more fucking wikipedia jokes? What the fuck. what the FUCK, RANDALL.
i'm going to say this slowly.
i'm going to say this loudly.
i'm going to say this exactly one time so i want you to listen closely.
this is just you and me randall.
one dude who likes comedy to another.
ready?
i'm going to say this slowly.
i'm going to say this loudly.
i'm going to say this exactly one time so i want you to listen closely.
this is just you and me randall.
one dude who likes comedy to another.
ready?
GET.
SOME.
NEW.
FUCKING.
MATERIAL.
SOME.
NEW.
FUCKING.
MATERIAL.
That will be all.
SERIOUSLY I saw the word "Wikipedia" and was like oh man this is going to be sucky and OH HO I WAS RIGHT
ReplyDeleteBad grammar alert! I believe he has forgotten the word "in" in his alt-text.
Also pat on the back for a quick post!
I think for Wednesday, the people should be speaking french and the caption could just swap out "simple" with "fr."
ReplyDeleteAlso, fuck you Randall for ragging on math professors. Obviously you are a god of higher level math if and you get to look down upon those lowly math professors and smile at their inability to be as awesome as you.
More complaints about Wikipedia jokes?
ReplyDeletei'm going to say this slowly.
i'm going to say this loudly.
i'm going to say this exactly one time so i want you to listen closely.
this is just you, me and your terrible grasp of the English language.
one dude who likes comedy to another.
ready?
GET.
SOME.
NEW.
FUCKING.
MATERIAL.
Dude, my whole deal is saying why randall sucks. If he sucks for the same reason over and over, yeah, I'm going to call him on it for the same reasons. Anyway I didn't really write anything here I just let last week's commentary fill in again, because it's the same problems.
ReplyDeleteLast time you listed more (in your opinion) good wikipedia jokes than there are (in your opinion) bad wikipedia jokes in xkcd. Are you sure you have a problem with wikipedia as a source for humor? A friendly suggestion, maybe you should criticize the joke instead of the category?
ReplyDeletexkcd still has jokes?
ReplyDeleteTo elaborate on that: http://img6.imageshack.us/my.php?image=simpler.png
ReplyDeleteANOTHER Wikipedia joke?
ReplyDeleteThis is pathetic.
Get over it, Munroe.
Also, are people defending him?
Gosh, the duckloopers must have found here.
When I saw this comic, I was like "Ha ha. I *know*! This is *exactly* how I feel when I read the Simple English Wikipedia!
ReplyDeleteOh wait. No I didn't. I said "What's the Simple English Wikipedia?" Then I looked it up and read its reasons for existing. And then I said "Huh."
Randall Munroe could've achieved exactly the same effect by posting the words "Hey guys, did you know that there is a Simple English Wikipedia?" I would've said "Really?" and looked it up and then said "Huh".
So I don't think that it does sufficient injustice to say only that this is "another Wikipedia joke". Because it's not that. It's not anything closely resembling a joke. It's more of a "Hey, check out this thing that isn't very interesting".
two wiki jokes in the last three comics? for shame, randall.
ReplyDeletewhat, did he really think no one was going to notice? come on. that's just in poor form.
fail.
As has been stated, there is no joke here. There is an observation.
ReplyDeleteOBSERVATIONS ARE NOT JOKES RANDALL
The term "observational humor" requires more than just observing something, Randy - you must then add humor to it.
You forgot the second part.
Dude! Sweet!
ReplyDeleteSimple Wikipedia is rather hilarious. This comic is basically saying: "See this funny thing? It's funny!" without adding any humor of it's own. I could probably make a comic which would just link to funny youtube videos and have stick figures rolling on the floor laughing. I bet it would be popular.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think I've figured out one of Randy's problems. Most notably, he's a hacker/internet person first, and a webcomic artist eighth.
ReplyDeleteI first noticed it on his 'people hacking' comics, eg the latest 'donating to pro choice/pro life' comic. He's trying to hack people--game theory etc. etc., but he isn't making very good or very clever observations about it anymore. And he isn't really getting any negative feedback, so he has no reason to improve.
