5 ms·

This type of article is why I love Wikipedia so much. Really, this article has no place in any physical encyclopedia. It's essentially an anecdote. A footnot

This type of article is why I love Wikipedia so much. Really, this article has no place in any physical encyclopedia. It's essentially an anecdote. A footnote, at best. But it's human interest, and it's fascinating, if inconsequential. And because of the collaborative power of Wikipedia, we can have a multi-paragraph informative article like this, maintained by regular people, down to the current contents of the candy desk, with links to the articles for the specific candies... Of course, we all already know this about Wikipedia, we've known it since the start. But sometimes I forget this feeling, and then I'm especially struck by it when I read an articles like this.

clubm8 8y ago
When space is free (well, very cheap) it makes sense to document these things if they bring joy to the reader.
- tptacek 8y ago
  It's not free! Every article in Wikipedia imposes a human cost on the editors and maintainers of the project. That cost dwarfs any conceivable storage cost now, at the inception of the project, or even in the decade before the project. (This is a great article and does illustrate something Wikipedia does better than conventional encyclopedias. At this point, I think the comparison to Britannica has become unhelpful; WP is sui generis, and one of the great (maybe the great) intellectual accomplishments of the Internet.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    I think you're missing the point, though. This article simply couldn't be justified in a printed encyclopedia - there's a finite number of pages you can reasonably expect people to shell out for (and Britannia used to be a status symbol even at that limited number; being able to personally own it meant you were quite well off financially, as it cost well over a thousand dollars).
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      Yes, the limit in Wikipedia is not number of physical pages... but to be honest that wasn’t really the biggest limit for Britannica either, just the most obvious one. The biggest limit is author/editor time. The Internet certainly provides a bigger pool of editors (and a lower implied quality floor) than a centralized company hiring authors/editors with a few people in charge of the organizing, the way print encyclopedias did. But even with a completely decentralized worldwide editor corps, there is still some amount of organizational overhead which continues growing as the project grows, and there is still a finite amount of author/editor attention. Wikipedia can’t in practice have an article about literally anything.
      - thebooktocome 8y ago
        At least, that's the way it's been since the deletionists won in 2007.
        bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
        [WP:NOTPAPER](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTPAPER https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTPAPE...). > Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. It basically says if the content is encyclopedic by nature, meets guide of general notability, well-written to meet the quality standard, it has its full rights to be included, and niche topics are usually deleted. However, if it has been mentioned multiple times in books or by the media, even as anecdotes, it can be included, so it depends...
        thebooktocome 8y ago
        This is what the policy says, but this is not how the policy is implemented. https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
majewsky 8y ago
Also, TIL that the Capitol has its own subway system.
peterwwillis 8y ago
Something funny about Wikipedia is how it mirrors the way humans spread knowledge. Look for the same article in Wikipedia in different languages, and you find different information. Even further, many articles (such as this one) simply don't exist in other languages. So good luck on bumping into information on the US Senate Candy Desk if you're only searching the French Wikipedia. Likewise, good luck bumping into an anecdotal article about France if you're only searching the English Wikipedia.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
  > how it mirrors the way humans spread knowledge. Look for the same article in Wikipedia in different languages [...] And I add two additional points here. 1. English is the gateway language. Once an article has an English version, it is more likely to be translated into other languages. 2. Since this article is now being listed on the homepage of Hacker News, it's more likely to attract attention of a Wikipedia contributor who speaks another language, and eventually leads to a new translation. Really interesting by itself.
matt4077 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone_Merkel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone_Merkel
wyldfire 8y ago
> But it's human interest, and it's fascinating, if inconsequential. Lol be careful or you'll invoke a non-notability deletion.
- cooper12 8y ago
  Sigh, notability in the Wikipedia sense [0] does not mean the same thing as "notable", as in "note-worthy". Rather, it has to do with whether the topic has had significant coverage in reliable sources. The OP article is well-referenced and is in no danger of being deleted. I guess misconceptions like this is one reason not to overload terms that might have other assumed meanings. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
  - wyldfire 8y ago
    Fair enough, I did not know the distinction. But I intended the reply to be tongue-in-cheek.

clubm8 8y ago

When space is free (well, very cheap) it makes sense to document these things if they bring joy to the reader.

tptacek 8y ago
It's not free! Every article in Wikipedia imposes a human cost on the editors and maintainers of the project. That cost dwarfs any conceivable storage cost now, at the inception of the project, or even in the decade before the project. (This is a great article and does illustrate something Wikipedia does better than conventional encyclopedias. At this point, I think the comparison to Britannica has become unhelpful; WP is sui generis, and one of the great (maybe the great) intellectual accomplishments of the Internet.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  I think you're missing the point, though. This article simply couldn't be justified in a printed encyclopedia - there's a finite number of pages you can reasonably expect people to shell out for (and Britannia used to be a status symbol even at that limited number; being able to personally own it meant you were quite well off financially, as it cost well over a thousand dollars).
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    Yes, the limit in Wikipedia is not number of physical pages... but to be honest that wasn’t really the biggest limit for Britannica either, just the most obvious one. The biggest limit is author/editor time. The Internet certainly provides a bigger pool of editors (and a lower implied quality floor) than a centralized company hiring authors/editors with a few people in charge of the organizing, the way print encyclopedias did. But even with a completely decentralized worldwide editor corps, there is still some amount of organizational overhead which continues growing as the project grows, and there is still a finite amount of author/editor attention. Wikipedia can’t in practice have an article about literally anything.
    - thebooktocome 8y ago
      At least, that's the way it's been since the deletionists won in 2007.
      - bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
        [WP:NOTPAPER](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTPAPER https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTPAPE...). > Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. It basically says if the content is encyclopedic by nature, meets guide of general notability, well-written to meet the quality standard, it has its full rights to be included, and niche topics are usually deleted. However, if it has been mentioned multiple times in books or by the media, even as anecdotes, it can be included, so it depends...
        thebooktocome 8y ago
        This is what the policy says, but this is not how the policy is implemented. https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism

majewsky 8y ago

Also, TIL that the Capitol has its own subway system.

peterwwillis 8y ago

Something funny about Wikipedia is how it mirrors the way humans spread knowledge. Look for the same article in Wikipedia in different languages, and you find different information. Even further, many articles (such as this one) simply don't exist in other languages. So good luck on bumping into information on the US Senate Candy Desk if you're only searching the French Wikipedia. Likewise, good luck bumping into an anecdotal article about France if you're only searching the English Wikipedia.

bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y ago
> how it mirrors the way humans spread knowledge. Look for the same article in Wikipedia in different languages [...] And I add two additional points here. 1. English is the gateway language. Once an article has an English version, it is more likely to be translated into other languages. 2. Since this article is now being listed on the homepage of Hacker News, it's more likely to attract attention of a Wikipedia contributor who speaks another language, and eventually leads to a new translation. Really interesting by itself.

matt4077 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone_Merkel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone_Merkel

wyldfire 8y ago

> But it's human interest, and it's fascinating, if inconsequential. Lol be careful or you'll invoke a non-notability deletion.

cooper12 8y ago
Sigh, notability in the Wikipedia sense [0] does not mean the same thing as "notable", as in "note-worthy". Rather, it has to do with whether the topic has had significant coverage in reliable sources. The OP article is well-referenced and is in no danger of being deleted. I guess misconceptions like this is one reason not to overload terms that might have other assumed meanings. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
- wyldfire 8y ago
  Fair enough, I did not know the distinction. But I intended the reply to be tongue-in-cheek.