Hi Viviane, Dianne, Hans, Manuel and everyone else! I agree that the perfect can be the enemy of the good, and I’m glad to see a critical mass beginning to take an interest in the history of origami. But when I refer to a historiographical framework, I mean that we first need some agreement about what exactly we are trying to study or write about, and how we intend to approach it.
It is true that anyone can write on Wikipedia. However, it is generally not advisable for someone who has never edited there before to begin by writing an article or making extensive paragraph-level revisions. The usual recommendation is to start Wikipedia as an editor making small corrections (typos, across different articles) which helps build a record of reliability. Only after some time do Wikipedia editors typically move toward more substantial contributions. The entry on origami already exists and contains numerous errors. Still, it can be frustrating to make corrections only to have an “editor of editors” come along and delete everything you wrote, or worse, block you. One requirement that is often enforced is the use of sources. We may know a great deal about a particular origami artist, but if we cannot point to sources that can be cited and linked, that biography will very likely be challenged. A few years ago I had a long conversation with Ilan Garibi. At the time, I was the one insisting on the need to improve the Wikipedia page on the history of origami. Ilan was more inclined to develop a history of origami on the CFC website. I argued that only people already devoted to origami would ever check a website, while a Wikipedia page is seen by everyone. Time passed and we ended up doing neither. In the meantime, I devoted myself to thinking about how the question on the history of paperfolding should be approached. People outside of the origami community know little about the subject or have rather confused ideas about it, I mean, even people who should know, such as some museum curators, art historians, etc., they don’t know much. Why is it that museum curators often do not know what origami actually is, or think of it simply as paper boats? I think one of the reasons is because origami is not a subject being studied in Art History courses or Art History careers. There are no university textbook that devote an entire chapter (not just a side box or an insert) to the subject. It is not studied at the bachelor’s or master’s level, so we cannot really blame young art historians for not knowing much about it. There are, of course, a few specialized niches—for example, some universities offer courses dealing with the mathematics of folding—but that is not the history of origami. It is a specialized technical subject. So we have a good starting point for building the basis of that kind of information. However, there are some caveats. While those of us in the origami community know a great deal and could contribute substantially, we cannot turn a Wikipedia article into an origami bazaar. That would only add to the confusion. When I say that we need to think about a historical framework, what I mean is that we should first think about the structure: the house that will eventually be inhabited. It is much harder to fill a house with all kinds of furniture and then start throwing things out the window once we realize that we actually needed a different kind of house. I honestly believe that the level of knowledge we have today is not the same as it was ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, and that we are now in a position to aim for a serious consensus. What happens if we do not do this? The problem is that people do not always mean the same thing when they talk about origami. Nor is everyone satisfied with the usual answers about its “origins.” We could tell the story through biographies of the main practitioners, through the objects, or through a guiding thread—the fold itself—which historians of origami often refer to as the “technical gesture.” But it would be difficult to approach the history of origami through all of these frameworks at the same time. Cutting, carving, weaving, or molding are all examples of technical gestures. They are called gestures because they involve a physical, bodily effort when working a substrate. Paperfolders tend to recognize historical continuity on the basis of the persistence of the same gesture, that is the fold. If we agree that this is the history thread we want to tell—the history of the gesture “fold"—then that is one possible approach. But it carries risks. One of those risks is the temptation to interpret different developments as part of a linear historical evolution (event A leads to event B leads to event C). This is precisely what Hatori Koshiro is pointing to when he writes, “We can see no relationship between Japanese religion and the origin of origami.” And, being Japanese, it is all more striking that he argues: "Origami is not a Japanese art” (the Wikipedia entry begins by sayind “Origami is the Japanese art of paperfolding”. Who’s going to change this and will the “editor of editors” accept the change?) I will not pursue this point further here, since I do not want to extend the discussion too much, but these are all important issues to consider before undertaking such a challenging article. All of this opens up a series of considerations that, in my view, should be thought through before attempting to write an article on the history of origami, wheter it is for Wikipedia, for the CFC, or wherever, even if that article can always be revised later. Conceptual issues are harder to revise, and they tend to remain in the collective imagination much longer. Thank you for reading this far, and apologies for the length of this email. Laura Rozenberg > On Mar 15, 2026, at 2:02 PM, Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I completely agree with Viviane. I think Wikipedia can be gradually expanded > with different contributions. The first contributions might not be entirely > accurate, or better contributions might be offered later, but for me, the > important thing is to start. Perhaps one way to do this is with short > biographies of authors, folders, or creators, both current and deceased, but > of whom we fortunately have fond memories and documentation. We also have > experts in the history of origami in various associations, both from local > history and from other countries, and we could ask them to contribute. Even > the recently created website, Everything Origami, could be managed by someone > or a team to handle these contributions. > Best regards > Manuel Sirgo > >> El 14 mar 2026, a las 23:21, KDianne Stephens via Origami >> <[email protected]> escribió: >> >> Viviane said This was my little idea of the day. (Wikipedia) >> Wonderful idea, and long overdue >> Orifun to all >> Dianne >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Origami [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Viviane Berty via Origami >> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 2:43 PM >> To: The Origami Mailing List >> Subject: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update >> >> Dear origami Friends, >> >> Forgive my stupid question : does anyone know why there is so few >> Information on Wikipedia about origami ? With the aim of spreading the >> origami knowledge, is there a team working to to add a complete and >> reliable information into the largest encyclopedia ever ? How wonderful >> it would be to contribute to the general art culture, don't you think ? >> >> I have heard that Wikipedia is no AI, is free, and it works >> democratically, is it true ? >> >> I am terrible at computers things... (Moreover my English style is so >> ugly... ! I do apologize.) >> >> This was my little idea of the day. >> >> Yours, >> >> Viviane. >> >> >
