You shouldn’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia

I think Wikipedia is amazing not just because of the amazing opportunity for cooperative knowledge sharing, but because of the impossibly wide variety of things people will write about. I’m hoping the administrators keep some kind of statistical records about the site’s growth and its contribution levels to various sections, if only to map out some kind of human-interest-indicator-map-thing.

Of course, I do sometimes think that there are probably more than a few people who are desperate to contribute an article, just so they can say (like I used to) “That Wikipedia page on NEWater? I wrote that.” Sadly, my own contributions about Singapore’s potable water systems are long gone, overwritten by people more knowledgeable than me.

A possible evolutionary countermeasure is, of course, to provide plausible “information” on something that doesn’t exist, and thus become the only “expert” contributor, ensuring that the article will in all probability never get overwritten, living on in Wikipedia forever.

Example? Taken from the page on Breast Expansion Fetish.

breast-enlargement.PNG

Or how about plushopilia?

Plushophilia

There’s a lot more where that came from. See the Wikipedia page here. Most of the listed paraphilias seem pretty normal (word used with trepidation) and recognizable, but some are sure to raise an eyebrow.

paraphilia.PNG

Not that I think it’s entirely impossible for people to be sexually attracted to balloons, but applying Occam’s Razor, I’m tempted to say it’s more the result of Wikipedia survival tactics. Sheesh. If I were doing sociology, I’d love to do a paper or something on Wikipedia and Evolution or something. It’s so ripe for study.

(Aside: is it just me, or does the Google Christmas logo look like it’s just been in a really messy Bukake?)

Google Christmas

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *