Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Mike, everybody,

a response to address a few topics from your (always very well-balanced and
wise) email.


[...] the issue of *how to access diagrams in publications* that are out of
> print is one that I've felt acutely. That is a big hole that I hope someone
> may step forward and try to fill. I think the technology is there to make
> PDFs widely available, but of course that would be a massive amount of
> work, so it couldn't happen quickly. Still, the journey of a thousand miles
> ...
>

I have been collecting publications for almost 30 years, and I believe I
have the vast majority of items ever published in the modern era (from 1960
to the present day).
Around 3,000 (3k) books, and approximately 7,000–10,000 (7k–10k maybe more)
magazines, convention books, special issues, bulletins and newsletters
published by international origami associations. And I continue to collect.
Everything started, of course, purely for the selfish pleasure typical of a
collector, but over time my aim has evolved and changed, and in the belief
that a private collection serves no purpose, I will certainly donate the
whole collection to the origami community, sooner or later, as soon as a
useful and interesting way of doing so can be found.
That said, the material I possess is available to provide access to old
publications, out-of-print books and anything else not already available
digitally.
OBVIOUSLY, this is done in FULL RESPECT of copyright and the wishes of the
authors and publishers, whether they be publishing houses or origami
associations.
By this I mean that the material to start with is already there (here, in
my packed living room - fireproof, as far as possible - for the (near)
future, and it is constantly growing (thanks to my significant financial
investment over the last 30 years, and sometimes even a few hours every
day). And it is ‘yours’, everyone’s. We "just" need to figure out (and it
will take time) what to do with it.
Incidentally, many argue that printed publications are outdated. I do not
believe this, and so I continue with my work of growing my library/archive.
But I could obviously be a deluded man out of step with the times... I do
not deny this at all. At worst, it will all end up in a village library
somewhere in Europe, and that is that.

A collective discussion on this topic, involving the whole community –
starting with origami associations and societies – will eventually get
underway. For me, the time isn’t right yet, for personal reasons.


I do agree that *making entries on Wikipedia better* is an important
> effort. [...] But I do hope that some others will accept your offer to
> teach how updating Wikipedia is done [...]


I’m too busy at the moment, but come summer and autumn, I’ll be much less
busy and more available. I’m on board (from the summer onwards) to actively
collaborate and contribute to the growth and improvement of Origami’s
presence on Wikipedia. I’d be very happy to join the Zoom meeting with
Laura straight away (not in the next few days, due to the BOS and MFPP
conventions which I'm going to attend, and related short trips for tourism
purposes).
I understand that the first step is to build a reputation on Wikipedia.
Laura will be able to explain this to us during the Zoom session.


On the issue of creator/designer/folder/maker/interpreter, I agree that
> trying to *put labels onto people can be problematic*. [...]
>

As you have rightly pointed out, there are many different skills within our
origami community: those who design origami, those who diagram them, those
who teach them, those who fold them, exhibit them... and as you quite
rightly say, the distinction between creators and non-creators is, in my
view too, far too simplistic.
What I don’t understand is the need to label people. What’s wrong with
sitting next to Michal Kosmulski at a workshop and not knowing that he's a
'Creator'? At that workshop, we’ll have a chat and perhaps we’ll both learn
something. And this is one of the reasons why I’ve always opposed the
closed doors of CFC.
Consequently, my impression is that these ‘labels’ are cool these frantic
days, just like the tags we assign to a post to indicate the topics it
covers. But whilst tags serve a purely functional search purpose, applying
labels to people has quite different effects, including psychological ones.
And this is one of the reasons why I have become critical of “Everything
Origami”, because it seems almost “natural” to me that it could evolve in
ways that are detrimental to our community, such as having “labels”
available to “tag” ourselves in the eyes of others (I quote a passage from
Ilan’s official presentation: “Build a mini website that shows your work,
your trophies from the competitions you’ve won, the group you’re part of,
and the Discord channels you’re a member of.” ... And what else, I wonder?
A meritocratic and ranking/hierarchical approach, typical of certain
cultures on this planet, which I detest).
The presentation of “E

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Mike Naughton via Origami]

Vishakha,

I think you have raised some very important points.

On the issue of creator/designer/folder/maker/interpreter, I agree that 
trying to put labels onto people can be problematic. That's not to say 
it's pointless -- as you say, it's important to credit creators (and 
that is not done enough these days). But IMHO "creator" vs "not creator" 
is too simplistic -- there are other skills that can be important. 
Teaching, for example -- sometimes creators are good teachers, but often 
(in my experience) they are not; that's not to take away from them, but 
they are different skills. And some people are very good at folding 
other people's models -- sometimes better than the creators. And there 
are diagrammers, and video makers  -- these are all different skills, 
and I think it can be said that if a very talented creator creates a 
very nice model, but there are no good diagrams, and there is no good 
video, and no one is teaching it well, and the only examples are the 
working models made by the creator, then there is something missing that 
is unrelated to the actual creation of the model. So, while creators 
certainly deserve our gratitude and respect, they are not the only ones ...


Also, the issue of how to access diagrams in publications that are out 
of print is one that I've felt acutely. That is a big hole that I hope 
someone may step forward and try to fill. I think the technology is 
there to make PDFs widely available, but of course that would be a 
massive amount of work, so it couldn't happen quickly. Still, the 
journey of a thousand miles 


All the best,
Mike Naughton

On 4/1/2026 6:34 AM, wanderer via Origami wrote:
hello origami friends, i was traveling when this discussion started 
march 15th and so i couldnt really read all the emails that followed. 
i have now gotten the chance to go thru them altho not extensively. 
there are of course many ideas... and many things i have learnt.


i love wikipedia and donate to it as well. but i had no idea about the 
difficulties in publishing articles that Laura mentioned. and also the 
undoing acts that sometimes happen. i would very much like to support 
the wiki effort. if citations etc are needed, i am not clear why 
publications by longstanding origami organizations or origami books 
dont count. who else would have this origami info? and why should we 
wait till the NYT or similar (for example) writes about paperfolding 
before we have a citation from them? maybe there's a way to reach out 
to wiki coordinators or whoever and broach the idea of how origami and 
history of origami and paperfolding etc is different than other topics 
that have more traditional means of information that can be cited.


the discussion between creator and designer and folder and maker and 
interpreter etc will continue and all i will say is this --- that i 
personally find the word creator troublesome but i wont say to anyone 
not to use it. i prefer the term paperfolder or folder. we are all 
folders. some have designed models. most of us have folded others 
designs. i forget now who wrote how we cannot make diagrams for others 
models... i am not sure about that. i make diagrams for myself, of 
other ppl's models, all the time...


related to diagrams... now that i am in india, with little to no 
access to friends or origami organizations with large libraries etc, i 
find that it is really hard to get diagrams for things historical. i 
am not suggesting that new publications etc be free or that diagrams 
be free or freely shared for new work, but maybe stuff from back then 
1970s or 1980s or 19990s can be more freely shared... when i see 
something interesting that's from those early years, and then someone 
says, "oh that was published in so & so magazine in the 1980s", and i 
have no way to access it or buy the PDF or anything, then how do we 
continue to share origami? or introduce ppl to early designs etc? i 
dont wish to step into copyright discussion (please i am not 
suggesting that) etc but when does the income aspect of something 
lessen and just sharing of designs become more fun and acceptable? i 
always cite the designer. always. and i always cite the historical 
context as well.


i have been actively folding since 1995... and i love supporting 
organizations and ppl doing great work in origami. i am a member of 
OUSA (usa) and BOS (uk) and Origami Mitra (india) --- and i have off & 
on subscribed to various origami magazines - creased, NOA, tanteidan, 
OSN etc but that still doesnt help me with access to historical 
designs...
do the various origami orgs around the world have ways for ppl to 
purchase PDFs of old magazines?


along with our desire to increase the visibility and access of origami 
history to the general public at large, i would also love a similar 
effort to share more widely older designs and diagrams... or have more 
ways to purchase PDFs --- both options are great...


thank you Viviane for introducing this question 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Dear Hans,

I think you read a bit too quickly, because you’ve attributed meanings to
my words that I didn’t intend.

What you have written above are just statements, not facts at all. Facts
> are things that can be verified and publicly demonstrated.
>
> The are at least partial facts insofar Ilan is part of that statement, and
> thus it is a fact about his aims. And while you may claim that he cannot
> know about the secret goals of other members of the group running CfC, he
> works together with them and it borders conspiracy theory to claim that
> others of his group are trying to take over the origami world.
>

I haven’t surely suggested any conspiracy theories, and I wouldn’t have
dreamed of suggesting that the associations might be replaced, let alone
taken over.
My meaning is all too clear: a global project like the CFC, with all the
involved aspects that I’ve already discussed at length, will, in my view,
have a detrimental effect on the work of national associations.


I can say for sure that nobody will ever be able to take over the Danish
> origami society nor the many origamists who are not members of a society.
> So implying it could be a realistic aim to take over all the world would be
> factually wrong.
>

😜  It sounds like the plot of an American blockbuster to me where a
five-person commando unit storms and takes over global corporations.


I publicly declare that the Danish society foldning.dk has been notified
> and that we fully support the work of CfC.
>

"*has been notified*"... exactly what I said. Associations were merely
notified.
In fact, they weren’t even notified, because we’re talking about
‘Everything Origami’ (not the old CFC).
Involving them in the project – at the very least by listening to their
views (though there’s much more to do than that) – was, in my opinion,
essential.


By offering the local group (e.g. the York one) the chance to set up a page
> on CFC, in my view you are simply taking away importance and focus from the
> main national Society (e.g. BOS), and in the long term you are going to
> replace it, because (e.g. british) *origamists will tend to no longer
> understand why they should join their national Society* (e.g. BOS).
>
> You can have a visible link and page on CfC and still have your own site
> as well. That link and mentioning just increases the visibility of the
> national society.
>

We’re not talking about ‘links’, Hans. Who cares about links, with all due
respect.
If you offer Origami Alsace (to take a random example) a place on
"Everything Origami", you are simply taking resources away from the
relevant national association.
My view is clear: if you want to help a local group, go to the relevant
national association and try to encourage the idea of creating
comprehensive pages for local groups (if this isn’t already in place)
perhaps by offering to help with this.


Do OrigamiUSA's local groups have a problem because origamiUSA's home page
> mentions them?
> On the contrary, that makes them *more* visible.
>

Exactly!
The importance of the leading national associations in each country is
significant and fundamental and US local groups should and must have "home"
in the OUSA website and OUSA life, well before being included in the
"Everything Origami" hub, which has no binds with the local area and local
people, and knows nothing about them.


And this is the big problem: any societies absolutely must keep their
> central role for their national community, because without the membership
> of its grassroots supporters, it will not be able to continue promoting
> origami locally on the field – something CFC can never achieve – and it
> will no longer have the strength or motivation to take part in local fairs
> or to support the many local initiatives of its members (some of which are
> extremely commendable).
>
> This is the big non-issue. National societies have and will continue to
> have the main role in their countries.
>

We’ll see in 5–10 years’ time. We’re just speculating here.


It has been established that Wikipedia is great as an encyclopedia. It has
> also been established that their articles about origami are full of errors.
> it will surely be great to improve the standard.
> However, it does not seem suitable to become the "origami encyclopedia".
> For one thing, who should maintain that? If a national organisation you
> have just replaced the CfC answer with them, and so they become the
> "international group", anchored in some random nation.
>

The origami-related pages on Wikipedia are not intended to be maintained by
a single person or organisation, as you instead suggest.
On Wikipedia, every entity, group or person or topic is present because
someone else has taken the effort to create the entry, possibly ‘on
commission’, as Randlett’s daughter asked Laura to do, for example.
Therefore, it certainly won’t be a single association doing the work, but
it could be a group of people that emerges after the major associations
have

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

On 1 Apr 2026, at 18.09, Lorenzo via Origami  
wrote:
>> Dialogue vs. Action:
>> What I mean by this is that promoting a personal initiative and justifying 
>> it on the grounds of the need to achieve certain goals poses quite a problem 
>> when those goals affect an entire community but are the result of one's 
>> initiative. The fact that someone follows you and is ‘willing to take part’ 
>> does not necessarily mean that the goal is worthy, but only that it is 
>> persuasive, much like the tale of ‘The Pied Piper of Hamelin’.
I believe you vastly overthink the aims of the people around CfC and I believe 
that the effects on other associations will be positive, not negative. 

> I have nothing against initiative, and I welcome many such initiatives in our 
> world, but when goals to be achieved by a single strategist, on behalf of the 
> entire community, seem to fall from the sky, 
Ilan and the group behind CfC  are not a "strategist" trying to act "on behalf 
of the entire community". They are not a single person,  they are people who 
themselves had a need, and they have the energy to do something about that and 
making a bit of that available for others.

> Moving on, you are determined to draw a clear distinction between words and 
> facts, yet you end up confusing the two:
>  
>> Oligarchic Governance and Competition with Associations:
>> Facts: No one in the CFC or any other cycle I am part of is aiming to govern 
>> the origami world. None of the services we supply on Everything Origami is 
>> aimed at bringing us governing powers. We are not willing nor trying to 
>> replace the local organization. 
> 
> What you have written above are just statements, not facts at all. Facts are 
> things that can be verified and publicly demonstrated. 
The are at least partial facts insofar Ilan is part of that statement, and thus 
it is a fact about his aims. And while you may claim that he cannot know about 
the secret goals of other members of the group running CfC, he works together 
with them and it borders conspiracy theory to claim that others of his group 
are trying to take over the origami world.

