The first step, in my opinion, is to drastically increase the presence of origami on Wikipedia, in terms of "entries" (creators and associations and concepts / practices / techniques / materials / ...), rather than refining the few existing pages (which may be imprecise or one-sided, but improving them is a more delicate matter and requires our discussion and agreement).
Naturally, creating all these new entries requires willpower and time. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, and the only thing I can do is write to the associations, and to some creators, advocating the "Wikipedia cause." Question: do the creators reading this list want to create an autobiographical page on Wikipedia? If you can answer... so we can understand the moral and feasibility. Lorenzo Lorenzo Lucioni Duesseldorf - Germany [email protected] On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 01:01 KDianne Stephens via Origami, < [email protected]> wrote: > Manuel wrote The journey is made by walking > > > > Maybe the walk can begin with a modest edit in Wikipedia expanding the > knowledge of Origami’s root beginning in China, albeit Origami being > formalized and coded in the Japanese culture. > > > > *From:* Origami [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami > *Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2026 4:16 PM > *To:* Lorenzo; The Origami Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update > > > > I completely agree with Lorenzo. I think that making so many preliminary > considerations, as Laura suggests, makes it almost impossible to start the > project. It's paralysis by overanalysis, as they say in Quality. The > journey is made by walking. I think many of us know we want it to appear on > Wikipedia. The specialized discussions on different aspects should be a > product of that journey, something that emerges little by little, with > errors and disagreements, but with the project underway and not thinking > "ad infinitum" about how the project can be done. > > > > El dom, 15 mar 2026 a las 22:52, Lorenzo via Origami (< > [email protected]>) escribió: > > Dear all, > > > > This is a fascinating topic, and I hope we can all continue to contribute > to the development of Wikipedia. > > Many thanks to Viviane for starting the discussion. > > > > I completely agree with Hans, and I firmly believe that contributing to > Wikipedia is our duty and that we should start doing so the moment we spot > a gap or an omission. > > > > I firmly believe in the value of Wikipedia for a number of important > reasons: > > - it is free and does not require registration or the creation of user > accounts or profiles; > > - it's open and transparent; > > - it is democratically run and somehow decentralised; > > Therefore > > - It is NOT controlled by any small group of people; > > - It is NOT sectarian or elitist; it does NOT serve the interests of a > select few; > > > > It is up to us, and us alone, to enrich Wikipedia. So, to move on to some > concrete proposals, I suggest that those of us who have the time and > inclination should take the initiative to: > > - encourage each creator to write a page about themselves, even if it’s > just a basic one; > > - encourage other organisations to do the same, passionately arguing the > importance of contributing to the world’s largest encyclopaedia; > > - start compiling a list of "entries" relating to origami (as well as > people and organisations) that we would like to see on Wikipedia > > > > We can carry out the first two points mentioned above ‘privately’ by > contacting creators and organisations. > > As for the third point, I’m not sure whether we should be flooding this > mailing list with messages. But perhaps we should. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Lorenzo > > > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 at 22:31, Laura R via Origami < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Lorenzo Lucioni > > Duesseldorf - Germany > > [email protected] > > > > > -- > > Manuel Sirgo Álvarez > > Saludos. >