Similar with the internet. This comic wouldn't suck if it wasn't a comic. If it was just Randy and his friend sitting in a room, and Randy was like 'man, have you heard of Simple Wikipedia?' and then made the same joke upon an affirmative reaction, it'd be mildly humorous, though certainly nothing memorable or noteworthy.
But he's made it into a comic. He's saying 'hey, this is good enough for thousands of people to see and laugh at and buy prints of.' And it's not. Randy is producing 3-am-at-the-IHOP quality humor. And I love 3 am at the IHOP--but it's all about the context and atmosphere of the evening. You can't remove the context and atmosphere from it.
Since people are naturally more apt to be critical of something presented in a critical light, and doing wikipedia jokes over and over gives you nothing to rant about, this might actually be part of his plan to destroy your site.
ReplyDeleteLe gasp!
ReplyDeleteNo, no more Wiki. It's not funny. it never was.
Rob I'm pretty sure Randall has said that when he wants inspiration for comics he goes to IHOP at 3 in the morning. Is that what you were referring to? Or are you just a GENIUS?
ReplyDeleteAlso: Am I the only one who thinks that this comic would have been better without the caption?
I think 90% of his comics would be better without the captions. For a supposed smart-people comic, he sure treats his audience like idiots.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Randall DO a 3am iHOP comic?
ReplyDeleteJust curious, but has anyone addressed the gross grammatical error in the phrase "we'd be much better shape academically." He fails to put in the the preposition "in" to make the phrase not look like that of an educated person, but rather that of a preschooler just learn how to spell. Maybe that is why Randall isn't funny, his ability to check something before he posts it is non-existent; otherwise he would check his comic find that only a chimp on cocaine would laugh at it and write something that would be at the very minimum on par with a comic like, Least I Could Do.
ReplyDeleteCarl: I may have cryptamnesia'd that but really the idea mostly just came from the fact that what initially drew me to Randy's comics is that he is in many ways just One Of Us. He's a new wave geek. Late-night conversations at diners have always been a staple, both of my social life and my creative life. That's where things happen.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, when I get an idea at 3 am over bad coffee at my diner or cafe of choice, I don't just transcribe it verbatim (unless I just tweet it, which is an appropriate vessel for such things). I take it and I play with it. I put it in different contexts, I pull on the loose strings, I try to stretch it or incorporate it in new, interesting places. Or, more likely, I try to capture the entire experience on paper.
Incidentally, IHOP is kind of my least favorite place for such things, but it's the only late-night establishment in Cambridge and one of, like, two in all of the Boston metro.
Wait a second, I just realized something. "and now *I* can't stop talking like this"
ReplyDeleteSince when does anyone ask a comic artist for his opinion on F.E.L. Guidance systems?
Latest Cuddlefish! I too read LICD and Randall Munroe indeed pales greatly in comparison the amount of work that goes into that webcomic. And somehow Randy is more of an arrogant prick than he has any right to be, still.
ReplyDeleteAlso, yes, my first comment on this page did note the lack of "in." I considered the possibility that Randy was making a joke, but I think he just sucks.
Ch00f, since the Internet greatness that was known as Randall Munroe hit the web? I have no idea =(
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm surprised that Randy hasn't fixed the alt-text error, he usually fixes things pretty quickly from what I remember.
Choof, you forget that in addition to being the greatest comic mind known to man, the reigning King of Romance and also the world's most brilliant artist, Randy is also a physicist of the highest order. Is there anything that man - nay, demi-god - can't do?
ReplyDeleteYou know that capslock thing I whinged about?
ReplyDeleteJESUS CHRIST THAT IS SO FUCKING DESERVED IN THIS INSTANCE.
Today was the day I finally lost all faith in xkcd.
Kudos for the rapid (and satisfyingly concise) post, btw.