I can say for sure that nobody will ever be able to take over the Danish 
origami society nor the many origamists who are not members of a society. So 
implying it could be a realistic aim to take over all the world would be 
factually wrong.

>> I can speculate that any service we supply effectively is less needed from a 
>> local organization, so one can claim we are undermining them by doing that. 
>> I don't think this is a real concern for them, and no organization has ever 
>> raised that issue.
>  
> I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) you haven't responsibly involved the 
> Origami Societies in the CFC project, especially the new CFC. Perhaps you’ve 
> merely ‘notified’ them. 
> Therefore, I don’t think you can take silence as a sign of approval, because 
> these days, voicing an opinion that goes against the mainstream can cause a 
> lot of harm to oneself (I can only begin to
I agree that silence does not mean acceptance. 

I publicly declare that the Danish society foldning.dk has been notified and 
that we fully support the work of CfC. If we ever see concrete contents or 
implied effects that would be unfortunate for us, we will of course not 
hesitate to discuss that with the people behind. They are extremely 
communicative and receptive.

>> What we are trying to do with Everything Origami is the complete opposite of 
>> what was stated. We wish to help any organization, small or big, to have an 
>> accessible online page and to share with the world any activities they have.
>  
> Have you asked them?
> I don’t think there’s a single national association that doesn’t have a 
> website, and to be honest, I don’t think any of them would want to be hosted 
> elsewhere.
Probably not. However, that does not conflict with anything CfC is doing. 

> I think the smaller groups (and I know a few) prefer to promote themselves 
> through their own parent association. I’m thinking, for example, of some 
> local groups in Europe, whose events I attend (because they’re just a few 
> hours’ drive), but which I really don’t think have any interest in being 
> promoted globally, in Hong Kong or Tennessee.
> I’m not saying that visibility isn’t welcome – far from it. But it’s already 
> (or should be) in place on the websites of the various national Origami 
> associations. 
They can happily do that, CfC offers or not. No difference. It is not a 
competition. If CfC promotes origami, and has a link to your local group, that 
does not hinder the visibility of those groups. On the contrary.

> By offering the local group (e.g. the York one) the chance to set up a page 
> on CFC, in my view you are simply taking away importance and focus from the 
> main national Society (e.g. BOS), and in the long term you are going to 
> replace it, because (e.g. british) origamists will tend to no longer 
> understand why they s

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hello everyone,

Ilan, unfortunately I feel that some of the points you make in your reply
do not do justice to the topic and tend to confuse, although apparently
clearly stated.
I’ll explain why below.


*Dialogue vs. Action:*
> Nothing is happening in whatever I do before I write a full paper about
> the aim of the new project. If it involves the CFC, I will discuss that
> with the CFC community, via our monthly meetings, a shared document, or
> other tools. We are not driven by doing. *Doing *is the way to achieve
> the goals, and the goals are discussed with those who are willing to take
> part in the doing.
>

Guy wrote (talking about you): "He acts as secretary, coordinator, and
strategist on his own time. Recruitment for these roles is incredibly
difficult, and Ilan steps up because someone has to." Now you’re talking
about goals you want to achieve, which you discuss with others, but it’s
not clear where these goals come from, or what (reasonably) objective needs
and requirements they’re based on. In other words, it seems clear to me
that we’re dealing with a contrived, artificial definition of necessities,
purely out of the wish of one.
What I mean by this is that promoting a personal initiative and justifying
it on the grounds of the need to achieve certain goals poses quite a
problem when those goals affect an entire community but are the result of
one's initiative. The fact that someone follows you and is ‘willing to take
part’ does not necessarily mean that the goal is worthy, but only that it
is persuasive, much like the tale of ‘The Pied Piper of Hamelin’.

I have nothing against initiative, and I welcome many such initiatives in
our world, but when goals to be achieved by a single strategist, on behalf
of the entire community, seem to fall from the sky, well... it sets off
alarm bells for me.


Moving on, you are determined to draw a clear distinction between words and
facts, yet you end up confusing the two:


> *Oligarchic Governance and **Competition with Associations**:*
> Facts: No one in the CFC or any other cycle I am part of is aiming to
> govern the origami world. None of the services we supply on Everything
> Origami is aimed at bringing us governing powers. We are not willing nor
> trying to replace the local organization.
>

What you have written above are just statements, not facts at all. Facts
are things that can be verified and publicly demonstrated.
Facts will emerge in a few years’ time, when ‘Everything Origami’ has taken
shape and is operating as intended.
In my opinion, the Origami Associations will be in much greater distress
than they are now, but sadly we won't remember this discussion anymore, and
above all, we won't have the analytical skills to understand how much
responsibility the new CFC has had for their decline.

CFC's globalist approach is fun, as well as harmful, because in a world
that dove headlong into globalization in the 1990s, and that is now licking
its wounds and trying to put a stop to it rediscovering the importance of
localization, the globalists today are about a decade behind.

To evolve without disruptions and forcing, I am absolutely convinced that
Origami, which has fortunately been little affected by the globalist frenzy
that seeks to eliminate distances and break down every natural barrier,
must remain as stable as possible, without embarking on risky flights of
fancy that could lead to its deterioration.



I can speculate that any service we supply effectively is less needed from
> a local organization, so one can claim we are undermining them by doing
> that. I don't think this is a real concern for them, and no organization
> has ever raised that issue.
>

I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) you haven't responsibly involved the
Origami Societies in the CFC project, especially the new CFC. Perhaps
you’ve merely ‘notified’ them.
Therefore, I don’t think you can take silence as a sign of approval,
because these days, voicing an opinion that goes against the mainstream can
cause a lot of harm to oneself (I can only begin to imagine how many doors
will be closed to me from now on by those who don’t share my views on this
issue, CFC).
Origami Associations especially, are very cautious about exposing
themselves and cause troubles and contrarieties into the origami community
they represent, therefore, to claim that no one of them has raised issues
so far is, to say the least, at the risk of misleading.



What we are trying to do with Everything Origami is the complete opposite
> of what was stated. We wish to help any organization, small or big, to have
> an accessible online page and to share with the world any activities they
> have.
>

Have you asked them?
I don’t think there’s a single national association that doesn’t have a
website, and to be honest, I don’t think any of them would want to be
hosted elsewhere.
I think the smaller groups (and I know a few) prefer to promote themselves
through their own parent association. I’m thinking, for

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[wanderer via Origami]

hello origami friends, i was traveling when this discussion started march
15th and so i couldnt really read all the emails that followed. i have now
gotten the chance to go thru them altho not extensively. there are of
course many ideas... and many things i have learnt.

i love wikipedia and donate to it as well. but i had no idea about the
difficulties in publishing articles that Laura mentioned. and also the
undoing acts that sometimes happen. i would very much like to support the
wiki effort. if citations etc are needed, i am not clear why publications
by longstanding origami organizations or origami books dont count. who else
would have this origami info? and why should we wait till the NYT or
similar (for example) writes about paperfolding before we have a citation
from them? maybe there's a way to reach out to wiki coordinators or whoever
and broach the idea of how origami and history of origami and paperfolding
etc is different than other topics that have more traditional means of
information that can be cited.

the discussion between creator and designer and folder and maker and
interpreter etc will continue and all i will say is this --- that i
personally find the word creator troublesome but i wont say to anyone not
to use it. i prefer the term paperfolder or folder. we are all folders.
some have designed models. most of us have folded others designs. i forget
now who wrote how we cannot make diagrams for others models... i am not
sure about that. i make diagrams for myself, of other ppl's models, all the
time...

related to diagrams... now that i am in india, with little to no access to
friends or origami organizations with large libraries etc, i find that it
is really hard to get diagrams for things historical. i am not suggesting
that new publications etc be free or that diagrams be free or freely shared
for new work, but maybe stuff from back then 1970s or 1980s or 19990s can
be more freely shared... when i see something interesting that's from those
early years, and then someone says, "oh that was published in so & so
magazine in the 1980s", and i have no way to access it or buy the PDF or
anything, then how do we continue to share origami? or introduce ppl to
early designs etc? i dont wish to step into copyright discussion (please i
am not suggesting that) etc but when does the income aspect of something
lessen and just sharing of designs become more fun and acceptable? i always
cite the designer. always. and i always cite the historical context as well.

i have been actively folding since 1995... and i love supporting
organizations and ppl doing great work in origami. i am a member of OUSA
(usa) and BOS (uk) and Origami Mitra (india) --- and i have off & on
subscribed to various origami magazines - creased, NOA, tanteidan, OSN etc
but that still doesnt help me with access to historical designs...
do the various origami orgs around the world have ways for ppl to purchase
PDFs of old magazines?

along with our desire to increase the visibility and access of origami
history to the general public at large, i would also love a similar effort
to share more widely older designs and diagrams... or have more ways to
purchase PDFs --- both options are great...

thank you Viviane for introducing this question and thank you to the
origami list for having this place for such a vibrant discussion...
i love that the various origami orgs have really great publicly accessible
pages with biographies of luminary folders etc. this information should be
more widely accessible and i hope we can come together to make that happen.

best
vishakha



On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 2:29 AM Viviane Berty via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> It is fascinating to read all these messages. Thank you Mike Naugthon for
> your summary so I checked I had a correct understanding :-))
>
> We have here very long messages in English, and it is the place to have
> them. IMHO, to do is important, but to think and talk is much more
> important, this is truly human, and... much more difficult !!
>
> By the way, it takes time. When meeting each other in origami conventions,
> it is impossible to have such discussion : there is noise, many friends are
> arriving interrupting (and we like that !) This is the reason why writing
> emails on the O-list seems to be the best way.
>
> Special thanks to Lorenzo who never gave up and he leads us to deepen our
> thinking !
>
> Well, Wikipedia is far away. Anyway, we had a new opportunity to ask some
> essential questions : what is origami, what do we really need ?
>
> This is not the end !!
>
> See you somewhere sometimes in person !
>
> Viviane.
>

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Ilan Garibi via Origami]

Dear Olisat readers,
It is important to discuss the issues stated above for several reasons, the
first of which is to share what is really happening and not specualtions. I
will relate to facts, and if not, I will state clearly that this is only my
speculation.
*Dialogue vs. Action:*
Nothing is happening in whatever I do before I write a full paper about the
aim of the new project. If it involves the CFC, I will discuss that with
the CFC community, via our monthly meetings, a shared document, or other
tools. We are not driven by doing. *Doing *is the way to achieve the goals,
and the goals are discussed with those who are willing to take part in the
doing.
*Oligarchic Governance and **Competition with Associations**:*
Facts: No one in the CFC or any other cycle I am part of is aiming to
govern the origami world. None of the services we supply on Everything
Origami is aimed at bringing us governing powers. We are not willing nor
trying to replace the local organization.
I can speculate that any service we supply effectively is less needed from
a local organization, so one can claim we are undermining them by doing
that. I don't think this is a real concern for them, and no organization
has ever raised that issue. Just keep in mind, this is true to any
international initiative (how many of the USA members of Origami-Dan
Discord are also members of OUSA?), and I don't think this is a good reason
to avoid such activities.
What we are trying to do with Everything Origami is the complete opposite
of what was stated. We wish to help any organization, small or big, to have
an accessible online page and to share with the world any activities they
have. We wish them to find more folders and to have more participants in
their local activities.
Do groups have an issue with the number of members in the local groups? I
think so. I think we are losing the young generation. They tend to be
online. But this is a different discussion that should be addressed in a
separate email.
*Exclusionary Nature:*
I am not sharing the idea that all origamists are the same. Sorry about
that. I think that creators, or whatever the title should be, are those who
create the models, and the fact that they are also folding models by others
does not change that fact. You don't ask permission to teach a model by
Shuki Kato from anyone else but Shuki Kato. The fact that I folded a
version of it doesn't give me any right, and from that point of view, I did
not create it. I cannot make diagrams for it and publish them. Only Shuki
can. There is a clear line here.
But the line is crossable. If you wish to join this group, create 10 new
models, and you are in.

*Community-led vs. Person-led **Projects**:*
I have no facts here, only my specualtions.
Gilad's page is a successful one-man project.
Oriwiki is based on the community, and it used to be a success, until it
stopped, too many years ago. Out of 50k models, only 4.5k have images. The
data is far from being up to date.
Origami on Wikipedia is not successful at all, as you can see in the Google
sheet that summarizes the ~70 origami items I found.
I checked Google Books: searched for Origami books. I urge you to do the
same and see for yourself if the interface allows you to find the latest
books in modular origami.

I think there is a small chance for the global community to succeed with
global tasks, because there is no global entity to do so. Local
organizations do not have the motivation to do anything in the global
field, except the OUSA, which gives tools to create a list of groups and
events on a global scale. What we try to do is fill the gaps that the
organizations are not trying to.

