I want this thread to be a video and audio clearinghouse of any instances of Wikipedians beginning statements or responses to questions with the word "So...". It annoys me.

Sue Gardner, on the Bookshelf Project

Jimmy Wales, on Hayak


Jimmy Wales, on Wikia as "rest of library"

So... what else annoys you? B`

"So I herd you liek Mudkipz..."

So, nothing good on telly tonight in Kohsville?

I used to have a pet peeve about people who would say, "that's so {whatever}" without a qualifying complementary clause. IOW, I'd be fine with "that's so funny I forgot to laugh," but it really bugged me when people would only say, "that's so funny." So funny... why? It's a qualifier, people!

Thankfully, these days I've got a new pet peeve, which I'd better not mention because then everybody will start doing it just to spite me. But it's something I keep hearing in movie and TV dialogue, and it's one of the main reasons why I'm going to cancel my DirecTV account pretty soon and not renew it, like, ever. Until they stop doing it, anyway.

On Wikipedia they use templates to communicate with each other, so what do you expect, right? Standardization of common forms of expression (as opposed to specialized jargon, etc.) is an efficiency measure when your organization gets too large for its own good, but it's also something cults do. In WP's case I wouldn't read too much into it, but it's definitely annoying if you're exposed to it excessively.

Fuck that ! Bring on the mudkips!!!!!!!!!!!!

So...(mey)

Tell me what it is! Tell me what it is! Tell me what it is!

I promise not to do it. EVER! And I'm sure I speak for ALL of us on that. Not a troll in the bunch, I guar-un-tee it!

I'll bet it's one of the following:

"That's besides the point..."

"For all intensive purposes..."

"Hey, can I go with?"

My favorite pet peeve is when some bureaucracy violates Moulton's Law.

So many bees,
So little honey.

Jon

...so many stingers.

"So, um, what I'm going to talk about today..."

A textbook case from Gina Bianchini.

Five responses... three begin with "So..."

Sixty percent.

Okay, I think we have enough data points to begin "Hypothesis Time"!

My hypothesis is that these Web 2.0, crowdsourcing gurus spent so much of the period 1996 to 2003 explaining Internet technology to people (friends, spouses, hottest chick at the technology mixer, potential investors, etc.) who really didn't understand how websites, HTML, and Java worked, they developed this nasty habit of launching every explanation with "So...". In much the same way your small child might ask, "Why do we have both paper money and coin money?", you might begin a response "down to her level" with, "So, imagine you wanted to buy a bicycle that cost 75 dollars..."

The "So..." is an equalizer. A signal to the listener that the speaker realizes you are dumber than they are about a subject, but they're going to try to explain things to you in a friendly, layman's sort of way. The "So..." prepares the listener to try to pay attention, because a folksy assessment is about to come their way, and they just might stand a chance of understanding it.

"Great, thank you. So, democracy..."

09:53

So what are you saying?

I think that "so" is a signpost for an imminent synthesis, and usually precedes "...what you're/I'm saying is..." or "...in other words...". If you insert "so" into your own train of thought, it means you're about to sum up, or explain another way. If you interject it into another's, it signifies you're about to say what they just said in your own words. or voice the conclusion they were reaching. In practice though, it's usually just a way to interrupt so you can say what you want to say.

See what I did there?

"That's a mute point."

"These numbers don't jive".

AND, it means the person hasn't been trained as a trial lawyer. Who tend to say "Now...." when they're pausing stupidly between phrases. And everybody else just says "ahhhhh...."

I think it's more an attention foot-hold than anything. People who begin a (verbal) conversation with no warning eventually will tire of having to stop mid-sentence and repeat themselves every time.

Alice: "I heard you li—"
Bob (blurting loudly): "WHAT?" *

So they tend to avoid this by prefacing such a sentence with "Hey, Bob..." but to avoid sounding too stern/pedantic when Bob is the only one present, it's usually just "Hey..." or "[throat-clearing sound]" or indeed "So..." (then pause up to 2–7 seconds awaiting eye-contact).

Then the same conditioned behavior carries over to other forms of communication which are non-personal, non-interactive, and/or non-ambiguous.




* I know from experience this is bloody-fuck annoying.

"Unsustainable"

It sounded cool for about the first five minutes. Now everyone's using it.

Regarding So..., it just shows informality and lack of respect. The speaker can't be bothered to fully wake up and use complete sentences. It's also a good way to interrupt someone if you get tired of waiting for them to stop talking. An exception would be if you're trying to active listen and just summarizing "so... what you're saying is"...

