906: Advertising Discovery

|< < Prev Comic #906 (June 1, 2011) Next > >|

Advertising Discovery

Title text: When advertisers figure this out, our only weapon will be blue sharpies and "[disputed]".

Explanation

On Wikipedia, a well-referenced text or statement indicates credibility. References for particular facts are linked to by bracketed blue little numbers in superscript. When faced with a statement followed by these, readers will normally believe it without further ado, since they take it on trust that there are directions on the bottom of the page, leading to a reliable source or two, agreeing with what the statement says. The effect becomes strengthened when such information often is confirmed to be correct.

In the comic, advertisers have realized that it has gone so far, so that people in general will take any nonsense for granted, if there is just the right amount of Wikipedia-style reference tags to it. The penis pump e-commerce can suddenly start to flourish (even more than in the 90's), and the spammers won't even need to bother making up findings to cite.

Turgidax® is a typically pill-like name formed from turgid, meaning swollen. Cardiovascular means relating to the heart and blood vessels.

The title text is about how Wikipedia users could add [disputed] (nowadays [disputed – discuss]) after a challenged fact, next to any bracketed blue little numbers, with this template. (incredible example, first sentence) So faced with the new advertising we could fight back with blue Sharpie marker pens, by scribbling those tags all over the shrewd advertising to revive the critical thinking.

Transcript

Advertising discovery:

[Person sits at computer, reading an ad on the screen. The bracketed superscripts are blue.]

Ad: Turgidax® triples^[2] your penis size overnight,^[2][5] improving both your sexual attractiveness^[2][7] and your cardiovascular health.^[7][8][9]

Person (thinking): Sounds legit.

Caption: Wikipedia has trained us to believe anything followed by little blue numbers in brackets.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

It's only trained Wikipedia veterans who believe that. Most people have no idea what the square brackets mean. Davidy²²[talk] 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Promethean (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You could just do this: ^{[citation needed]} Beanie (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

^{[Dubious:Discuss]} 120.145.27.228 17:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This just in. Wikipedia veterans are gullible idiots.

I knew it all along. Cflare (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, What if? has conditioned the readers to assume that anything with a ^{[Citation Needed]} sign next to it is an obvious fact and doesn't need a citation. Caeleste Alarum (talk)

vice versa, the Wikipedia geeks all get a heart attack when reading What if? (or Explain Xkcd) for the first time. Dontknow (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

THE FOOTNOTES AREN'T IN A VALID ORDER IF THE BIT SHOWN IN THE COMIC IS THE ONLY PART OF THE AD! sorry, just needed to vent that annoyance. 162.158.63.60 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

To poster of above comment: If I wanted to know who made this edit, I wouldn't be able to. Please use ~~~~ to sign your posts or, if you have done so, edit your signature to link to your userpage. Sorry if I'm coming across as harsh, but I want to look at a comment and see who made it. Sincerely, ^{)|(}Quill_{)|(} 19:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, I found myself constantly trying to click on the pseudo-markup, or floating the mouse over it to see what it was referencing. Nitpicking (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)