*Thank you all for reaching this point in this amazingly long and important
thread of discussions!*
Best,
Ilan


On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 10:59 PM Viviane Berty via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> It is fascinating to read all these messages. Thank you Mike Naugthon for
> your summary so I checked I had a correct understanding :-))
>
> We have here very long messages in English, and it is the place to have
> them. IMHO, to do is important, but to think and talk is much more
> important, this is truly human, and... much more difficult !!
>
> By the way, it takes time. When meeting each other in origami conventions,
> it is impossible to have such discussion : there is noise, many friends are
> arriving interrupting (and we like that !) This is the reason why writing
> emails on the O-list seems to be the best way.
>
> Special thanks to Lorenzo who never gave up and he leads us to deepen our
> thinking !
>
> Well, Wikipedia is far away. Anyway, we had a new opportunity to ask some
> essential questions : what is origami, what do we really need ?
>
> This is not the end !!
>
> See you somewhere sometimes in person !
>
> Viviane.
>
>
> Le 26/03/2026 à 14:29, Lorenzo via Origami a écrit :
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am delighted that the exchange we had has been recognised as food for

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Viviane Berty via Origami]

Dear All,

It is fascinating to read all these messages. Thank you Mike Naugthon 
for your summary so I checked I had a correct understanding :-))


We have here very long messages in English, and it is the place to have 
them. IMHO, to do is important, but to think and talk is much more 
important, this is truly human, and... much more difficult !!


By the way, it takes time. When meeting each other in origami 
conventions, it is impossible to have such discussion : there is noise, 
many friends are arriving interrupting (and we like that !) This is the 
reason why writing emails on the O-list seems to be the best way.


Special thanks to Lorenzo who never gave up and he leads us to deepen 
our thinking !


Well, Wikipedia is far away. Anyway, we had a new opportunity to ask 
some essential questions : what is origami, what do we really need ?


This is not the end !!

See you somewhere sometimes in person !

Viviane.


Le 26/03/2026 à 14:29, Lorenzo via Origami a écrit :


Hi everyone,

I am delighted that the exchange we had has been recognised as food 
for thought at least by someone, and the recent comments have prompted 
me to reflect about the fact that I may have been a little naive, I 
have also reflected on my ability to express myself, and as a result I 
have developed a more refined vision. I have decided to further share 
with you how my thinking has reshaped and evolved over the last few days.


What follows is nothing more than my opinion; please don’t get upset 
if you disagree – I don’t mean to be disrespectful or to offend anyone.


The various communicative devices used in previous emails, sometimes 
thought to belittle my thinking, would merit a lengthy debunking, 
which I shall avoid and replace with the following. On reading what 
follows, some will find it a fanciful scenario, others the product of 
idealism or whatever. I hope and think that to others it might sound 
familiar.
I certainly wrote it with the intention of presenting something as 
clearly as possible, without softening it, to offer the most clarity 
possible.


Over these years of observing CFC, I have developed a sort of unease 
that the recent evolution from 'Creators' to 'Everything' has 
confirmed, leading me to publicly express what, until now, may have 
been visible to only a few for various reasons (such as simple 
disinterest or the growing lack of critical thinking afflicting 
contemporary societies).
I am not seeking approval, nor do I expect it. I believe in the value 
of dissent when reasonably it has ground, and I view with suspicion 
anything that is put forward without being subject to external 
analytical criticism.


And no, Guy, if you don’t allow yourself time to debate, if you don’t 
produce food for the mind and don’t nourish your own and that of 
others, and instead use all your time solely to act, act and act 
again, you risk acting in the wrong way, without sufficient thought or 
planning. In my mother tongue, we say that such a thing ‘is born lame’.
We live in societies that are increasingly driven by action, results 
and achievements, and we largely neglect the human aspect of dialogue, 
understanding and inclusion. Actions and achievements need to follow 
the dialogue, not the other way around.


The contemporary origami community is, in my view, mostly made up of 
many national associations and societies, which have shaped the 
history of modern origami and possess extensive expertise and a firm 
grasp of the situation in each country. What does not exist is a 
central government, but it is not necessarily the case that one is 
truly needed, because in my opinion it would be very useful if they 
‘networked’ rather than being replaced by a central body. We could 
view the whole thing as a city in which there are many neighbourhood 
administrations but no town hall, and each neighbourhood manages itself.
From this perspective, in my view, the new CFC aims to serve, and in a 
sense regulate (as the town hall does), the whole citizens, by 
bypassing the neighbourhood administrations and therefore 
without taking on board the (probably differing) needs and viewpoints 
of the various neighbourhood administrations.


As I see it, and based on what I know, the first CFC acted on the 
initiative of one or very few individuals and implemented what it 
believed might be of interest to a small group of citizens in this 
city, namely the Creators, and moreover, just the subset of them who 
were already ready to form a group.
By not visiting the various neighbourhoods (associations) with the 
intention of listening, in my opinion the first CFC effectively failed 
to listen to the whole ‘grassroots’ of the creative community (the 
creators), because those it sought to reach were only those with an 
international outlook and openness, who were basically speaking 
english, already well-informed and ready to network.
Only the associations (at least initially) would have made it possible 
to reach them all. T

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi everyone,

I am delighted that the exchange we had has been recognised as food for
thought at least by someone, and the recent comments have prompted me to
reflect about the fact that I may have been a little naive, I have also
reflected on my ability to express myself, and as a result I have developed
a more refined vision. I have decided to further share with you how my
thinking has reshaped and evolved over the last few days.
What follows is nothing more than my opinion; please don’t get upset if you
disagree – I don’t mean to be disrespectful or to offend anyone.

The various communicative devices used in previous emails, sometimes
thought to belittle my thinking, would merit a lengthy debunking, which I
shall avoid and replace with the following. On reading what follows, some
will find it a fanciful scenario, others the product of idealism or
whatever. I hope and think that to others it might sound familiar.
I certainly wrote it with the intention of presenting something as clearly
as possible, without softening it, to offer the most clarity possible.

Over these years of observing CFC, I have developed a sort of unease that
the recent evolution from 'Creators' to 'Everything' has confirmed, leading
me to publicly express what, until now, may have been visible to only a few
for various reasons (such as simple disinterest or the growing lack of
critical thinking afflicting contemporary societies).
I am not seeking approval, nor do I expect it. I believe in the value of
dissent when reasonably it has ground, and I view with suspicion anything
that is put forward without being subject to external analytical criticism.

And no, Guy, if you don’t allow yourself time to debate, if you don’t
produce food for the mind and don’t nourish your own and that of others,
and instead use all your time solely to act, act and act again, you risk
acting in the wrong way, without sufficient thought or planning. In my
mother tongue, we say that such a thing ‘is born lame’.
We live in societies that are increasingly driven by action, results and
achievements, and we largely neglect the human aspect of dialogue,
understanding and inclusion. Actions and achievements need to follow the
dialogue, not the other way around.

The contemporary origami community is, in my view, mostly made up of many
national associations and societies, which have shaped the history of
modern origami and possess extensive expertise and a firm grasp of the
situation in each country. What does not exist is a central government, but
it is not necessarily the case that one is truly needed, because in my
opinion it would be very useful if they ‘networked’ rather than being
replaced by a central body. We could view the whole thing as a city in
which there are many neighbourhood administrations but no town hall, and
each neighbourhood manages itself.
>From this perspective, in my view, the new CFC aims to serve, and in a
sense regulate (as the town hall does), the whole citizens, by bypassing
the neighbourhood administrations and therefore without taking on board the
(probably differing) needs and viewpoints of the various neighbourhood
administrations.

As I see it, and based on what I know, the first CFC acted on the
initiative of one or very few individuals and implemented what it believed
might be of interest to a small group of citizens in this city, namely the
Creators, and moreover, just the subset of them who were already ready to
form a group.
By not visiting the various neighbourhoods (associations) with the
intention of listening, in my opinion the first CFC effectively failed to
listen to the whole ‘grassroots’ of the creative community (the creators),
because those it sought to reach were only those with an international
outlook and openness, who were basically speaking english, already
well-informed and ready to network.
Only the associations (at least initially) would have made it possible to
reach them all. This is one of the reasons why I see the old CFC as a
failure.

Anyway, what’s done is done, for better or worse.

The evolution and birth of the new CFC now, for what I can understand, is
still essentially exclusionary, because I believe there is a large number
of origami enthusiasts who are members of an association and at most read
the quarterly newsletter, whose voice, in the planning and designing of the
future global origami community, won't be heard by ‘Everything Origami’.

What is on the cards, as I see it, is that a small group intends to offer
services and content, and in doing so will establish the governance of the
global community, appointing its CEO and board of directors. Through this,
it will create Templates, Models and then Standards according to its own
view, which, once they become commonplace, will constitute the most
effective governing tool for the origami community – a community that
previously had no central government and will now find itself governed by a
body representing the few.
Essentially, an oligarch

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Liliya Brezina via Origami]

Good day to all of you, wherever you are - it is morning here, and the day
looks beautiful.

I’ve been following this discussion with real interest. It’s thoughtful,
wide-ranging, and full of ideas that feel both important and alive. Some of
the questions raised are not always easy to stay neutral on, but that’s
part of what makes this kind of exchange so valuable. Discussion matters -
it’s often through debate that understanding begins to take shape, and
there hasn't been an invigorating one like this in a long time.

There is a great deal here worth holding onto: reflections, challenges, new
perspectives. It’s the kind of conversation that stays with you and
continues to develop - I tend to ruminate as I walk or sit on the bus.
There is a lot in this discussion that, given the time, this thread alone
could inspire several rich, idea-filled posters.

I do not aim to interrupt or redirect the discussion here, but rather to
acknowledge the depth of thought and generosity in terms of time, ideas and
heartfelt emotions shared. There is real inspiration here - including for
those who may be reading quietly like me - and thanks are due to everyone
who has contributed their time and ideas so openly.

Here in York we are in the final stretch of convention preparations, I have
very little time for anything else. The poster session is a side project
for the BOS York convention and I would love more contributions, and had I
had the time I would have approached the authors with ideas and asked for
permission, and offered help.

If any of you have a moment, it’s well worth revisiting the discussion -
there is a great deal to take from it. And if something resonates strongly
with you, if there’s an idea you feel deserves to be captured and shared
more widely, perhaps beyond this space…

The poster session at the convention could be a natural next step.

It offers a way to give these ideas a more lasting form, to share them with
others who may not be part of this conversation, and to spark further
thought and discussion - the kind that continues in meeting rooms, around
tables, and in person. Online conversations often lead to real-world
connections; this is one way those connections can keep growing and even
come north, all the way to York.

If you are considering it, there are still a few days left to submit. I
still have access to an office until the 5th (and again from the 9th after
renovation), so there is time and a little local support available.

Details here: https://mailchi.mp/6dc5c68c3874/bospostersession

Thank you for taking the time!
Best wishes,
Liliya
Paper folder & #bosY26 local organiser


On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 at 02:41, Mike Naughton via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it's worth remembering that this discussion started with Viviane's
> question about the lack of information about origami on Wikipedia. It then
> developed into a discussion of the challenges of creating/editing Wikipedia
> pages, and then a discussion of alternatives, including Community for
> Creators, which prompted a discussion of who/what is a creator/creativity,
> and  Whew! Perhaps we can agree that we all enjoy origami/paperfolding?
> (or will there be an argument that one of those terms does not apply? :-) )
>
> Personally, FWIW, I agree with Hans that it's best to encourage anyone
> with the energy to help support the origami community. I also think that
> it's best if people coming in with ideas would first check to see if anyone
> is already doing what they would like to see done, and if so to help those
> people if possible instead of starting a separate effort. A case in point
> is Wikipedia -- as Lorenzo pointed out, it's already the go-to source for
> information for a *lot* of people; if its information about origami is
> incomplete/incorrect, then that should be fixed, IMHO, rather than
> launching a separate effort to replace it. That shouldn't preclude other
> efforts -- Dave Mitchell's Paperfolding History project (
> https://www.origamiheaven.com/historyindex.htm) is a masterwork in
> progress -- but IMHO if Wikipedia's pages have problems then the solution
> is to fix them.
>
> There again, I think Hans is right: "I believe the most important issue is
> that somebody needs to have the energy to edit and add articles." Bingo, as
> we say in the U.S.A. And I think that Laura has a point that work needs to
> be done before many Wikipedia pages can be effectively edited. I'm not sure
> I agree with her contention that a context needs to be created first, but I
> do think that a scholarly foundation needs to be laid. There's a reason
> that Wikipedia pages need to be based on reliable, attributable sources,
> and its insistence on that is one of the reasons (maybe the main reason)
> that so many people trust it. If the origami world lacks those sources,
> maybe one way to start is to create them, and the Wikipedia pages can
> follow from there? Perhaps Dave Mitchell's efforts (and others

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Mike Naughton via Origami]

Perhaps it's worth remembering that this discussion started with 
Viviane's question about the lack of information about origami on 
Wikipedia. It then developed into a discussion of the challenges of 
creating/editing Wikipedia pages, and then a discussion of alternatives, 
including Community for Creators, which prompted a discussion of 
who/what is a creator/creativity, and  Whew! Perhaps we can agree 
that we all enjoy origami/paperfolding? (or will there be an argument 
that one of those terms does not apply? :-) )


Personally, FWIW, I agree with Hans that it's best to encourage anyone 
with the energy to help support the origami community. I also think that 
it's best if people coming in with ideas would first check to see if 
anyone is already doing what they would like to see done, and if so to 
help those people if possible instead of starting a separate effort. A 
case in point is Wikipedia -- as Lorenzo pointed out, it's already the 
go-to source for information for a _lot_ of people; if its information 
about origami is incomplete/incorrect, then that should be fixed, IMHO, 
rather than launching a separate effort to replace it. That shouldn't 
preclude other efforts -- Dave Mitchell's Paperfolding History project 
(https://www.origamiheaven.com/historyindex.htm) is a masterwork in 
progress -- but IMHO if Wikipedia's pages have problems then the 
solution is to fix them.