@Ch00f: Man, fuck that noise. Being good at math and being good at communicating are completely independent skills. You need both to teach math -- or rather to teach it well. Some professors are abstruse. Deal with it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you guys (this is endemic) should really stop making the assumption that any character without a hat is actually, literally Randall Munroe. Yes, today's comic can be read that way, but it's entirely unnecessary unless you need one character to act as a receptacle for your boundless rage.
Unwarranted nastiness bedamned, it's poor form, dammit, poor form!
This comic really sucks, but you're all wrong as to why. It's not that it's just another wikipedia joke--wikipedia is a fine source of internet humor, if you are humorous. It's not that it references something no one knows about, since I knew about simple wikipedia and it still sucks. It's not that there's no joke--there is, the joke is in the contrast from what is expected and what is presented, as is true of all humor. The problem, as with most recent xkcds, is the setup.
ReplyDeleteNo one cares about the particle accelerator's tertiary FEL guidance system, so talking about it in a simple rather than complex way is just boring. It makes for a completely one-dimensional comic, with all humor coming from simple.wikipedia.org and none from particle accelerators. Contrast with, say, comic 123, exemplary of old good xkcd, which derives humor from centrifugal force and Bond simultaneously.
xkcd setup quality is declining for the same reason xkcd drawing quality is declining; Randall is getting tired of his strip and just isn't putting as much effort into it (why should he, with all the uncritical love?). There is humor potential here, it just isn't being used.
Wait, so because the joke is about Wikipedia it, by definition, is crap? Your criticism has gone so, so far downhill.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, stop complaining when you and/or other people don't understand jokes. XKCD appeals to a minority of the population of Earth; and within that there will also be people who understand certain jokes alongside those two don't. If every web comic started being so terribly generic to make sure everybody understood the joke, I think you could agree that the degree of potential humour would thus decrease.
I think Randall is jealous that Google hired Scott McCloud to do those comics for Chrome, and is trying to retroactively write the comic guide to Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteThe feed over at LJ is full of cuddlefish who loved this particular comic. I am full of sadness.
ReplyDeleteTobias: imagine, if you will, that I am a writer of comic articles. Imagine further that Carl is writing critical reviews of my articles.
ReplyDeleteImagine that I write an article which deals with Google's creepy cyberpunk nature. Carl writes a detailed review of it, mocking the humor, providing examples of better jokes about Google, and Google's creepy cyberpunk nature in particular. He did a lot of searching and digging things up to produce this!
Now imagine that not a week later I write another one about Google. Carl is presented with two options here. He can either say 'look, you are doing the Google humor wrong' again and link to the same articles and write the same post with some minor changes, or he can say 'GOD WHY DOES HE KEEP TRYING TO TELL THESE JOKES WHEN HE IS UTTERLY SHIT AT IT', throw up his hands, and then say 'okay Rob, you suck at the Google humor, GET SOME NEW MATERIAL.'
Is that why this one is not funny? No. But it is part of a greater trend. Randy's material is stale. He is not good at joking about Wikipedia. He should find some new material.
As for your 'XKCD is a niche comic' comments: nope.
I think Randall has way better things to do than to watch you ranting on and on about his comics. And seriously, I should stop reading your crap, too.
ReplyDeleteAt least Randall makes a living of his comic, which is more than you will ever do with this blog.
Hope you've got a fun time at work.
Frolund: I have two blogs and a web/print comic, and I'm thinking of starting a video blog. I do all of this for free and even foot the bill for domain hosting just because I like giving people stuff to read or laugh at.
ReplyDeleteSince when is a person's prowess measured by how effectively they monitoze their wares? In fact, one can argue that "selling out" and monetizing actually weakens the purity of one's work.
Ahahahaha.
ReplyDeleteOh Frolly. Nobody ever said Randall is reading this and we don't really care! I'd kind of rather he didn't, really, since he's a fameball and fameballs tend to just freak out when they are criticized.
As for making a living! I've got a lot of projects I'll never make a living on. My most recent is a sleep tracker which will eventually have social networking capabilities called yawnlog.com, which will never have a formula to monetize. My other projects-I-have-no-hope-of-making-money-from include a microfiction blog and a personal blog, which, on the aggregate I update once per day--this is just the projects I'm working on, not including the meetings, gatherings, and side work I also do.
