> Let's Play

CrazyGameOfPoker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_play

Apparently 3 years or so ago, some guys started playing games for people on the internet. Then people started copying them, if you can fight through the lead paragraph.

QUOTE

A Let's Play (often abbreviated LP) is a documented playthrough of something that, at the very minimum, resembles a game; how the author chooses to present it is incredibly varied. Some use screen shots, some use video. Some let the readers make decisions, others plow on through and use a thread for discussion. Some are serious and informative while others humorous, and yet others are parodies.

The grammar is lacking, there's no references or sources at all. Why do they even have an article on this subject at all?

Law

QUOTE(CrazyGameOfPoker @ Fri 11th September 2009, 1:47pm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_play

Apparently 3 years or so ago, some guys started playing games for people on the internet. Then people started copying them, if you can fight through the lead paragraph.

QUOTE

A Let's Play (often abbreviated LP) is a documented playthrough of something that, at the very minimum, resembles a game; how the author chooses to present it is incredibly varied. Some use screen shots, some use video. Some let the readers make decisions, others plow on through and use a thread for discussion. Some are serious and informative while others humorous, and yet others are parodies.

The grammar is lacking, there's no references or sources at all. Why do they even have an article on this subject at all?

I know less about the subject after reading the article. Is that possible?

Somey

QUOTE(Law @ Fri 11th September 2009, 5:55pm)

I know less about the subject after reading the article. Is that possible?

That's not only possible, it's quite common when a simple term is expanded on Wikipedia into a bloated, ridiculously overcomplicated attempt at making a non-concept seem "notable" enough for its own article.

The Urban Dictionary definition is actually better-written, in addition to being more succinct and more accurate. It's kind of sad when you think about it, seeing as how a good 40 percent of the Urban Dictionary is devoted to euphemisms for "buttsecks."

dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 12th September 2009, 7:05am)

QUOTE(Law @ Fri 11th September 2009, 5:55pm)

I know less about the subject after reading the article. Is that possible?

That's not only possible, it's quite common when a simple term is expanded on Wikipedia into a bloated, ridiculously overcomplicated attempt at making a non-concept seem "notable" enough for its own article.

When the C-word came up at some point, my first thought was, hmm, how did they retrofit all that gynaecology into a word used by teenagers with the vaguest grasp (or is that rarest grasp?) of female anatomy?

Law

QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 11th September 2009, 11:05pm)

QUOTE(Law @ Fri 11th September 2009, 5:55pm)

I know less about the subject after reading the article. Is that possible?

That's not only possible, it's quite common when a simple term is expanded on Wikipedia into a bloated, ridiculously overcomplicated attempt at making a non-concept seem "notable" enough for its own article.

The Urban Dictionary definition is actually better-written, in addition to being more succinct and more accurate. It's kind of sad when you think about it, seeing as how a good 40 percent of the Urban Dictionary is devoted to euphemisms for "buttsecks."

You are exactly right about UD. I read the article twice on WP, and felt like an idiot. The UD definition was so simple and precise. I was going to ask why Wikipedians feel the need to over-complicate things, but um yeah. I'll leave that one alone.

Apathetic

If there's one thing I continue to love about Wikipedia, it's that I learn something new every day...

Rhindle

QUOTE(Law @ Sat 12th September 2009, 2:09pm)

You are exactly right about UD. I read the article twice on WP, and felt like an idiot. The UD definition was so simple and precise. I was going to ask why Wikipedians feel the need to over-complicate things, but um yeah. I'll leave that one alone.

I believe the "Wet Floor sign" hoax was a great example in mocking this WP phenomenon.

A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Sat 12th September 2009, 5:55pm)

If there's one thing I continue to love about Wikipedia, it's that I learn something new every day...

You're on Wikipedia every day? Fuzzy head, we need to get you off the computer and out into the wide, wild, beautiful world.

Apathetic

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 14th September 2009, 8:41am)

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Sat 12th September 2009, 5:55pm)

If there's one thing I continue to love about Wikipedia, it's that I learn something new every day...

You're on Wikipedia every day? Fuzzy head, we need to get you off the computer and out into the wide, wild, beautiful world.

With the advent of modern smartphones, you can have the best of both worlds! =)

A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Mon 14th September 2009, 9:01am)

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Mon 14th September 2009, 8:41am)

QUOTE(Apathetic @ Sat 12th September 2009, 5:55pm)

If there's one thing I continue to love about Wikipedia, it's that I learn something new every day...

You're on Wikipedia every day? Fuzzy head, we need to get you off the computer and out into the wide, wild, beautiful world.

With the advent of modern smartphones, you can have the best of both worlds! =)

That's not the best of both worlds! That's taking a Wikipedia addiction outdoors!

We need to have a very serious man-to-horse talk about this!