So, what you're saying is that Wikipedia demonstrates an unsustainable and dysfunctional crowd-sourcing paradigm on teh Intarwebs?

What a great quote! If you don't mind, I'm pulling a Roger Davies/Steve Smith and "borrowing" it for the title of an article I am writing.

Jon gets a big Horsey kiss for that! Mwah! Mwah! Mwah!

So, what you're saying is just a first approximation to my own thought on the subject, the ultimate conclusion that appropriates and subsumes every worthwhile idea you might have ever wound your weary way toward eventually and that I'm about to sum up for you in one brilliantly polished and dazzling epiphany to save you the trouble of thinking for yourself.

∴∑

Jon

And then there's that ditty from "The God-King and I" (Rogers and Hammerstein)

[GOD-KING]
A girl must be like a blossom
With honey for just one man.
A man must be like honey bee
And gather all he can.

To fly from blossom to blossom
A honey bee must be free,
But blossom must not ever fly
From bee to bee to bee.

*waggledances*

Another data point. It's Horsey's gal-pal Nicole Ferraro!

The "So..." comes at 00:05, immediately after the graphic intro.

That's So Raven!

"What - ever!" ← My pet peeve, the size of a capybara.

Is it the rampant overuse of the word "amazing" to describe anything at all that is even slightly good?

Or is it the use of "literally" as a generic intensifier? In the fashion of, "This pizza is literally the best pizza I have ever eaten."

It has to be one of those.

That's awesome.

From another thread, we find a long speech divided into two parts, both kicked off with a big fat "So".

Actually, part I is "Um, yeah, so...":



While part II is "So, uhh...":

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_...ours_2010-10-14

Search: "sgardner> so" (15 results, including "[14:02] <+sgardner> So.")

That's almost pathological, to take the time to type it, in order to collect your thoughts before uttering your message.

I hope that some of next year's $28.3 million budget goes for a Toastmasters workshop or two.

A year or so later, I'm going to ask:

Is it the use of 'literally' when they mean 'metaphorically'? Like in "She was so impatient she was literally climbing the walls waiting" when the woman wasn't climbing the walls at all, she was just pacing the floor?

Indeed!

Mark Liberman, of Language Log, notes that "literally" has been used to signify hyperbole in English writing for at least 200 years. Requiring "literally" to be taken, well, literally, is a modern phenomenon, it seems.

Good point. To insure no misunderstanding, if you literally mean "literally," (and not just metaphorically) you must now write or say "quite literally." And even that is no guarantee that you'll be taken literally. It's a bad case of overuse leading to corruption of an irreplaceable word. Sort of like with the word "unique."

Mods, would it be too much to ask that this thread be made about Wikipedians starting responses/interviews/lectures/presentations with "So..."?

So, nothing good on telly tonight in Kohsville?

(Since we're repeating ourselves at this point).

So.......

Would anyone like to spend some of that time looking for "so....", and instead use that time to
find examples of corruption and incompetence by Sue, Jimbo, and the WMF board of directors?

Here, let me get some of that for you, Eric...

http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/gregory-kohs

Eric, if you're suggesting that any time I spend in my life outside of writing the book that you want published is wasted time, I don't think you're optimizing your skills in encouraging production as the de facto "executive producer" of the project.

More flies with honey than vinegar, etc., and all that.

Sorry, it's just a bit concerning that these threads have a tendency to go off the rails easily.

In fact, thanks for reminding me. I will print out all of your columns.

Back to the subject--it's very difficult for most people to ad-lib coherent monologues, thus we have all those "um"s and "so"s.
All the more reason to be mystified why Wales became a "popular public figure". He's not even a very good public speaker, just adequate.

One of these days I'd like to trap the guest bookers for some TV interview shows, and seriously
find out what the hell inspired them to invite Jimbo. Thinking mostly of morning talk shows,
The Daily Show, and Colbert, but there are many more.

onto a real winner here greg

"So, what I wanted to do today..."


Also, skip ahead to 9:20 to hear Sandra describe Jimmy Wales.

How does that woman get away with it?? No one dares to disagree?

(link)

(link)

(link)

There are quite a few more, but I won't go on.

Confirmation bias is a terrible thing.

So what's your point? Mine was that it's not a Wikipedian thing; Kelly does it, yet is as opposed to the Wikiculture as anyone on Earth.