I'm not too worried about any of these things making me a living! It'd be lovely to sell my writing, obviously, but I'm not going to use that as a measure of my artistic or personal worth.
Hey Rob, do you know Collin McSwiggen?
ReplyDeleteYes! He was on our ridiculous Valen-time adventure to Funspot in NH.
ReplyDeleteWow, he lives on my floor. He just sent an email out about yawnlog to the hall earlier this week. Small freaking world.
ReplyDeleteI know, right? I am not /entirely/ surprised, as we have a pretty impressive internet mafia. (One day I will run into Randy and he will just punch me in the mouth.)
ReplyDeleteNO.
ReplyDeleteXKCD better not invade my home.
Not simple wikipedia.
I couldn't hack it.
Rob and choof, you AGAIN prove that everyone in the anti-xkcd world is friends EXCEPT ME and dammit I deserve to be in that group! I started the god damn blog!
ReplyDeleteAnyway.
Tobias - The problem is not that the joke is about wikipedia. You should read my post last week, where I detailed all this (and, as Rob pointed out, I didn't feel the need to repeat myself here).
I am a little tired of people who do what Tobias did here: Assume that if I don't like a comic it's because I don't get the joke. I know exactly what the joke is here, and I knew that Simple English wikipedia existed before I read it. I'll admit that I don't know the details of FEL systems but that's not what the joke hinges on. It could have said "Duverget's Theorem" and I would have gotten the joke better than any of you and it would have still sucked.
XKCD is a niche comic: Yep!
ReplyDeletePlus, what's the point of a blog whining about something you don't like, especially if you don't want the person you're criticizing to read it? No improvement comes to that, so it's just bitching in the wind.
XKCD is a niche comic: nope.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the blog: community-building, solidarity.
Honestly I am so fucking tired of people saying xkcd is a niche comic. It was the single most widely-read webcomic in the world last I checked. That is not a niche comic.
ReplyDeleteI think that even if it /were/ a "niche comic," ummm none of us would have started reading xkcd if we weren't in said niche. The fact that it sucks now has nothing to do with whether or not we "get it" because we certainly didn't have a problem "getting it" back then and we don't complain that a particular comic sucks because we don't understand the content.
ReplyDeleteAlso on my list of things that annoy me: people who use the word "whine" to describe it whenever people criticize something they like. We get it, you want to convey your absolute and utter disdain for what goes on at this blog, but it just isn't whining by any definition. Learn what the fucking word means.
ReplyDeleteCalling it bitching is, of course, completely fair.
xkcd is a niche comic, but that niche is 'people who think that liking a niche comic makes them cooler people.' They are like hipsters but without any sort of interesting culture. :(
ReplyDeleteXKCD is a niche comic: maybe!
ReplyDeleteXKCD, as far as I can tell, has drawn a much larger audience than its core niche of computer scientists/physicists (hence the "overrated" epithet). And Randall certainly doesn't limit himself to those topics. He still occasionally draws a comic based on specialized knowledge or niche attitudes. These I will defend viciously and specifically.
Why? Well, mainly because I have a foolish conviction in elevated discourse on the Internet.
This is not actually one of those comics. As Carl points out that the joke does not at all hinge on FEL systems.
@Rob: Stereotypes hurt all of us, Rob, even the cuddlefish... actually, especially the cuddlefish. They don't hurt us as much as knives though, or even a well-thrown brick. So if you must throw something, throw accusations, but not bricks... and maybe not stereotypes; I think that's what I was going for.
ReplyDelete...Also, some would claim that hipsters are "like hipsters, but without any sort of interesting culture."
...of course, those people are going for the low-hanging fruit. Can we just retire the word "hipster" and start stripping all meaning from something else already? I vote for "sharecropper." It will really confuse future historians.
i like hipsters :(
ReplyDeleteI do too. Which is very confusing, because nobody knows who's actually a hipster anymore. It's like how "liberal" became a dirty word in the eighties, or how no one actually knows a real emo kid anymore (they're like leprechauns, but less Irish, and without the gold, or the breakfast cereal).
