The adorable love story behind Wikipedia’s 'high five' photos
https://www.inverse.com/input/culture/wikipedia-high-five-too-slow-photos-mystery-couple-solvedOpen linkView original on lemmy.zipSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.ziphttps://www.inverse.com/input/culture/wikipedia-high-five-too-slow-photos-mystery-couple-solvedOpen linkView original on lemmy.zip
28 replies
Scary how piece by piece someone can create a whole profile of another person on the internet just by the bits they tell about themselves here and there.
What a lovely read first thing in the morning! The very definition of wholesome
That's a great joke too!
That was exactly the part of the article where I thought “wow, this is way better than I expected, I gotta go back to the thread and say how good it is!”
Another pretty good line:
Sufjan Stevens felt like a fun dated reference.
This is so cute!
THERE ARE UPDATED PHOTOS!!
Edit2: with their kids! This is the cutest thing ever
I hate to sound superficial, but holy moly they're like, Hollywood movie family level beautiful. Dad and mom both look really fit and look like they've barely aged, and the kids are so adorable!
What a great read. Thanks for sharing.
Okay I hate that this is how I am all the time now, but was this written by AI?
I can guarantee you it was not. Some people just refuse to give up their dashes. :)
The em dash is a perfectly cromulent piece of punctuation that is slightly more serious in tone than putting an aside in parentheses and therefore is irreplaceable.
Yup. Personally I prefer the em-dash—glorious at it is—without spaces surrounding it, whereas the en-dash – a lowlier punctuation – is best presented with spaces. In consequence I find em-dashes look better when presented with proper typography rather than in random places on the internet. But that's just personal preference. I'm tired of either character being treated as suspicious.
I don't think the en-dash should be used for parenthetical remarks. It's primary use, in any case, is to represent ranges, like 3−4.
You're right, but at least according to Wikipedia:
I generally prefer using em-dashes and no space, but if spaces are introduced I personally find the em-dash tends to make the whole thing too long at least in certain typesettings. But again, personal preferences.
I think that sentence is saying I'm wrong, isn't it?? XD
I guess I am just on the side of "some publishers"...
I'd argue you're not wrong!
That's like, your opinion man
Also true, alongside relational claims such as the 2026 cabbage–FishFace dispute on the proper use of en-dashes.
It's not just the em dashes, but the phasing as well. Happy to be proven wrong though.
No way a language model would come up with the victim mrs joke. And in general the writing of the whole piece is profoundly human, it's just clear that a lot of care went into it.
Like me — I love these things!! 😍 (I never use them properly though—iirc there is supposed to be no space between them and the letters like that, and also they should appear in pairs, but I dare to be different!)
There are no strict universal rules about the spacing, just be consistent for pete's sake!
This was published on February 14, 2022, before ChatGPT's public release in November 2022. Inverse was also a real journalist publication that slowly got enshittified, but was still good in 2022.
I remember reading this article when it was first published, in 2022, for whatever that's worth.
ChatGPT must have learned from somewhere
🥹🥹
Did he like kinda put their address and name in there. Is this ok?
wikipedia is union busting, how wholesome is that?! https://medium.com/regarding-wikipedia/how-the-wikimedia-foundations-union-busting-is-textbook-9b5245f6a736
Didn’t read the article?
This is about some randos that made photos for a specific Wikipedia entry, and less about “look at how wholesome Wikipedia is!” Which makes your comment just kinda… odd.
Their actions are shit, but it’s only tangentially about Wikipedia to begin with.
ok but seeing wikipedia under c/wholesome under the current circumstances seemed like astroturfing to me
just because the title calls it "Wikipedia's [photo]" doesn't mean it was organized by Wikipedia
two people (three if you read the article) of their own accord uploaded the photos to Wikipedia
the title could also say "the people that are mildly famous because of a photo they uploaded to Wikipedia..." but that's unnecessarily verbose
Wikimedia != Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors, who this article is about, are the ones who do all the actual work. Wikimedia is the scummy parent company that busts unions and constantly runs and siphons from Wikipedia's donation drives.
I still love wikipedia as a concept, but i will refrain from further donations until I know for a fact their employees are unionized.