There again, I think Hans is right: "I believe the most important issue 
is that somebody needs to have the energy to edit and add articles." 
Bingo, as we say in the U.S.A. And I think that Laura has a point that 
work needs to be done before many Wikipedia pages can be effectively 
edited. I'm not sure I agree with her contention that a context needs to 
be created first, but I do think that a scholarly foundation needs to be 
laid. There's a reason that Wikipedia pages need to be based on 
reliable, attributable sources, and its insistence on that is one of the 
reasons (maybe the main reason) that so many people trust it. If the 
origami world lacks those sources, maybe one way to start is to create 
them, and the Wikipedia pages can follow from there? Perhaps Dave 
Mitchell's efforts (and others') are steps in that direction?


As for the rest of the discussion, "different strokes for different 
folks", as we used to say. Can we agree that as long as people are 
having fun and not stepping on the toes of (or otherwise annoying) 
others, then everything is good? /Pace/ Ilan, no site will (or can) ever 
be "Everything Origami", but if you want to try, then go for it. Just 
don't be surprised (or upset) if some others have their own ideas that 
go in a different direction. And to Ilan's critics -- is it really 
important that others agree with you? Or is it just important that  you 
are finding your own way and you are happy with it?


Happy folding,
Mike Naughton

PS: As you see below, Viviane ended with "This was my little idea of the 
day". Given all that followed, perhaps it wasn't such a "little idea" 
 :-)



On 3/14/2026 4:42 PM, Viviane Berty via Origami wrote:

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.





--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[KDianne Stephens via Origami]

Hans wrote. A "designer" often designs an item, a model, without actually 
creating it

 

Or the designer may create an item without diagramming the design

 

From: Origami [mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] On Behalf Of 
Papirfoldning.dk
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 4:14 AM
To: David Mitchell; The Origami Mailing List
Cc: origami@lists.digitalorigami.com
Subject: Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

 

On 24 Mar 2026, at 09.48, David Mitchell via Origami 
 wrote:

 

If you want to avoid the use of 'creator' entirely, we could say that in 
origami there are 'designers' and 'makers' (and you can, of course, be both), 
but both 'designer' and 'maker' are creative roles. Using the word 'creator' 
for only one of these roles unfortunately acts to denigrate the other.

 

Of course, in other languages, this distinction might not be so clear, or, I 
suppose, exist at all.

The distinctions are close to the same in Danish. I guess the distinctions will 
be more substantial in languages further from English.

 

I understand the English word "creator" and that it is closely associated with 
"creativity" which is a broad term ranging from following recipes closely, over 
making changes, and to making the entire design from scratch.

 

One might argue that it is not much creative to follow a recipe closely, like 
an engineer following a blueprint exactly, using the specified materials. 

In origami we see this as well. However, more commonly we see folders select 
the paper, colours and size, make variations, choose the occasion and 
narrative, and combine models. That is undoubtedly creative, and I believe that 
is a major reason behind the popularity of origami, and I agree with David that 
they create or make origami; they are creators or makers. 

 

A difficulty with words is that they all have a range of meanings and 
connotations. A "designer" often designs an item, a model, without actually 
creating it. Somebody else will make the item according to the specification of 
the designer. So is this designer a "creator"? They did create the 
specification but not the item. At the other end, somebody making an origami 
figure makes design decisions by selecting colours, variations, paper etc. 

 

Building on my Danish understanding of English I agree with David: "designer" 
is a more neutral and precise term for those actually, well, designing origami, 
and both folders and designers can be "creative". 

 

Btw., I realise I used the word "folder" above rather than the more generic 
"maker" or "interpreter". Since we speak about origami, why not stick to that 
descriptive term? Together with "origami designer" who can also fold, usually. 
Analogous to "musician" and "composer" who can also play music. Or a "furniture 
designer" and an "carpenter" - some of the greatest, Danish furniture designers 
were also carpenters and could make the furniture.

 

All of this captures that folders create stuff. As opposed to a more passive 
role as in "reader"/"writer" (who can also read). The reader can likely also 
write, but the reading activity is not creative.

 

Regards,

Hans

 

Hans Dybkjær

http://papirfoldning.dk

Society: http://foldning.dk

 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

On 24 Mar 2026, at 09.48, David Mitchell via Origami 
 wrote:
> 
> If you want to avoid the use of 'creator' entirely, we could say that in 
> origami there are 'designers' and 'makers' (and you can, of course, be both), 
> but both 'designer' and 'maker' are creative roles. Using the word 'creator' 
> for only one of these roles unfortunately acts to denigrate the other.
> 
> Of course, in other languages, this distinction might not be so clear, or, I 
> suppose, exist at all.
The distinctions are close to the same in Danish. I guess the distinctions will 
be more substantial in languages further from English.

I understand the English word "creator" and that it is closely associated with 
"creativity" which is a broad term ranging from following recipes closely, over 
making changes, and to making the entire design from scratch.

One might argue that it is not much creative to follow a recipe closely, like 
an engineer following a blueprint exactly, using the specified materials. 
In origami we see this as well. However, more commonly we see folders select 
the paper, colours and size, make variations, choose the occasion and 
narrative, and combine models. That is undoubtedly creative, and I believe that 
is a major reason behind the popularity of origami, and I agree with David that 
they create or make origami; they are creators or makers. 

A difficulty with words is that they all have a range of meanings and 
connotations. A "designer" often designs an item, a model, without actually 
creating it. Somebody else will make the item according to the specification of 
the designer. So is this designer a "creator"? They did create the 
specification but not the item. At the other end, somebody making an origami 
figure makes design decisions by selecting colours, variations, paper etc. 

Building on my Danish understanding of English I agree with David: "designer" 
is a more neutral and precise term for those actually, well, designing origami, 
and both folders and designers can be "creative". 

Btw., I realise I used the word "folder" above rather than the more generic 
"maker" or "interpreter". Since we speak about origami, why not stick to that 
descriptive term? Together with "origami designer" who can also fold, usually. 
Analogous to "musician" and "composer" who can also play music. Or a "furniture 
designer" and an "carpenter" - some of the greatest, Danish furniture designers 
were also carpenters and could make the furniture.

All of this captures that folders create stuff. As opposed to a more passive 
role as in "reader"/"writer" (who can also read). The reader can likely also 
write, but the reading activity is not creative.

Regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
http://papirfoldning.dk
Society: http://foldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[David Mitchell via Origami]

In response to my assertion that 'ordinary' paperfolders are also 'creators'  
Laura R  wrote:

>Aren?t you talking about interpreters? The person who follows a diagram to 
>make a model already created by a designer is an interpreter. So to me, there 
>are creators and interpreters. Like in music: composers and interpreters. 
>Clear cut.

Are you saying that the act of playing a piano sonata, for instance, is not 
creative? I suspect many musicians would disagree.

When I play songs on my guitar, for instance, one of my more musical friends 
tells me that I have 'davified' it ... changed it in some way I am not entirely 
aware of so that it sounds better to me. Isn't this also a creative act? (if an 
unintentional one.)

And indeed it seems to me that the word 'interpretation' necessarily implies 
change. An interpretation is not the same as the original. It is a version of 
it.

If you want to avoid the use of 'creator' entirely, we could say that in 
origami there are 'designers' and 'makers' (and you can, of course, be both), 
but both 'designer' and 'maker' are creative roles. Using the word 'creator' 
for only one of these roles unfortunately acts to denigrate the other.

Of course, in other languages, this distinction might not be so clear, or, I 
suppose, exist at all.

Dave



> On Mar 23, 2026, at 10:43?AM, David Mitchell via Origami 
>  wrote:
>
> I'm not going to quote what Ilan wrote ... since we are already suffering 
> badly from over quotation ... but I have a couple of comments.
>
> Some of this is about language, I think. When Ilan and the Cfc talk of 
> 'creators' I think they mean 'designers' ... but there is a crucial 
> difference between the two words. Anyone who follows diagrams to make an 
> origami design is a creator but they are not the original designer. What they 
> create is a version of a design, though it is not necessarily the same as the 
> original. And this creation of a version of a design is surely the essence of 
> what origami is about? To me the use of the term 'creators' to mean 
> 'designers' denigrates the 'ordinary' paperfolder and suggests that what they 
> do is slavish copying ... when we know that  this is not the case.
>
> I am sure, of course, that this is unintentional ... but I believe that this 
> is the effect nonetheless. It acts to divide paperfolders into hierarchical 
> categories ... when in fact almost all of us fall into all the categories 
> from time to time. Sometimes I design, sometimes I fold other people's 
> designs, sometimes (almost always) I play with them to see if they can be 
> tweaked, sometimes I teach etc etc.
>
> Dave

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami]

I've been following this controversy about CFC, Wikipedia, and now creators and 
performers closely. The truth is, although I've been subscribed to the Origami 
List for many years, I haven't participated much. But I would like to offer my 
opinion as an origami artist, not as a creator or performer, since I'm not 
relevant in either of those areas.

I believe that sites like CFC, Nicolas Terry's original website, Origami House, 
Origami Shop, origami museum initiatives like the Laura Rosenberg or EMOZ, and 
others, have contributed enormously to the global spread of origami. Of course, 
they have the right to make a living from it if they can; that goes without 
saying. They are origami artists who shouldn't have to do their work for free. 
They aren't an NGO. We have associations for that. These internet portals have 
contributed greatly to the dissemination of origami works and creators. To say 
that they take advantage of this is like saying that art galleries take 
advantage of artists. Of course, it's a symbiotic relationship. I don't see 
what the problem is. I would have loved to be able to make a living from 
origami. My congratulations to those who have been able to. I've never liked 
competitions, which is why I don't participate in them. But what's wrong with 
those who do enjoy it? We should go that far. I think that getting so involved 
in altruistic issues, popular participation, not to mention the origami 
artists' places of origin, is to politicize our practice, art, or whatever you 
want to call it. If you don't like competing, don't, but criticizing 
competitions is intolerance in my opinion.

I offered to help with Wikipedia, and my offer still stands. But I'm also going 
to collaborate with EverythingThingOrigami. So far, I have absolutely no 
complaints about the CFC and its members. Whenever I've needed them for 
something, they've been there, and they've certainly helped me. I wish all 
private initiatives the continued success of all these initiatives.

> El 23 mar 2026, a las 16:00, Laura R via Origami 
>  escribió:
> 
> Aren’t you talking about interpreters? The person who follows a diagram to 
> make a model already created by a designer is an interpreter. So to me, there 
> are creators and interpreters. Like in music: composers and interpreters. 
> Clear cut.
> 
>> On Mar 23, 2026, at 10:43 AM, David Mitchell via Origami 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not going to quote what Ilan wrote ... since we are already suffering 
>> badly from over quotation ... but I have a couple of comments.
>> 
>> Some of this is about language, I think. When Ilan and the Cfc talk of 
>> 'creators' I think they mean 'designers' ... but there is a crucial 
>> difference between the two words. Anyone who follows diagrams to make an 
>> origami design is a creator but they are not the original designer. What 
>> they create is a version of a design, though it is not necessarily the same 
>> as the original. And this creation of a version of a design is surely the 
>> essence of what origami is about? To me the use of the term 'creators' to 
>> mean 'designers' denigrates the 'ordinary' paperfolder and suggests that 
>> what they do is slavish copying ... when we know that  this is not the case.
>> 
>> I am sure, of course, that this is unintentional ... but I believe that this 
>> is the effect nonetheless. It acts to divide paperfolders into hierarchical 
>> categories ... when in fact almost all of us fall into all the categories 
>> from time to time. Sometimes I design, sometimes I fold other people's 
>> designs, sometimes (almost always) I play with them to see if they can be 
>> tweaked, sometimes I teach etc etc.
>> 
>> Dave
> 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Laura R via Origami]

Aren’t you talking about interpreters? The person who follows a diagram to make 
a model already created by a designer is an interpreter. So to me, there are 
creators and interpreters. Like in music: composers and interpreters. Clear cut.

> On Mar 23, 2026, at 10:43 AM, David Mitchell via Origami 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm not going to quote what Ilan wrote ... since we are already suffering 
> badly from over quotation ... but I have a couple of comments.
> 
> Some of this is about language, I think. When Ilan and the Cfc talk of 
> 'creators' I think they mean 'designers' ... but there is a crucial 
> difference between the two words. Anyone who follows diagrams to make an 
> origami design is a creator but they are not the original designer. What they 
> create is a version of a design, though it is not necessarily the same as the 
> original. And this creation of a version of a design is surely the essence of 
> what origami is about? To me the use of the term 'creators' to mean 
> 'designers' denigrates the 'ordinary' paperfolder and suggests that what they 
> do is slavish copying ... when we know that  this is not the case.
> 
> I am sure, of course, that this is unintentional ... but I believe that this 
> is the effect nonetheless. It acts to divide paperfolders into hierarchical 
> categories ... when in fact almost all of us fall into all the categories 
> from time to time. Sometimes I design, sometimes I fold other people's 
> designs, sometimes (almost always) I play with them to see if they can be 
> tweaked, sometimes I teach etc etc.
> 
> Dave

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[David Mitchell via Origami]

I'm not going to quote what Ilan wrote ... since we are already suffering badly 
from over quotation ... but I have a couple of comments.

