? The entire main page was written in the fictional star wars alphabet. For those who wanted to see the page in english, a link was included to an english version. So, if admins have a bit of fun with the main page they can include a disclaimer at the bottom, along with a link to a "non-april fools" version of the page. Also, I see nothing wrong with changing the "Go" and "Search" buttons to something humorous. And, corrosponding to the comment above, we could just use UTC time. T.Neo ( talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why editors, but especially admins, feel the need to use WP for their personal pranks. Unless you're Jimbo, it seems to me that this is not your web site, and you've agreed to abide by the policies which specifically prohibit edits designed to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. [1] And I can't see how any prank could be construed as meant to improve WP. As someone whose primary use for WP is actually using WP as a starting point for almost everything I research, I am not heartened by the display of "humanity" some have attributed to how some admins have broadcast their sense of humor. I WOULD have a greater confidence in the professionalism (yes, I know they're not paid for their efforts, and I DO admire them for it) expected from the stewards of the project if the consensus of these discussions was: "All editors are told the rules, admins have accepted a greater responsibility and are defacto warned against such transgressions without first committing them. Therefor, upon the first transgression, admins will receive a more harsh reaction."
If editors want to showcase their sense of humor, it seems to me that the only reasonable WP venue is their user page and talk pages. Other than that, they should do what everyone else does, get a blog. Comparing WP pranks to Google's is pointless. Google is run by a tiny number of top people who may have been presented with a dozen or so prank ideas and then ONE person has taken responsibility for the consequences. At WP, no one is responsible for consequences. Maybe that's where some of the respect is lost, no Editor in Chief. No ONE can say, "you knew better, so you get 2 weeks leave without pay." No ONE can say, "This isn't your personal bulletin board that you can decorate because it's April 1, so for the next 6 months you're going to be only fact checking articles about rodent feces and goldfish." Maybe I'm wrong. But even though the rules were the same, I got in more trouble than my little brother for the exact same violation. -- JJLatWiki ( talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My view towards "pranking" has become such that I see it as divisive, as while some find it funny and harmless, others do not. Technically most of what pass as "pranks" would be blockable and desysopable offenses any other day of the week, so what I think Wikipedia should do is make it clear that policy will be enforced on April 1 just like it would any other day. If Wikipedia, just makes it clear that this will happen, we will be able to put an end to the disruptive and divisive behavior without actually having to block or desysop anyone. There are ways to have fun without dividing the wiki community. Having a humorous featured article is one of them. And there's always Uncyclopedia.-- Urban Rose 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the following limits should apply to pranks:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to add another section for another two cents, but this discussion needs to get somewhere. So far we've had a lot of ideas and a lot of opinions (which are good) but even Newyorkbrad's absolute gem hasn't got us very far in getting any further past this being another failed essay.
The problem is of course that there's too much to read, and that's half the point. Pranks are no fun after you have to get through all this bumph (and what's here is just the cream of what's out there).
Seeing as most of the opinions are now going the same way, I want to distil this to a bunch of points which we're agreed on, so that reaching a consensus doesn't have to be a reading contest. So here goes:
Please register your agreement—or disagreement—how you see fit. This is not a vote.
There are some who hold stronger views than this—i.e. that it is not professional, or is a waste of time, to carry out any other sort of prank. Can we all at least agree that some guidelines on what is definitely not funny will save people time next year?
The way I envisage the page is this:
This seems, at least to me, a very acceptable starting point which would already save a lot of time next year bickering about what's acceptable, particularly repeating the reasoning behind some of the things which are not. If we need to get even more specific then that's great too, but what do people think about this for starters? BigBlueFish ( talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think there's any need for a policy, here, a page listing prior jokes that generated considerable controversy might be handy as a guide for what to avoid. Pranks causing real problems or damaging mainspace content in any way have historically just been treated as vandalism; most of the latitude is in project space, primarily in areas where newcomers and readers will be out of harm's way. Anything which harms normal operation of the site is bad, I think that's generally agreed upon even without a new page saying so -- "do no harm" is a great mantra, there. – Luna Santin ( talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as discussion seems to have faded, this is a non-binding straw poll to gauge whether a consensus exists to implement this policy, or any part of it. Please sign under one or more (hopefully non-contradictory) headings. Add a new one if your point isn't covered. Any comments longer than a sentence or two should be made under Discussion. Stifle ( talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The status quo (i.e. no pranks are explicitly prohibited, people are expected to use common sense), and troublesome edits are reverted.
Joke Today's Featured Article summaries are not permitted on the Main Page.
Text visible to all users (like MediaWiki:Tagline) and so on should not be changed for pranks.
The only pranks that are allowed are those which only admins can see, like changing MediaWiki:Delete or the like.
Joke policies (like Wikipedia:Requests for process) are permitted.
One issue with straw polls is they are vulnerable to framing, and that has happened here. The status quo, after this year, is that admins who play around in the mediawiki namespace are likely to be blocked, and the pranks in other places need to be done with some amount of clue. That status quo is fine with me. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we have an option for the actual "Status quo", please? The FA/DYK can be humourous but factual, and pranks are prohibited and can lead to blocks. Bovlb ( talk) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I know there is no section of Wikipedia that says "no pranks", but most of the behavior that falls into the category of "pranks" is explicitly prohibited. Bogus afds, false reports to AIV, and unconstructive edits to MediaWiki namespace would fall into the category of disruptive behavior that is not allowed any other day of the year, so in reality Wikipedia DOES officially disallow most of what falls into the category of "pranks", but on April Fools day, it's just overlooked. If we're going to say that Wikipedia doesn't disallow pranks then our policy is meaningless because a person could just violate policy as he or she chooses and excuse himself or herself for it by calling it a "prank". Wikipedia:Use common sense isn't policy.-- Urban Rose 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)