ReplyDeleteI just assumed you were contributing to the total breakdown of our language. My bad.
No I had a specific reason. I was alluding to the (stereotypical, at least) tendency of hipsters to do things because they're exclusive. Obscure bands, and so on. It was not a very clever allusion though.
ReplyDeleteAnd I want to bring back the emo kids from before they turned into Hot Topic zombie clones. They were cuddly. :(
*facepalm* if I see another wikipedia mention on xkcd, i will scream. Oh wait. there's another one today. *screams*
ReplyDeleteWHAT.
ReplyDeleteDUDE are you serious
ReplyDeleteoh man yes you are
ahhhhhhhh Randy whyyyy
I found this comic amusing, simply because the observed effect of the Simple Wikipedia also happened to me shortly after I discovered it's existence.
ReplyDeleteAs for the whining about Wikipedia jokes, any comic catering to internet nerds is going to be largely dominated by one of the dominant forces of the wild Internets. Namely, wikipedia. And it's less about wikipedia, and more about the legions of obsessive people who stake out ownership of it.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU CAN'T FUCKING STOP
ReplyDeleteIF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD WHINE MEANS DON'T USE IT
GET A NEW INSULT THIS ONE IS LAME
LDJFLSKDJFLKSJDFJ
I do think that there is some inherent humor in the fact that He says that phrase: "We can't put the broken part in the machine. It won't smash the right tiny things together. Then the machine might break." It is essentially very true. It covers all the bases of why you can't put the broken part in the machine. You guys are all worked up about it being another Wikipedia reference that you miss what is arguably the point: That Scientific language is sometimes needlessly complex. He says something in really basic English, and is exactly right. The reference to Simple English Wiki is kind of unnecessary. It's not where the humor is at. It's hinted at by the alt-text. Simple English Wikipedia is not the point of the comic, simple English language itself is. You're focusing on an inessential bit way too much.
ReplyDeleteNo way; the fact that reading simple wikipedia has messed with his mind is the point. Look at the comic - there's no indication that this simple-speaking man is "good" or "right" or helping anyone - just that's he's overly simple. And then the caption explains why, and it's because of simple english wikipedia. Language itself is NOT the point.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm saying is It could have still been funny with essentially the same joke if the reference to Wikipedia had been removed. He DOES seem to be using it as a ploy to appeal to his target audience, but there are a lot of different ways he could have pulled off this joke. He could have had it be, I don't know, maybe some section of the population that says things very simply? Like an autistic person? That's not really funny, but the Idea would be the same, and it wouldn't reference Wikipedia. If Beret man had more continuity, then he might work well. I don't know, I just don't think that the Wikipedia reference is the main part of the joke. It's nonessential to the Idea of the comic. The Idea came out of Wikipedia, but he didn't have to tether the joke to it. I personally think it's funny how many pages on baseball Simple English Wiki has. "A baseball uniform is special clothing worn mostly by people who play the sport 'Baseball'". Ha ha? To each his own, I liked this one.
ReplyDeleteOK, but then you are arguing not that the comic is good as is, but that the idea could have been tweaked and done better. That's fine, I agree with you. I often think the problem in xkcd is not the idea but the execution.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Everybody seemed too fixated on the Wikipedia thing and the "GET SOME NEW FUCKING MATERIAL" that I kind of felt that you missed the point of actually reviewing the comic. I don't often fully agree with your opinions, but when you're definitely right about something, I can see that. I'm an xkcd fan, but not so much that I can't see when something could have been done better.
ReplyDeletethanks for looking at it reasonably.
ReplyDeletethere are plenty of times when I can't really think of something to say. Sometimes I'll write a short post, or complain about something else that this reminds me of, or whatever. In this case I mostly only had something to say about the repetition thing. If you'd like to assume that me not mentioning anything else is implicitly praising it, you can do that.