explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:557: Students

2019-08-01T08:56:40Z

Iyhuvgug61: +1

The project dream is so true. To this day I have dreams where I signed up but didn't even attend a class that was necessary for graduation. I dream that I'll likely fail the course and need to attend one more semester. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There are studies that people successfully passing tests/exams have this dreams way more often. Often also something in the lines of every achievement after college would be nullified when it came out that the testresult was not correct. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.230.221|108.162.230.221]] 10:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the dream of fighting the green ranger (The original one) in Crisco once, it was weird, and I do not know how or why I had that dream.
-Swaphero[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 02:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I graduated 15 years ago and I still have annoying dreams that I can't remember which locker was mine. - [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.58|162.158.214.58]] 19:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Same here. Graduated long ago, still have this nightmare from time to time. (not the "green monster" though) Why? Are we really part of a computer game? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.4|162.158.63.4]] 03:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I have the same dream, graduated 8 years ago. I've self-diagnosed thi

I have this dream where I'm stranded on a random planet and start counting rocks and placing them in neat little piles. By the time I wake up, I've normally got over half a million rocks.
:How long do you sleep? --[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 02:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I have the same dream, at least 4-5 times a year, graduated 8 years ago. I've thought this has something to do with procrastinating and not dealing with something I feel like I should be dealing with (comes up more often when this is the case).--[[User:Iyhuvgug61|Iyhuvgug61]] ([[User talk:Iyhuvgug61|talk]]) 08:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:545: Neutrality Schmeutrality

2019-08-01T08:25:31Z

Iyhuvgug61: /* Perhaps the title text is self-referential? */

What if instead of word count, it was determined by letter count. so insert a word with multiple spellings like “colour/color” and people will repeatedly edit and re-edit the word over and over until the servers crashed ? --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ParadoX
::Yea, it doesn’t matter either way; let the sheeple have fun herding cats while I camp in the banquet for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction_sniping last snipe].[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the idea is that the edit and re-editing would overload the servers without it being a change to a single word. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

:If Wikipedia’s aim is to take a neutral stance, and Wikipedia is being exploited to determine which of two opposing sides receives a donation, Wikipedia’s correct action would be to prevent the article from being written, thus enforcing Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::If there is no article, the word count is 0, which is an even number, so it goes to pro-choice activists. :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.209|173.245.51.209]] 13:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
:::No: if there is no article, the word count is undefined. You cannot determine anything about something that doesn’t exist. [[User:Rvighne|rvighne]] ([[User talk:Rvighne|talk]]) 04:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: if the article existed, it would be deleted as not notable. [[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) 00:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lock the article mid-edit leaving a single word unfinished. That becomes a fraction of a word which is neit- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)BK

What the hell is Schmeutrality? ''Schmeu…'' looks very German to me, but I still have no idea about its meaning on this portmanteau. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
:An old (read “pre-internet”) meme, probably Yiddish, is to say a word, then replace the initial consonant cluster of the word with “schm” (read “shm”) and say the altered word. This denotes an active apathy toward the subject, that is, the speaker is deliberately disregarding the authority (for that is usually what is “regarded”) and doing their own thing, as Black Hat is doing here, disregarding the authority of Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality. If you were skipping school, and wanted to justify, you would say “School, Schmool”. If you were disobeying you’re Aunt Josephine, you would justify, to a confidant, “Aunt Josephine, Schmaunt Josephine”. Other examples include “God, Schmod”, “Copyrights, Schmopyrights” and “Feds, Schmeds”.
:While I was familiar with this before him, Lemony Snicket’s third book of a Series of Unfortunate Events, ''The Wide Window’', explains it better than I do.
:Anonymous 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Lock the article just before the deadline, flip a coin in a meeting of lots of Wikipedians, broadcast live. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.47|108.162.228.47]] 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another idea. Include a fragment of a word at the end of the article and full-protect it indefinitley. [[User:Jake|Jake]] ([[User talk:Jake|talk]]) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, what about hyphenated compound words where it can be debated whether or not they’re a single word? [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Black Hat is avoiding donating the money because he knows there will be a constant edit war. I am not quite sure enough to put it in the explanation. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 10:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What if another speaker at the event (or afterwards) were to donate $1,000,000 at the same time as Black Hat, but the other way round based on the word count? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.60|141.101.98.60]] 12:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

…and 0’s an even number 😆[[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 04:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if the article wasn’t created or was deleted, it would remain true that Wikipedia couldn’t cover it neutrally, because it wouldn’t be covered. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.178|108.162.215.178]] 19:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a way to circumvent notability: If the article’s wordcount is neither odd nor even (i.e. zero, i.e. the article does not exist) then the money will be given to a terrorist group or neo-nazis or some other concievably evil group. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.237|162.158.178.237]] 09:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