Some of this is about language, I think. When Ilan and the Cfc talk of 
'creators' I think they mean 'designers' ... but there is a crucial difference 
between the two words. Anyone who follows diagrams to make an origami design is 
a creator but they are not the original designer. What they create is a version 
of a design, though it is not necessarily the same as the original. And this 
creation of a version of a design is surely the essence of what origami is 
about? To me the use of the term 'creators' to mean 'designers' denigrates the 
'ordinary' paperfolder and suggests that what they do is slavish copying ... 
when we know that  this is not the case.

I am sure, of course, that this is unintentional ... but I believe that this is 
the effect nonetheless. It acts to divide paperfolders into hierarchical 
categories ... when in fact almost all of us fall into all the categories from 
time to time. Sometimes I design, sometimes I fold other people's designs, 
sometimes (almost always) I play with them to see if they can be tweaked, 
sometimes I teach etc etc.

Dave

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

After all these heartfelt discussions I just want to thank the group behind CfC and Everything Origami for channeling so much of their energy into the origami community at large. I've always been welcomed warmly both at the creator conventions and at the great community activities. I know you continuously strive to do better and I look forward to see more.Look into their site (https://www.cfcorigami.com/) and what it can do for you.I'll go fold and design some more origami.Regards from a sunny morning,	HansHans Dybkjærhttp://papirfoldning.dkSociety: http://foldning.dkOn 21 Mar 2026, at 19.59, Ilan Garibi via Origami  wrote:Lorenzo said: These were two main points: the desire to draw a line between creators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage the associations.And later:feel much of what revolves around your project are aspects, moods, and characteristics that don't really belong to European cultures.One example above all is the competitive nature with which you do things I've never liked: challenges, prizes, awards, competitions, even the various online marathons, which are essentially somewhat merciless events in which the one who performs best under pressure intrinsically "wins".What I sense behind the CDC is a mindset far removed from my own, and I believe even from that of most of my origamist friends.It's a cultural trait that can't be helped, that significantly distinguishes us, and which, in my opinion, has prevented the CDC from gaining recognition and appreciation.It's a great discussion, I agree, and it raises many aspects. I will try to address some, not all. And still, this will be a long email.First, let's clear what CFC is. There is confusion (that we caused, by bad marketing, and more reasons) between the Community of Creators and the once-called CFC site. They are not one entity, but two. CFC started as an event. A gathering of people who are interested in being origami creators and all that comes with that. The CFC site came a year after the 2nd CFC convention, and its main goal was to lower the barrier between the creators and origamists. Its main feature was to allow any folder to ask permission (if needed) to teach a model of any creator, without exposing the email of the creator. At once, we gave access to about 300 creators, which was way harder to do, almost impossible, before that. We also used it to support the CFC Convention, as the natural place for that. We shared all the talks from all the conventions, so anyone, creators, non-creators, folders, and non-folders, can watch and learn, and can become folders or creators. So nothing was kept secret or behind a wall. On the contrary, we shared everything.With time, the CFC site grew, and the team grew even more. We added features. Some were to promote the artistic values of origami (the Joisel Award), some were to provide services, such as a directory of all origami groups in the world. This vector continued until we realized that the CFC site is no longer the online representation of the CFC as an entity, but something much bigger, that can provide better tools for the community. We called it Everything Origami, which describes much better what we are trying to do. The fact that the Everything Origami site is directed to everyone, folders and creators, does not mean we do not wish to continue and meet with other creators and discuss those issues of interest. CFC6 happens soon in the USA, CFC7 is planned in Italy next year, and CFC8 is planned in China.Now, I would like to address the two main points presented first.  Point 1:About the desire to draw a line between creators and simple origamist. There is a line between a creator and an origamist. I did not create it. An origamist is anyone who folds models, to put it simply. Creators create the models origamists fold. Trying to say they are one is misleading. Yes, most, if not all, creators are also folders, but thats is like saying that writers who write books have no right to draw a line between them and their readers and to form author clubs. "We all read books, hence we are all the same". Is it truly so?For example, it's hard to find an origamist being invited to a convention as a guest of honor, for obvious reasons. Not the CFC initiative, nor did I create that line. The first CFC convention was not the first event open only to creators; there was one before in San Francisco, for Pacific Rim creators. There may have been others I am unfamiliar with. The convention is not a folding one, and it discusses many aspects of being a creator. I see no problem with the wish to meet people I have a lot in common with and discuss topics that were never discussed in all the folding conventions I have been to. I see no reason to open it to any origamist who wishes to join, since, on average, they have less to contribute to the event than a creator. It's not because we are an elite group. It's simply because we are struggling with how to find a publisher, or how to sell 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hello Ilan,

There is much more that could be said, as I do not believe the points I
raised have been adequately addressed in your attempt to respond to them.
Below are some brief counter-responses, though I (personally) shall stop
with this email as I do not see any point in continuing, given that we have
already expressed our views sufficiently.

The lack of involvement on the part of the associations – which you
essentially attributed to a lack of input from them – is, in my view, of a
very different nature: for me, it is extremely important that the need for
a site like CFC, especially now as it evolves into ‘Everything Origami’,
should arise from the associations themselves. Rather than going to them
and presenting the project, I would have gone to them and offered to be the
implementing arm. I might have offered to initiate and facilitate a process
of discussion, possibly helping them to network, perhaps suggesting that
more can (and should) be done, but always seeking to encourage their
initiative and resourcefulness.
The associations are the ones in contact with the vast majority of origami
artists in every country, and I believe they possess a wealth of skills and
experience that is essential for any evolution. You only know the
origamists with an international presence, who even now still represent a
very small minority.
In short, we should put ourselves at their (Associations) service, encouraging
them to tackle the issue of the evolution of origami through new tools.
Rather than informing them and reducing them to mere spectators.

As for the (non-)competitive nature characteristic of the cultures of the
Old Continent, I emphasise this point strongly, and the ‘cunning’ examples
you have cited will not prove the contrary. I’m not going to sit here and
explain to you in detail and depth what I mean; it’s not my concern, and
I’m quite sure you already have a clear idea of what I’m talking about,
despite your replies, which tend to be misleading (when I saw you mention
the Olympics and that they originated in Europe – OMG – it confirmed beyond
doubt just how intellectually dishonest you wanted to be and actually were,
and far be it from me to stoop to such a low level).

The distinction between a simple folder and a creator would also merit a
detailed response and a thorough debunking. But I’ll leave it at that.

Good luck with the new CFC. As I’ve said elsewhere, I hope it leads to
something positive – something that, for now, the CFC hasn’t delivered for
me.

Ciao,
Lorenzo

On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 at 19:59, Ilan Garibi  wrote:

> Lorenzo said: *These were two main points: the desire to draw a line
> between creators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage
> the associations.*
> And later:
> *feel much of what revolves around your project are aspects, moods, and
> characteristics that don't really belong to European cultures.*
> *One example above all is the competitive nature with which you do things
> I've never liked: challenges, prizes, awards, competitions, even the
> various online marathons, which are essentially somewhat merciless events
> in which the one who performs best under pressure intrinsically "wins".*
>
> *What I sense behind the CDC is a mindset far removed from my own, and I
> believe even from that of most of my origamist friends.It's a cultural
> trait that can't be helped, that significantly distinguishes us, and which,
> in my opinion, has prevented the CDC from gaining recognition and
> appreciation.*
>
> It's a great discussion, I agree, and it raises many aspects. I will try
> to address some, not all. And still, this will be a long email.
>
> First, let's clear what CFC is. There is confusion (that we caused, by bad
> marketing, and more reasons) between the *Community of Creators* and the
> once-called *CFC site*. They are not one entity, but two. *CFC *started
> as an event. A gathering of people who are interested in being origami
> creators and all that comes with that. The *CFC site* came a year after
> the 2nd *CFC convention*, and its main goal was to *lower* the
> barrier between the creators and origamists. Its main feature was to allow
> any folder to ask permission (if needed) to teach a model of any creator,
> without exposing the email of the creator. At once, we gave access to about
> 300 creators, which was way harder to do, almost impossible, before that.
> We also used it to support the *CFC Convention*, as the natural place for
> that. We shared all the talks from all the conventions, so anyone,
> creators, non-creators, folders, and non-folders, can watch and learn, and
> can become folders or creators. So nothing was kept secret or behind a
> wall. On the contrary, we shared everything.
> With time, the *CFC site* grew, and the team grew even more. We added
> features. Some were to promote the artistic values of origami (the Joisel
> Award), some were to provide services, such as a directory of all origami
> groups in the world. This vec

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Ilan Garibi via Origami]

Lorenzo said: *These were two main points: the desire to draw a line
between creators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage
the associations.*
And later:
*feel much of what revolves around your project are aspects, moods, and
characteristics that don't really belong to European cultures.*
*One example above all is the competitive nature with which you do things
I've never liked: challenges, prizes, awards, competitions, even the
various online marathons, which are essentially somewhat merciless events
in which the one who performs best under pressure intrinsically "wins".*

*What I sense behind the CDC is a mindset far removed from my own, and I
believe even from that of most of my origamist friends.It's a cultural
trait that can't be helped, that significantly distinguishes us, and which,
in my opinion, has prevented the CDC from gaining recognition and
appreciation.*

It's a great discussion, I agree, and it raises many aspects. I will try to
address some, not all. And still, this will be a long email.

First, let's clear what CFC is. There is confusion (that we caused, by bad
marketing, and more reasons) between the *Community of Creators* and the
once-called *CFC site*. They are not one entity, but two. *CFC *started as
an event. A gathering of people who are interested in being origami
creators and all that comes with that. The *CFC site* came a year after the
2nd *CFC convention*, and its main goal was to *lower* the barrier between
the creators and origamists. Its main feature was to allow any folder to
ask permission (if needed) to teach a model of any creator, without
exposing the email of the creator. At once, we gave access to about 300
creators, which was way harder to do, almost impossible, before that. We
also used it to support the *CFC Convention*, as the natural place for
that. We shared all the talks from all the conventions, so anyone,
creators, non-creators, folders, and non-folders, can watch and learn, and
can become folders or creators. So nothing was kept secret or behind a
wall. On the contrary, we shared everything.
With time, the *CFC site* grew, and the team grew even more. We added
features. Some were to promote the artistic values of origami (the Joisel
Award), some were to provide services, such as a directory of all origami
groups in the world. This vector continued until we realized that the *CFC
site* is no longer the online representation of the CFC as an entity, but
something much bigger, that can provide better tools for the community. We
called it *Everything Origami,* which describes much better what we are
trying to do.
The fact that the *Everything Origami site* is directed to everyone,
folders and creators, does not mean we do not wish to continue and meet
with other creators and discuss those issues of interest. CFC6 happens soon
in the USA, CFC7 is planned in Italy next year, and CFC8 is planned in
China.

Now, I would like to address the two main points presented first.
Point 1:
*About the desire to draw a line between creators and simple origamist. *
There is a line between a creator and an origamist. I did not create it. An
origamist is anyone who folds models, to put it simply. Creators create the
models origamists fold. Trying to say they are one is misleading. Yes,
most, if not all, creators are also folders, but thats is like saying that
writers who write books have no right to draw a line between them and their
readers and to form author clubs. "We all read books, hence we are all the
same". Is it truly so?
For example, it's hard to find an origamist being invited to a convention
as a guest of honor, for obvious reasons. Not the CFC initiative, nor did I
create that line.
The first CFC convention was not the first event open only to creators;
there was one before in San Francisco, for Pacific Rim creators. There may
have been others I am unfamiliar with. The convention is not a folding one,
and it discusses many aspects of being a creator. I see no problem with the
wish to meet people I have a lot in common with and discuss topics that
were never discussed in all the folding conventions I have been to. I see
no reason to open it to any origamist who wishes to join, since, *on
average*, they have less to contribute to the event than a creator. It's
not because we are an elite group. It's simply because we are struggling
with how to find a publisher, or how to sell our works, or how to answer
a call for artists, daily. And the folders do not. I specifically said
average, because we do welcome non-creators to join,
following two criterions: if they have substantial knowledge to contribute,
and they are willing to do so. During the years, we had quite a few
examples.

