QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 28th November 2009, 8:27pm)
Although I think people are going overboard in giving Julie the third degree — let's not act like Wikipedia, boys and girls, give her a chance to participate before speculating about her intentions — nonetheless, Daniel makes an interesting point about anthropology. An acquaintance of my studied anthropology at Harvard back in the 60s, and went to Mexico as part of the Harvard Chiapas Project, which pretty much designed and created the
Zapatista movement. The British are famous for sending anthropologists/spooks into colonial possessions to profile indigenous populations with an eye to manipulating them, or using anthropologists/spooks to profile and manipulate subcultures within the U.S. (see
Gregory Bateson (T-H-L-K-D).)
The Wikipedia Review — unlike Wikipedia — is a non-fiction site.
Unlike Wikipedia we don't have to buy the premiss of every storyline.
Sure, we put on the occasional put-on, but all our parodies — unlike Wikipedia — are clearly marked.
"Julie" brought this on by affecting an intention of "full disclosure" — and then tossing out one red herring after another when we asked for the bare minimum that might be expected of that.
If "she" really had a serious academic purpose in the first place, she would recognize a sailed ship by now and go ask for an incomplete — post haste.
But no, she continues to play it out, which proves that the game is all that matters.
And of course there are those of you who will continue to play along — but I'm guessing mostly because the parody has now become well-marked enough to qualify as repertoire for Da Revue.
Jon Awbrey