0 is even [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.214|162.158.75.214]] 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is actually unclear, since word counts may count or not the title of the article, subsection titles, infoboxes. I’d go with paragraph count. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.226.124|198.41.226.124]] 20:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia could just create two articles for the event, one for each side. That’d be neutral. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.226.34|198.41.226.34]] 20:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

== Word count in the comic ==

The title text & black hat's speech word counts are both even, which could reflect Randall's opinion on the topic (pro-choice), considering [[:Category:Self-reference|self-reference]] is a common theme.
Of course, this could be just a coincidence.
--[[User:Iyhuvgug61|Iyhuvgug61]] ([[User talk:Iyhuvgug61|talk]]) 08:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:545: Neutrality Schmeutrality

2019-08-01T08:14:37Z

Iyhuvgug61: /* Perhaps the title text is self-referential? */ new section

What if instead of word count, it was determined by letter count. so insert a word with multiple spellings like “colour/color” and people will repeatedly edit and re-edit the word over and over until the servers crashed ? --[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ParadoX
::Yea, it doesn’t matter either way; let the sheeple have fun herding cats while I camp in the banquet for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction_sniping last snipe].[[User:Pacerier|Pacerier]] ([[User talk:Pacerier|talk]]) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the idea is that the edit and re-editing would overload the servers without it being a change to a single word. [[User:Theo|Theo]] ([[User talk:Theo|talk]]) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

:If Wikipedia’s aim is to take a neutral stance, and Wikipedia is being exploited to determine which of two opposing sides receives a donation, Wikipedia’s correct action would be to prevent the article from being written, thus enforcing Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality. [[User:Thokling|Thokling]] ([[User talk:Thokling|talk]]) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
::If there is no article, the word count is 0, which is an even number, so it goes to pro-choice activists. :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.209|173.245.51.209]] 13:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
:::No: if there is no article, the word count is undefined. You cannot determine anything about something that doesn’t exist. [[User:Rvighne|rvighne]] ([[User talk:Rvighne|talk]]) 04:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::: if the article existed, it would be deleted as not notable. [[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) 00:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lock the article mid-edit leaving a single word unfinished. That becomes a fraction of a word which is neit- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.217|173.245.55.217]] 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)BK

What the hell is Schmeutrality? ''Schmeu…'' looks very German to me, but I still have no idea about its meaning on this portmanteau. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
:An old (read “pre-internet”) meme, probably Yiddish, is to say a word, then replace the initial consonant cluster of the word with “schm” (read “shm”) and say the altered word. This denotes an active apathy toward the subject, that is, the speaker is deliberately disregarding the authority (for that is usually what is “regarded”) and doing their own thing, as Black Hat is doing here, disregarding the authority of Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality. If you were skipping school, and wanted to justify, you would say “School, Schmool”. If you were disobeying you’re Aunt Josephine, you would justify, to a confidant, “Aunt Josephine, Schmaunt Josephine”. Other examples include “God, Schmod”, “Copyrights, Schmopyrights” and “Feds, Schmeds”.
:While I was familiar with this before him, Lemony Snicket’s third book of a Series of Unfortunate Events, ''The Wide Window’', explains it better than I do.
:Anonymous 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Lock the article just before the deadline, flip a coin in a meeting of lots of Wikipedians, broadcast live. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.47|108.162.228.47]] 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another idea. Include a fragment of a word at the end of the article and full-protect it indefinitley. [[User:Jake|Jake]] ([[User talk:Jake|talk]]) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, what about hyphenated compound words where it can be debated whether or not they’re a single word? [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Black Hat is avoiding donating the money because he knows there will be a constant edit war. I am not quite sure enough to put it in the explanation. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 10:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What if another speaker at the event (or afterwards) were to donate $1,000,000 at the same time as Black Hat, but the other way round based on the word count? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.60|141.101.98.60]] 12:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

…and 0’s an even number 😆[[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 04:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if the article wasn’t created or was deleted, it would remain true that Wikipedia couldn’t cover it neutrally, because it wouldn’t be covered. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.178|108.162.215.178]] 19:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a way to circumvent notability: If the article’s wordcount is neither odd nor even (i.e. zero, i.e. the article does not exist) then the money will be given to a terrorist group or neo-nazis or some other concievably evil group. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.237|162.158.178.237]] 09:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

0 is even [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.214|162.158.75.214]] 19:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This is actually unclear, since word counts may count or not the title of the article, subsection titles, infoboxes. I’d go with paragraph count. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.226.124|198.41.226.124]] 20:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia could just create two articles for the event, one for each side. That’d be neutral. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.226.34|198.41.226.34]] 20:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

== Perhaps the title text is self-referential? ==

The title text word count is even, which could reflect Randall's opinion on the topic (pro-choice), considering [[:Category:Self-reference|self-reference]] is a common theme.