Point 2
*The failure to actively engage the associations.*

Most of the CFC conventions are hosted by a local organization, and with
their blessing. The Colchester was a great example of that. Our last day of
the convention was aligned with the first day of the BOS convention,

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

I am sorry that I did not communicate clearly enough - my listing was solely to say that I understand everybody who don't contribute to a specific cause, because my experience is that we are all already busy - and you confirm my presumption	about you in you response below. I apologise that the listing ran away with me, I could have done with the previous sentence. The walk the talk was meant generically, if you don't do something, that something is more unlikely to happen. It was not meant to imply that you or others are inactive.It seems we both hope CfC will thrive, and I certainly hope that fewer critical voices will happen because CfC adapts and not because the critics conform.The requirement for some deeper level of meaning is an interesting distinction I seem to remember from our discussions of Art vs art. I would describe the distinction as intension vs extension. Extension: if it walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Intension: it needs an intrinsic meaning. In logic extension is the set of objects, intension the formula generating the elements. A model of a formal logic is an assignFrom one perspective, the extension is fine. If I want to feed a duck together with my grandchild, I am happy if it quacks and swims and seems to eat the bread crumbs. If I want to participate in an origami activity, I'm happy if I can, and if I then learn something interesting. I don't care if they meant to be inclusive or not: I participate, ergo I am included.From another perspective, intension is needed. If I want to eat a duck (well, I'm vegetarian, but assume the principle here), I would like it to intrinsically be a duck. If I'm co-organising the origami event, I might like the inclusion to be intrinsic. And I know that I am disappointed with artificial plastic flowers that try to be something they are not, even if they look and feel exactly like the real plants.Regards,	HansHans Dybkjærhttp://papirfoldning.dkSociety: http://foldning.dkOn 20 Mar 2026, at 10.50, Lorenzo via Origami  wrote:Hi Hans, Since you enjoy my writing, I’d like to elaborate a little further.With the utmost respect, it is not by listing everything you do, how active you are, or how much value you bring to the community that you make your own opinion (in this case regarding the CFC) more solid than others. I say this with the utmost respect. It’s something we all tend to fall into: promoting ourselves and all the good things we do for a cause, thereby – intrinsically and unconsciously – lending our words greater weight.It is an approach I do not agree with, and one that leads me to view such considerations through a sharper analytical lens.I could list what I do, for example the money spent over a whole ‘adult’ life of origami (which you probably can’t imagine) to support the creators and preserve an archive that is probably unique in the world, but I don’t promote my analyses and opinions by presenting myself as what I have done, even though, of course, one of the most fashionable mantras is that those who express opposition are only credible if they can demonstrate that they have done something worthwhile themselves. What I do for origami is almost entirely irrelevant to my opinion as someone who has been actively involved in the origami world for several decades and knows many people and their views personally.As for the CFC itself, however, what you’ve listed are essentially its activities and outputs (conferences, materials, etc.) – matters on which I haven’t really commented, as they aren’t the things I take issue with.You might call me an idealist, but I still (and will continue to) believe that, in addition to content, something more is needed – something I’d call fundamental.And I say this fully aware that those who voice dissent about the methods and mindset behind a project… well, in the eyes of most people, they’re simply wasting their time.To conclude, I can certainly explain the 'failure' I mentioned in more detail; Matthew oversimplifies it by saying that 'those who close down and cease to exist have failed'. It’s not like that, Matthew; it’s not just like that. A model may have essentially failed yet still remain in existence, even indefinitely, and potentially continue to have negative effects.One might also describe it in terms other than "failure", because everyone sees what their analytical tools allow them to see in the history of CFC and its recent transformation.But this isn’t the time to discuss that, or perhaps I simply don’t feel like it right now – partly because speaking out publicly and expressing myself without holding back obviously leads to people taking a dislike to me, and that’s exhausting. So one of the things I always have to strive for is to find a balance between my desire to speak my mind and censoring myself to avoid conflict.Because, as we all know, to live happily in a community, you have to try to conform to the prevailing mindset, without questioning it too much.I hope CFC gains a large follo

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Hans,

Since you enjoy my writing, I’d like to elaborate a little further.

With the utmost respect, it is not by listing everything you do, how active
you are, or how much value you bring to the community that you make your own
opinion (in this case regarding the CFC) more solid than others. I say this
with the utmost respect.
It’s something we all tend to fall into: promoting ourselves and all the
good things we do for a cause, thereby – intrinsically and unconsciously –
lending our words greater weight.
It is an approach I do not agree with, and one that leads me to view such
considerations through a sharper analytical lens.

I could list what I do, for example the money spent over a whole ‘adult’
life of origami (which you probably can’t imagine) to support the creators
and preserve an archive that is probably unique in the world, but I don’t
promote my analyses and opinions by presenting myself as what I have done,
even though, of course, one of the most fashionable mantras is that those
who express opposition are only credible if they can demonstrate that they
have done something worthwhile themselves.
What I do for origami is almost entirely irrelevant to my opinion as
someone who has been actively involved in the origami world for several
decades and knows many people and their views personally.

As for the CFC itself, however, what you’ve listed are essentially its
activities and outputs (conferences, materials, etc.) – matters on which I
haven’t really commented, as they aren’t the things I take issue with.
You might call me an idealist, but I still (and will continue to) believe
that, in addition to content, something more is needed – something I’d call
fundamental.
And I say this fully aware that those who voice dissent about the methods
and mindset behind a project… well, in the eyes of most people, they’re
simply wasting their time.

To conclude, I can certainly explain the 'failure' I mentioned in more
detail; Matthew oversimplifies it by saying that 'those who close down and
cease to exist have failed'. It’s not like that, Matthew; it’s not just
like that. A model may have essentially failed yet still remain in
existence, even indefinitely, and potentially continue to have negative
effects.
One might also describe it in terms other than "failure", because everyone
sees what their analytical tools allow them to see in the history of CFC
and its recent transformation.

But this isn’t the time to discuss that, or perhaps I simply don’t feel
like it right now – partly because speaking out publicly and expressing
myself without holding back obviously leads to people taking a dislike to
me, and that’s exhausting. So one of the things I always have to strive for
is to find a balance between my desire to speak my mind and censoring
myself to avoid conflict.
Because, as we all know, to live happily in a community, you have to try to
conform to the prevailing mindset, without questioning it too much.

I hope CFC gains a large following and develops in such a way that it
brings ever greater added value to the community, and that there are fewer
and fewer critical voices like mine – just as, for that matter, I don’t
believe there are any critics of OSME, Faltik or anything else... and your
mention of all these entities, Hans, in my view is a bit sly – coming from
someone with such excellent rhetorical skills as yourself – and misleading
(just like that “  Actions speak for themselves, talk does not. Walk the
talk", which was intrinsically meant to refer to me, without you knowing
anything about what I do, who I work with or what projects I’m involved in).

Ciao,
Lorenzo

On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 at 07:59, Papirfoldning.dk 
wrote:

> Hi Lorenzo
> Thanks, this is much more meaningful to me. Your first message was clearly
> triggered by Ilan's remark on "understanding Lorenzo", and in context both
> sounded more like a dispute than a discussion. Hence my remark about being
> non-constructive, meant both ways.
>
> Just a few brief remarks.
>
> It is great that our community is large enough to form special interest
> groups. The CfC is one such group. Other examples are dialectics (teaching
> origami in schools, e.g. Freiburg), math (e.g. part of OSME), complex
> origami (e.eg. a group in France), and tessellations (e.g. Gathering
> folds). All of these are great initiatives, driven by people putting in a
> lot of energy. They deserve a lot of praise.
>
> Deserving praise does not exclude giving criticism. I know you are not
> alone in wanting something else from CfC, and all their energy deserves a
> lot of input, or even better, contributions. "Their" is plural here: The
> group behind CfC is growing, it is by far no longer "Ilan's project".
>
> Special interest groups are by nature exclusive. If you don't do it
> yourself, if you are not interested, you don't belong. Some more than
> others. You decide if you want to join the tessellation group around
> Madonna Yoder, and you will automatically leave if yo

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

Hi LorenzoThanks, this is much more meaningful to me. Your first message was clearly triggered by Ilan's remark on "understanding Lorenzo", and in context both sounded more like a dispute than a discussion. Hence my remark about being non-constructive, meant both ways.Just a few brief remarks.It is great that our community is large enough to form special interest groups. The CfC is one such group. Other examples are dialectics (teaching origami in schools, e.g. Freiburg), math (e.g. part of OSME), complex origami (e.eg. a group in France), and tessellations (e.g. Gathering folds). All of these are great initiatives, driven by people putting in a lot of energy. They deserve a lot of praise.Deserving praise does not exclude giving criticism. I know you are not alone in wanting something else from CfC, and all their energy deserves a lot of input, or even better, contributions. "Their" is plural here: The group behind CfC is growing, it is by far no longer "Ilan's project". Special interest groups are by nature exclusive. If you don't do it yourself, if you are not interested, you don't belong. Some more than others. You decide if you want to join the tessellation group around Madonna Yoder, and you will automatically leave if you don't have the time or the interest. You cannot fully be part of OSME if you don't provide an article that survives peer review, even if you are allowed to listen in and discuss if you pay the participation fee. At a small workshop for complex origami you don't belong if you cannot fold complex origami - teaching beginners belongs elsewhere. If you don't have experience teaching (as a teacher, not just conducting a workshop), you don't really belong to a meeting on dialectics.I have had much pleasure in participating in CfC. Having a space where I could learn hard, professional experiences on exhibiting origami, contracts, fees, how to do industrial design, publish books etc. is invaluable, something you cannot learn from the internet, large LLM's or not. I have done ALL of those things and have questions around them, even if I don't actually need my income from origami (I didn't dare that jump, ok to call me a chicken) - I'm more at the level of "a hobby that more than pays for itself".  In such a setting it is essential that the overwhelming majority of those you meet have at least some of those professional experiences themselves. Hence I acknowledge their level of exclusivity in that single part of their activities.However, CfC as such is not exclusive. Plenty of their activities come from new people joining with ideas and energy. And they listen to suggestions and input and (constructive) criticism, as evidenced by their recent shift in focus from CfC (creators only) to everything origami. Which is great and a transition long in the wait - I just hope they will continue arranging meetings focused on being a creator earning an income from origami, we sincerely need that level of a professional space.And: Nothing prevents you (and Viviane and ...) from making your own initiatives or joining the efforts on everything not CfC. They are not exclusive in that. They are not trying to hoard the initiative, merely offering opportunities.For instance, anyone can start contributing to Wikipedia or even form a coordinated group doing that. It "just" requires energy in addition to talk. Laura is a good example - another energy bundle. As she also attests, it may be uphill work. So join her, support her, put in your effort. Actions speak for themselves, talk does not. Walk the talk.I am even willing to contribute, even if, as Ilan and others can attest, it is hard to upkeep a steady input from me. I have mainly prioritised my own work, my design, commissions, books, articles, talks and workshops, teaching blind folders, and not least, driving our local community through sixteen+ years, currently preparing and meeting six hours every Wednesday (almost every; last year it was cancelled five times, including Christmas eve ...), open to everyone, no cost, no fee. I know you all have similar piles of excuses and that is as it should be. The more so all the praise to those actively contributing and even more so, running activities.All that does not exclude criticism. On the contrary, any worthy initiative deserves input and criticism. Just keep it as discussions rather than dispute. Lorenzo, I enjoy your writings and I hope to see much more from you. Your style is blunt as you're explicitly aware, which requires a certain acceptance from the recipient and which in some cases may be a hairline away from negativity. Better that than no input, though.Best regards and happy folding,	HansPS: Challenges and competitions can be a great inspiration, and if some people (including Europeans) will be motivated by prizes, no harm in that. I can participate or just enjoy the results without having to compare myself to others, prizes or not.Hans Dybkjærhttp://papirfoldning.dkSociety: http://foldning.dkOn 20 Mar

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hans,

I'd also like to urge you not to think I'm the only one who thinks this
way, because as you write, support is sometimes seldom, and I'd add, it's
especially rare when expressing agreement concerns an uncomfortable and
rather unpopular position like the one I've expressed.

I know a few people who think much like me, but you won't see them express
themselves publicly for various (obvious or not) reasons.
And with this, I don't really mean to make any hateful insinuations,
absolutely not. I just want to say that it's very easy to disagree with
clear-cut positions like mine, partly because they're considered isolated,
when in reality they aren't.

Typically, I receive expressions of support only when I express popular,
mainstream positions.

Ciao,
Lorenzo


Lorenzo Lucioni
Duesseldorf - Germany
lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026, 20:41 Papirfoldning.dk,  wrote:

> It is not constructive to be negative about initiatives other people
> arrange - instead, support those who have the energy and who channels that
> into our community at large - it is all too seldom.
>
> I would say that the real divide is to not be tolerant of people who like
> to focus on specific aspects of origami, such as how to design origami, or
> make a business of folding, or the dialectics of origami, or creating
> really complex origami, or making math of origami, or making tessellations,
> or ...
>
> All of the above groups exist. And no, you don't get to publish a peer
> reviewed article on origami math just because you like origami. And no,
> that detracts exactly nothing from the rest of the community. On the
> contrary, they instill inspiration into the participants which they bring
> along in other contexts.
>
> There are good reasons to get together with like-minded. It is indeed at
> great joy that our origami society is large enough to form interest groups.
>
> I, for one, have had great inspiration in meeting with other designers and
> with researchers and with other specialised people, and bring that
> enthusiasm with me when meeting with other origami groups or workshops
> which I frequently give to the general public - in our local group of 15-20
> folders, beginners and advanced alike *every* Wednesdays, and free
> workshops at public events, and at origami conventions, and  Sharpening
> my origami competence against creators at CfC, masters at other
> conferences, etc., greatly enhances what I can teach others and design
> myself.
>
> People having a lot of energy to organise events, making challenges and so
> on, like the group around CfC (now Origami for everyone) are a great asset
> for the community in general, are recommendable, and frankly to be
> respected. I am a great fan of Ilan, Miguel, and the others around CfC as
> well as other special groups like the afore-mentioned dialectics group or
> OSME. And none of them are really exclusive - you need not feel jealous or
> excluded, they all have plenty of ways for you to participate IF you are
> actually interested in their speciality.
>
> You might not like the specific style, or wanted things differently. It is
> not constructive to complain about that. Just ignore those and focus on all
> those activities you enjoy - there should be plenty. Or suggest changes, or
> even better, throw energy into making events that you like. I'll enjoy the
> extra options.
>
> Best wishes, and enjoy all those fascinating aspects and activities our
> community provides,
>   Hans
>
> Hans Dybkjær
> http://papirfoldning.dk
> Society: http://foldning.dk
>
> On 19 Mar 2026, at 19.36, Lorenzo via Origami <
> origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Ilan wrote:
>
>> While it has been described by Lorenzo as a failure (and God, please help
>> me understand why he said that), it is managed by people who truly
>> understand paper folding and the needs of this community...
>
>
> I'll answer by explaining my point of view, which I think you're already
> partly aware of.
>
> At the beginning of CFC's history, back in the early days, you'll remember
> me telling you there were things about CFC that I didn't think were
> adequate. These were two main points: the desire to draw a line between c
> reators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage the
> associations.
>
> The failure of the CDC is evident to me because a project like yours,
> which seeks to fit into a relatively small and distinctive community like
> we are, absolutely must not erect walls, be non-sectarian, or draw
> boundaries and separations.
> It also needs to be shared and participated in from the outset in defining
> its objectives and methods by a large portion of the community members or
> by those who have been in the field for a long time, namely the A
> ssociations.
>
> You, on the other hand, conceived and created it from the very beginning
> as a community exclusively of creators, creating a divide between creators
> and ordinary origamists that hadn't existed before, erec

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Dear Hans,

in your email you address aspects, more or less indirectly attributing them
to me, that in reality don't represent me, and therefore I want to respond.

