April Fools Day jumps the shark

Internet overkill claims yet another victim. Remind me again what was so bad about scarcity.

UPDATE: This one, though, is funny.

UPDATE 2: The Wikipedians provide the blow-by-blow. Meticulously.

UPDATE 3: What I particularly like about that Wikipedia entry is the first sentence: “April 1, 2006 is an April Fool’s Day falling on a Saturday.” The more you read it, the better it gets. I really hope nobody edits it.

UPDATE 4: You know, I have to start writing more of these short, stupidly titled posts. This one has already earned both an award and a cartoon! It’s a great example of the virtuous circle of user-generated content generating more user-generated content. Like that serpent that swallows its own tail.

UPDATE 5: Wikipedia has now split its list of April Fools pranks onto two pages, one containing just “notable” pranks and the other containing a complete list of pranks. A heated debate has also broken out between a group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be deleted because it contains “non-notable” pranks and another group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be maintained for posterity. “Captain Cornflake” (probably not his real name) writes, “Does having it here hurt anything? I’m positive that at least for the next week, this article is going to be getting thousands of people, wanting to check out various jokes. I know I will. It will also serve as a handy guide of the events that transpired yesterday to future generations.” I’m with Cornflake on this one. What seems like a non-notable prank today may seem like a notable prank to those future generations. I think it’s better to err on the side of caution.

7 thoughts on “April Fools Day jumps the shark

  1. mark evans


    thanks for being smart enough to put the spotlight on the silliness. it’s like the blogosphere turned into a stand-up comedy club. sure, some of it was funny but the piling on on the april fool’s bandwagon got out of hand.

  2. Seth Finkelstein

    “Meta” it. What we considered “notable” and “non-notable” is valuable in itself for cultural historians. Just like in some cases, the advertisements in old publications can now be more interesting and informative than their official content.

Comments are closed.