An ode to Wikipedia

When we began our research, the first writing advice given by my supervisor then was that we should not quote/cite from Wikipedia. His reason was that since it was something where anyone could edit the content, the authenticity was questionable. That was impressed upon my mind and I gave the same advice to my students. I altered my stand a bit and told them that they could start off reading their basic information from Wikipedia and then follow it up with the references given on the same page towards the end. Of course they love their Wikipedia and the depth of information it offers and I cannot but accept that fact. Wikipedia is easy, basic and comprehensive and quite useful for a beginner who is seeking information on any topic. But the copyleft philosophy of the website is something that is quite impressive - free for all to edit, contribute and use.

Piqued by curiosity on being a Wikipedia editor, I signed to become an editor and voila! the process was quite an easy one. I began editing content and then realised that one cannot be frivolous about the additions and deletions. Since the content is out there for everyone to read and cite, there is a greater responsibility associated with the same, I concurred.

But this present post is a dedication of love to Wikipedia for certain pet peeves of mine. Here it goes: In the recent years, say five years or so, the availability of films on various platforms has been mushrooming at a quicker pace and these have enabled people like me to access many films which were hitherto inaccessible. While I watch these films, mid-way I pause and quickly change the tab to Wikipedia and read the entire plot of the film. I know that this dampens the thrill of watching the plot unfold but not for me. I know the plot but like to watch how it has been handled by the director. And here, Wikipedia is something that succinctly provides the content for me - Not IMDB which is limited in content but good in rating; not the reviews which are mostly one-sided and not useful to know the storyline. But Wikipedia gives out the spoilers and the other sundry stuff which is quite interesting to read and is a separate thrill altogether.

Well, so I am armed with the exact storyline possessing full knowledge of the killer, the twists and other giveaways and I watch the film - with the same intensity if I were watching without knowing the storyline. And , Wikipedia has always been my faithful ally except in some cases where the information furnished is short and just a peek into the plot.

Well, Wikipedia is definitely the go-to place for me when it comes to reading film's storylines and spoilers.

Raising a toast to the humble Wiki and here's to many more Spoiler Alerts!

All images are from Wikipedia - the copyleft website!

Don't judge a person by the book he/she carries!

It's fine if we judge a book by its cover but the greatest folly would be to judge a person by the book she/he carries. Many of them carry books as an adornment that enhances their intellectual value. I have seen this especially in students who will go an extra mile to carry that copy of Heisenberg or Thoreau just for kicks and if one keenly observes the book will be carried in such a way that the name of the book and its author is clearly visible. Well, if one proceeds to ask them about the book, crisp sentences straight from Wikipedia will bewilder and amuse you.

Recently while on a train journey, a young man dug out a volume of a popular author's book and tried to start reading but at the second odd page, fell asleep. After that the book was neatly kept on the food tray throughout the 20 odd hours without even being touched. The man in question, of course was later wide awake and also enjoying a film on the Laptop of a fellow passenger. Okay, I'm not judging but then a book does increase the value of the individual who carries one. Now, you have to agree that if there are two persons and one has a book and the other has a computer, if you are like me, you would naturally like to start a conversation with the one who has the book. Books are great conversation starters and I am proud to say that one such book gave me a pen-friend to whom I've been writing for ten odd years now. Now before you get ideas, he is an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic church. The book in question was Antony de Mello's The Song of the Bird. I asked him what he was reading and then read a page, borrowed the book and now I even own a copy of the same book. Looking at that feeble man in the train, I could never decipher that he was such a treasure chest of knowledge. See so much for my judgment.

Reading and books have certainly become synonymous with something elite and erudite and hence many would love to be part of the circle. Please don't imagine that I am placing people who read books and certain authors on a pedestal. I also know that many a well-read individual can be an absolutely downright rascal as well. Books and knowledge and authors offer so many brownie points to people like us that the world seems different when in the company of a beautiful book. And moving around with such beauties sure increase the worth of the one carrying it. Now you understand why some deliberately walk around with Shakespeare and Darwin.

Well, have you seen books as exterior adornments meant to be showing off YOU? What are your thoughts on this?

Image 1: Internet
Image 2: Internet

Post Script: Now, don't ask me about people who do carry books but trashy ones such as  . . . And I think they are way better than those who do not read at all. Harsh, right?

When I was trolled! Please excuse me Tolkien!

To be honest, I knew about the existence of the word 'troll' only after reading The Lord of the Rings by     J. R. R. Tolkien. The other times I came across this word was in Facebook where there are humourous pictures from a group/individual called 'Troll.' Well, I was in for a surprise when I received a text message from a dear friend saying that I had been trolled. "What the heck?" was my response as I was only thinking of Tolkien's trolls. I was not some nasty and stupid troll. Chances that I may be one cannot be dismissed but from middle-earth, certainly not! And then I realised that I was not a troll but there was someone who had trolled me. Get the drift?!

Cave Troll 

So what does this word 'Troll' mean? When I googled this word, I was dumb-folded to find that our Wiki has a page devoted to the word! Alas! my limited and ancient vocabulary did not register this word. I read on with interest and discovered many amusing facts about the word which is touted as 'internet lingo.' I have been using the internet for quite some time now but have never read about the 'troll' word. But what the internet does not have is the word, 'trolled' and so I am wondering if I can add to the already existing usage of the word. The Urban Dictionary defines the word thus:

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling doe not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; its pisses people off, but it's lame.

But what is interesting to me is whether I could connect the Urban Dictionary's definition of 'troll' to Tolkien's troll. Again referring to Wiki, Tolkien's troll is described thus:

Trolls are large humanoids of great strength and poor intellect.

Well, I definitely do see an obvious connection here ;) I will not go into details as you can gather them for yourselves.

You must be wondering as to what prompted this post. The title says it all, I was trolled and the one who trolled me was not a humanoid but a human who I believe, possesses great strength but poor intellect, in the norm of Tolkien's trolls but not from Middle Earth!

A new word is always useful, isn't it?


Image 1: Tolkien's Cave Troll - Internet
Image 2: Wiki Troll-face - Internet