You emphasize several and specific aspects of origami, as if I were
expressing my objections to them. That's not the case, and what you write
doesn't correspond to the intentions of my email. And it would be a shame
if I were critical of the development of origami in its many aspects.
Instead, I explicitly mentioned the exclusionary aspect of a community (and
its events) created to welcome only a portion of origamists, The
conventions, for example, were held behind closed doors. If things had
changed recently, as Laura writes, I honestly don't know. My last
experience was in Colchester. I asked if I could attend the sessions of the
CFC convention (which was held in the building next door) and was told it
was for creators.

What I wanted to send to this o-list is my opinion, and I've done so to the
best of my ability, in a sufficiently thorough manner.
And no, Hans, I don't think it's correct to judge another's opinion
according to the logic of constructive/non-constructive. Otherwise, any
dissent can be labeled as non-constructive and therefore more or less
indirectly diminished, if not discredited. Labeling something as
non-constructive is a communication device used, in my experience, by those
who want to belittle the opinion of others.

In general, to me it's very important to express one's opinions, provided
one is capable of supporting them appropriately. Elaborating on something
(as I have done), and making it public, doesn't necessarily mean that this
analysis must be positive and constructive. Expressing a well-formed
opinion brings benefits, i.e. stimulates reactions, offers a perspective,
and, if appropriate, raises awareness.
For this reason, I defend everyone's right to express themselves, when this
happens with due articulation, without being labeled as not-constructive.

You then say it's so rare for people to support the work of others. Well,
as far as I'm concerned, I support everything I deem valid and valuable
with all my heart, be it financially or otherwise. To name one in origami,
Nicolas's splendid and invaluable work in publishing and promoting
origamists on the other side of the world, purchasing from his store in
large quantities is how I can support him.
I'm the first to roll up my sleeves for things I believe are worthy, or to
take to the streets to support those who fight for something I believe is
worthy.

In your email, you list a number of reasons why you so appreciated CFC's
work, and I'm sincerely pleased. But the aspects I mentioned in my email
remain unchanged.

Furthermore, while CFC, as a small community, may have previously suffered
from the exclusion of the entire "non-creative" community —which, I
believe, could have appreciated much of what the conventions, for example,
focused on— the current evolution (Everything Origami), in my opinion,
suffers from the desire to centralize everything centralizable under a
single umbrella. For this reason I'd say it should be even more
participatory, that is, not restricted to a small management group. By
this, I mean right from the so-called "gathering of functional
requirements" (which, put like that, is certainly abstract, but can be
explored in detail), if only because it would soon claim to represent the
entire origami world.
In other words, I really don't think there's any need for a social network
for origamists, a "MySpace" for origamists with a gazillion features, which
standardizes origamists to a simple profile aligned with the creator's
vision (Trump's Social Network comes to mind).
But, pay attention, the point here is entirely different: it's not me who
counts, because mine is just a single opinion --> what I would hope for is
that whatever may emerge, it arises from having humbly (and with the
greatest possible openness) listened to the most important opinions on this
matter, those of many experienced and relevant origamists and, above all,
of associations around the world who can express their point of view on
something that, in its intentions, is on the path to changing our community
forever.

I realize this last point may not be immediately clear, accustomed as we
are to praising personal initiative. Nonetheless, whatever role you hold in
a company or small group, that role carries responsibilities (just as in
business there is so-called corporate responsibility, this unknown concept
whose last vestiges can be found in the 1950s with Adriano Olivetti, one of
the last entrepreneurs to understand the responsibilities he had as a
business leader).
This is why I truly hope that any major project born within our community
is born from a shared need, from a genuine and recognizable shared feeling,
and from the shared opinions of many key stakeholders, rather than the
initiative of one or a few.

Ciao,
Lorenzo

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 at 20:41, Papirfoldning.dk

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

I’m glad my email sparked some reactions; I wanted to ask you this but
forgot to do so.

Hans and Matthew: you are creators (I assume Hans is), you judge from your
own perspective. But you are a minority within the global origami scene.

Matthew: when I mentioned the competitive spirit, I was naturally referring
to the world of origami, not to the rest of society in Europe. You, in
fact, cited examples of American conventions, not European ones. I attend
many conventions in Europe and I don’t get the impression that people
approach origami competitively, to win prizes or recognition or show
awards, apart from the traditional themed competition that many European
conventions have, which is almost an institution. Otherwise, the emphasis
that CfC places on rewards, prizes and competition is something I don’t see
in the origami circles I frequent here.

Laura: Of course, the focus and objectives can change. The fact remains
that, for me, a project conceived with such a clear-cut approach—one of
distinction and closed doors—is something very distinctive. We will
certainly see how the new CfC goes, but as I said, a huge project like
this, which aims to have an impact on the entire community, should, in my
view, be based on a collaborative and shared vision, not on the decisions
of a few.

Ciao,
Lorenzo

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 at 21:22, Laura R via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> This is how I see it. Ilan may remember how I raised freaking concerns to
> him at the beginning of his CfC project, more or less along the lines of
> what Lorenzo is pointing out. It seemed to me that narrowing the focus to
> creators left a lot of people out. Over time, though, the project broadened
> to include interpreters as well. It’s understandable for a project to
> evolve in ways that weren’t part of the original plan. If anything, that
> suggests a willingness to reassess and adjust goals in pursuit of something
> better. And of course, it can always keep improving.
>
> One thing about that earlier phase, when it was limited to just
> “creators”: I found those closed-door meetings pretty troubling. They
> excluded a lot of people who could have benefited from the discussions. I
> was able to access some of the material afterward (several of which I got
> permission to publish in The Paper, where I’m the managing editor) and it
> was genuinely valuable. The originality and the depth of the debates are
> exactly the kind of conversations that should keep happening. I wonder
> whether that initial sense of exclusivity —of being part of an élite— may
> actually have played a role in motivating those guys to develop their ideas
> more fully in order to give a dissertation in front of “peers". That’s just
> speculation on my part, and I could be wrong, but I suspect there’s
> something to it.
>
> Laura
>
> On Mar 19, 2026, at 4:41 PM, Papirfoldning.dk 
> wrote:
>
> It is not constructive to be negative about initiatives other people
> arrange - instead, support those who have the energy and who channels that
> into our community at large - it is all too seldom.
>
> I would say that the real divide is to not be tolerant of people who like
> to focus on specific aspects of origami, such as how to design origami, or
> make a business of folding, or the dialectics of origami, or creating
> really complex origami, or making math of origami, or making tessellations,
> or ...
>
> All of the above groups exist. And no, you don't get to publish a peer
> reviewed article on origami math just because you like origami. And no,
> that detracts exactly nothing from the rest of the community. On the
> contrary, they instill inspiration into the participants which they bring
> along in other contexts.
>
> There are good reasons to get together with like-minded. It is indeed at
> great joy that our origami society is large enough to form interest groups.
>
> I, for one, have had great inspiration in meeting with other designers and
> with researchers and with other specialised people, and bring that
> enthusiasm with me when meeting with other origami groups or workshops
> which I frequently give to the general public - in our local group of 15-20
> folders, beginners and advanced alike *every* Wednesdays, and free
> workshops at public events, and at origami conventions, and  Sharpening
> my origami competence against creators at CfC, masters at other
> conferences, etc., greatly enhances what I can teach others and design
> myself.
>
> People having a lot of energy to organise events, making challenges and so
> on, like the group around CfC (now Origami for everyone) are a great asset
> for the community in general, are recommendable, and frankly to be
> respected. I am a great fan of Ilan, Miguel, and the others around CfC as
> well as other special groups like the afore-mentioned dialectics group or
> OSME. And none of them are really exclusive - you need not feel jealous or
> excluded, they all have plenty of ways for you 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Viviane Berty via Origami]

Laura wrote :"I wonder whether that initial sense of exclusivity —of 
being part of an élite— may actually have played a role in motivating 
those guys to develop their ideas more fully in order to give a 
dissertation in front of “peers". That’s just speculation on my part, 
and I could be wrong, but I suspect there’s something to it. "


Hello dear Friends,

I attended the CFC conventions 1 and 2 in Lyon and Zaragoza. The 
enthusiastic idea was this meeting mainly for exchanging ideas, on the 
contrary of other conventions that are mainly for folding workshops. I 
didn't feel this "being part of an élite". Afterwards came professional 
purposes and business. I cannot agree with that. And I feel like I have 
been naive at that times.


I think that Lorenzo analysis is correct.

About Wikipedia, the great aspect for me is this is not business. 
Wikipedia doesn't look for clients. Moreover, this is more reliable 
about preserving archives, I think.


The social medias have not to be contempted I think. I am keeping in 
touch with lovely friends there. I can hear some news, and have some 
conversations, it is nice. I am not there for the likes but for lovely 
dialogues and inspirational pictures. And it is opened to non origami 
people. Wikipedia is a way to be in touch with the world and not to stay 
closed in a community.


And... just one more thing : origami photos contests are nonsense 
according to me, because paper objects need to be really seen and folded 
to be well appreciated, valued, liked.


Good night (here, it is the end of the day) and have sweet dreams,

Viviane.



Le 19/03/2026 à 21:22, Laura R via Origami a écrit :


This is how I see it. Ilan may remember how I raised freaking concerns 
to him at the beginning of his CfC project, more or less along the 
lines of what Lorenzo is pointing out. It seemed to me that narrowing 
the focus to creators left a lot of people out. Over time, though, the 
project broadened to include interpreters as well. It’s understandable 
for a project to evolve in ways that weren’t part of the original 
plan. If anything, that suggests a willingness to reassess and adjust 
goals in pursuit of something better. And of course, it can always 
keep improving.


One thing about that earlier phase, when it was limited to just 
“creators”: I found those closed-door meetings pretty troubling. They 
excluded a lot of people who could have benefited from the 
discussions. I was able to access some of the material afterward 
(several of which I got permission to publish in The Paper, where I’m 
the managing editor) and it was genuinely valuable. The originality 
and the depth of the debates are exactly the kind of conversations 
that should keep happening. I wonder whether that initial sense of 
exclusivity —of being part of an élite— may actually have played a 
role in motivating those guys to develop their ideas more fully in 
order to give a dissertation in front of “peers". That’s just 
speculation on my part, and I could be wrong, but I suspect there’s 
something to it.


Laura


On Mar 19, 2026, at 4:41 PM, Papirfoldning.dk  
wrote:


It is not constructive to be negative about initiatives other people 
arrange - instead, support those who have the energy and who channels 
that into our community at large - it is all too seldom.


I would say that the real divide is to not be tolerant of people who 
like to focus on specific aspects of origami, such as how to design 
origami, or make a business of folding, or the dialectics of origami, 
or creating really complex origami, or making math of origami, or 
making tessellations, or ...


All of the above groups exist. And no, you don't get to publish a 
peer reviewed article on origami math just because you like origami. 
And no, that detracts exactly nothing from the rest of the community. 
On the contrary, they instill inspiration into the participants which 
they bring along in other contexts.


There are good reasons to get together with like-minded. It is indeed 
at great joy that our origami society is large enough to form 
interest groups.


I, for one, have had great inspiration in meeting with other 
designers and with researchers and with other specialised people, and 
bring that enthusiasm with me when meeting with other origami groups 
or workshops which I frequently give to the general public - in our 
local group of 15-20 folders, beginners and advanced alike *every* 
Wednesdays, and free workshops at public events, and at origami 
conventions, and  Sharpening my origami competence against 
creators at CfC, masters at other conferences, etc., greatly enhances 
what I can teach others and design myself.


