Akahele has a new post ready for you. You may not be completely familiar with Wikipedia and how to properly read it; or, you may be a skilled veteran, but could always use a refresher course. In any event, this has been my favorite article by Anthony thus far. Without a doubt, I'll never take less than three-and-a-half hours to "read" a Wikipedia article again!

How to read Wikipedia
- by Anthony DiPierro

Did anybody "get it"? Was it not as funny as I thought it was?

"Wik-uh-pee-de-uh make brain hurt. Funny take time."

I certainly agree that it can be helpful to know about an article when trying to determine how much to trust it, for example. That said, any humor in the piece was certainly lost on me. "Oh my God, Bill Gates was edited by a Bad Userâ„¢." Tidbits like this added no insight or value to the piece; they simply make the author's motives appear impure.

I think the satirical bit was how, if you add it all up, Anthony basically recommends spending twenty to thirty hours reading a Wikipedia article.

Good post, which both makes a satirical point and provides useful advice to people wishing to derive utility from Wikipedia articles (to some extent those are contradictory objectives, but the post seems to have succeeded at both).

I think that's the sign of a successful troll. Thanks.



My motive was completely pure, it just wasn't what you expected it to be.

In any case, believe it or not, I ran across the User:Gazpacho tidbit by accident while creating the article (i.e. I chose to use the top contributor to [[Bill Gates]] as my example before knowing anything about that user).



Thanks. "Better than David Gerard's parody piece" was all I was shooting for.

Take that DG. I'll always be a better troll than you.