People having a lot of energy to organise events, making challenges 
and so on, like the group around CfC (now Origami for everyone) are a 
great asset for the community in general, are recommendable, and 
frankly to be respected. I am a great fan of Ilan, Miguel, and the 
others around CfC as well as o

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Matthew Green]

Good afternoon/evening. There’s a lot to unpack in this email and I don’t have time right now to react to everything. As you say, Lorenzo, it’s your opinion and people can disagree, and I do, on a variety of points.There is one thing, one example that you give, that I’d like to comment on right off the bat, though. You say that (emphasis added): “ I feel much of what revolves around your project are aspects, moods, and characteristics that don't really belong to European cultures. One example above all is the competitive nature with which you do things I've never liked: challenges, prizes, awards, competitions, even the various online marathons…”It seems obvious to me that competitions (formal or informal, in person or online), awards, etc., are far from new or unusual in the origami world.  I’ve known about and participated in competitions, design challenges, etc. since my first origami convention in 1984 in New York, and they’ve existed for years in online forums (with participants from around the world), and at conventions that I’ve attended in the USA, Mexico, and Colombia (and I don’t doubt they exist at other conventions too, but these are ones I’ve been to). The International Origami Internet Olympiad is a good example; it has been going since 2010 and has participants from Europe, Asia, Australia, and North and South America. And competition in general is hardly “un-European”; what about European participation in the World Cup or in Eurovision? And prizes or awards for excellence are part and parcel of society, in Europe and beyond, in sports, arts, science, etc.As long as they are optional, why should these things be excluded from the origami community? They generate great enthusiasm in some people. You’re welcome not to like them; they’re not always my cup of tea either. But I hardly think they are a factor that would contribute to “failure” or that are foreign to European culture, which seems to be what you claim, unless I misunderstand you.As for the “failure” overall of the CfC / Everything Origami initiative, that could be true if the website ceased to exist, or if the CfC conventions ceased to take place, but that’s not the case. I would attend all of them if my budget allowed me! Best, MatthewSent from my iPadOn Mar 19, 2026, at 12:36 PM, Lorenzo via Origami  wrote:Ilan wrote:While it has been described by Lorenzo as a failure (and God, please help me understand why he said that), it is managed by people who truly understand paper folding and the needs of this community...I'll answer by explaining my point of view, which I think you're already partly aware of.At the beginning of CFC's history, back in the early days, you'll remember me telling you there were things about CFC that I didn't think were adequate. These were two main points: the desire to draw a line between creators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage the associations.The failure of the CDC is evident to me because a project like yours, which seeks to fit into a relatively small and distinctive community like we are, absolutely must not erect walls, be non-sectarian, or draw boundaries and separations. It also needs to be shared and participated in from the outset in defining its objectives and methods by a large portion of the community members or by those who have been in the field for a long time, namely the Associations.You, on the other hand, conceived and created it from the very beginning as a community exclusively of creators, creating a divide between creators and ordinary origamists that hadn't existed before, erecting a wall, which you now had to tear down to give the project a new identity.Before the CFC, I don't recall ever noticing a distinction between creators and non-creators at conventions (and I've been attending several conventions a year for almost 30 years). Since the CFC, I've begun to sense in people a sort of reverence, or at least a distinction between who design and who don't, in some circles.Regarding participation, you simply imposed CFC on us from above.You told me that the associations had been "introduced" to the CFC project. That's not enough. You can't go there, without humility, and say, "I'm going to do this," when "this" is something that aims to have a huge impact on our community. Local associations and groups are a fundamental and predominant part of origami, due to the enormous and essential work they do. And for this reason, given their vast experience, their direct contact with the people they hold, and the roles they play, their active collaboration and voice was indispensable.The two things above -not having proposed a shared project, along with the very recent change of direction you briought to CFC (from Creators to Everyone)- both point to a failure.I can add that I feel much of what revolves around your project are aspects, moods, and characteristics that don't really belong to European cultures.One example above all is the competitive nature with which you 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

It is not constructive to be negative about initiatives other people arrange - instead, support those who have the energy and who channels that into our community at large - it is all too seldom.I would say that the real divide is to not be tolerant of people who like to focus on specific aspects of origami, such as how to design origami, or make a business of folding, or the dialectics of origami, or creating really complex origami, or making math of origami, or making tessellations, or ...All of the above groups exist. And no, you don't get to publish a peer reviewed article on origami math just because you like origami. And no, that detracts exactly nothing from the rest of the community. On the contrary, they instill inspiration into the participants which they bring along in other contexts. There are good reasons to get together with like-minded. It is indeed at great joy that our origami society is large enough to form interest groups. I, for one, have had great inspiration in meeting with other designers and with researchers and with other specialised people, and bring that enthusiasm with me when meeting with other origami groups or workshops which I frequently give to the general public - in our local group of 15-20 folders, beginners and advanced alike *every* Wednesdays, and free workshops at public events, and at origami conventions, and  Sharpening my origami competence against creators at CfC, masters at other conferences, etc., greatly enhances what I can teach others and design myself.People having a lot of energy to organise events, making challenges and so on, like the group around CfC (now Origami for everyone) are a great asset for the community in general, are recommendable, and frankly to be respected. I am a great fan of Ilan, Miguel, and the others around CfC as well as other special groups like the afore-mentioned dialectics group or OSME. And none of them are really exclusive - you need not feel jealous or excluded, they all have plenty of ways for you to participate IF you are actually interested in their speciality.You might not like the specific style, or wanted things differently. It is not constructive to complain about that. Just ignore those and focus on all those activities you enjoy - there should be plenty. Or suggest changes, or even better, throw energy into making events that you like. I'll enjoy the extra options.Best wishes, and enjoy all those fascinating aspects and activities our community provides,      HansHans Dybkjærhttp://papirfoldning.dkSociety: http://foldning.dkOn 19 Mar 2026, at 19.36, Lorenzo via Origami  wrote:Ilan wrote:While it has been described by Lorenzo as a failure (and God, please help me understand why he said that), it is managed by people who truly understand paper folding and the needs of this community...I'll answer by explaining my point of view, which I think you're already partly aware of.At the beginning of CFC's history, back in the early days, you'll remember me telling you there were things about CFC that I didn't think were adequate. These were two main points: the desire to draw a line between creators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage the associations.The failure of the CDC is evident to me because a project like yours, which seeks to fit into a relatively small and distinctive community like we are, absolutely must not erect walls, be non-sectarian, or draw boundaries and separations. It also needs to be shared and participated in from the outset in defining its objectives and methods by a large portion of the community members or by those who have been in the field for a long time, namely the Associations.You, on the other hand, conceived and created it from the very beginning as a community exclusively of creators, creating a divide between creators and ordinary origamists that hadn't existed before, erecting a wall, which you now had to tear down to give the project a new identity.Before the CFC, I don't recall ever noticing a distinction between creators and non-creators at conventions (and I've been attending several conventions a year for almost 30 years). Since the CFC, I've begun to sense in people a sort of reverence, or at least a distinction between who design and who don't, in some circles.Regarding participation, you simply imposed CFC on us from above.You told me that the associations had been "introduced" to the CFC project. That's not enough. You can't go there, without humility, and say, "I'm going to do this," when "this" is something that aims to have a huge impact on our community. Local associations and groups are a fundamental and predominant part of origami, due to the enormous and essential work they do. And for this reason, given their vast experience, their direct contact with the people they hold, and the roles they play, their active collaboration and voice was indispensable.The two things above -not having proposed a shared project, along with the very recent change of dir

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Ilan wrote:

> While it has been described by Lorenzo as a failure (and God, please help
> me understand why he said that), it is managed by people who truly
> understand paper folding and the needs of this community...


I'll answer by explaining my point of view, which I think you're already
partly aware of.

At the beginning of CFC's history, back in the early days, you'll remember
me telling you there were things about CFC that I didn't think were
adequate. These were two main points: the desire to draw a line between c
reators and simple origamist, and the failure to actively engage the
associations.

The failure of the CDC is evident to me because a project like yours, which
seeks to fit into a relatively small and distinctive community like we are,
absolutely must not erect walls, be non-sectarian, or draw boundaries and
separations.
It also needs to be shared and participated in from the outset in defining
its objectives and methods by a large portion of the community members or
by those who have been in the field for a long time, namely the A
ssociations.

You, on the other hand, conceived and created it from the very beginning as
a community exclusively of creators, creating a divide between creators and
ordinary origamists that hadn't existed before, erecting a wall, which you
now had to tear down to give the project a new identity.
Before the CFC, I don't recall ever noticing a distinction between creators
and non-creators at conventions (and I've been attending several conventions
a year for almost 30 years). Since the CFC, I've begun to sense in people a
sort of reverence, or at least a distinction between who design and who
don't, in some circles.

Regarding participation, you simply imposed CFC on us from above.
You told me that the associations had been "introduced" to the CFC project.
That's not enough. You can't go there, without humility, and say, "I'm
going to do this," when "this" is something that aims to have a huge impact
on our community. Local associations and groups are a fundamental and
predominant part of origami, due to the enormous and essential work they
do. And for this reason, given their vast experience, their direct contact
with the people they hold, and the roles they play, their active
collaboration and voice was indispensable.

The two things above -not having proposed a shared project, along with the
very recent change of direction you briought to CFC (from Creators to
Everyone)- both point to a failure.

I can add that I feel much of what revolves around your project are
aspects, moods, and characteristics that don't really belong to European
cultures.
One example above all is the competitive nature with which you do things
I've never liked: challenges, prizes, awards, competitions, even the
various online marathons, which are essentially somewhat merciless events
in which the one who performs best under pressure intrinsically "wins".
What I sense behind the CDC is a mindset far removed from my own, and I
believe even from that of most of my origamist friends.
It's a cultural trait that can't be helped, that significantly
distinguishes us, and which, in my opinion, has prevented the CDC from
gaining recognition and appreciation.

What personally makes me uncomfortable is the idea that an entire
community, like us, is structured, classified, regulated, connected,
interconnected, and so on and so forth, in a place conceived, created, and
structured by a single person, the chosen one, who is its "creator"
(precisely). It's not a question of envy or the like, it's a question of
freedom, of the natural flow of things and relationships, of growing
together as a community and not because someone, in a sort of one-man show,
has decided they want to structure and regulate us, connect us, and
"facilitate" us. We've had enough of colonization.

The same thing happened with this compulsive urge, which emerged only
recently (precisely with the advent of the CFC) to define oneself as an
Artist and to define origami as Art at all costs... but this is another
story, although rather well connected with the CFC (when it was precisely
about Creators)

The desire to enrich Wikipedia stems from the fact that, in my view,
Wikipedia can be considered a human heritage, reasonably without owners,
collaborative, and, in theory, open. I have never had editing experience on
Wikipedia, and perhaps it has many limitations and difficulties, and our
desire has not materialized.

The above is my opinion, and I expect many will disagree. Furthermore, I'm
of a certain age, and it's likely that the generation after mine will see
things quite differently.

Articles, documents, and resources are certainly a good thing, but for
that, you don't need much more than Wikipedia or the associations' websites
themselves (see David Lister's collection of articles). Everything else
surrounding CFC is a top-down, uncooperative superstructure that the
community doesn't need.

Origami has reached its current state 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Viviane Berty via Origami]

Ilan wrote : "Instead of launching a new project on a platform we cannot 
control, I urge you to join the Everything Origami team"


Dear Ilan, all we need is life, love and freedom. Life cannot be 
controlled. Let it happen, Ilan.


Viviane.

Le 18/03/2026 à 10:32, Ilan Garibi via Origami a écrit :

Dear All,

I believe there is little chance a community-led Wikipedia project 
will succeed in the origami field. Out of approximately 10,000 serious 
folders, only about 600 are active creators, and perhaps only 10 
possess the inclination and skill to write in a Wikipedia style. Just 
read the emails above; while many like the idea, most are too busy 
with their own projects to volunteer. In my experience recruiting for 
various community initiatives, initial excitement almost always fades 
quickly.


Furthermore, relying on Wikipedia is a false hope due to its strict 
"Golden Rule" regarding significant, independent coverage. To qualify 
for a page, an artist must be featured in major newspapers, reputable 
news broadcasts, or traditionally published art books. Personal 
websites, social media followings, self-published books, and even 
internal newsletters from organizations like OrigamiUSA or the BOS 
generally do not count. Only a few notable persons meet these 
criteria, and most of them are already documented.
I recently used AI to compile relevant English Wikipedia pages and 
found 71 entries:

Value   Count
*Person*33
*Mathematics*   11
*General*   8
*Technique* 8
*Model* 6
*Related Art*   5

You can see the full list here 
, 
if you wish. I will soon add it as a resource to the Everything 
Origami  site. So this is what the 
community has managed to do until now. The collection is chaotic, 
following no logic, criteria, or importance. There is a page on Paper 
Popper . Why? I have no idea.


The "Everything Origami " site (formerly 
CFC) is actually our best chance at building a comprehensive resource. 
While it has been described by Lorenzo as a failure (and God, please 
help me understand why he said that), it is managed by people who 
truly understand paper folding and the needs of this community, and 
are *willing to dedicate time *to this project. Our platform allows 
authors to upload their own data, which is the most effective way to 
build a complete directory of creators, origami books, and models. By 
following the logic of OriWiki and empowering creators to contribute 
their own content, we can achieve what Wikipedia's rigid structure 
cannot. Yet, as we can see from the Origami Database, the community 
never stood up to the challenge, and the data has been stuck for many 
years. So to make it work, we need to find ways to motivate the owners 
of the content to upload it themselves. Our updated site is trying to 
do exactly that.
Furthermore, Wikipedia will never add diagrams to a page of a creator. 
We can do it. We can create a full net of data, connecting all the 
pieces, without adhering to the strict rules of Wikipedia.


Instead of launching a new project on a platform we cannot control, I 
urge you to join the Everything Origami team and take responsibility 
for a portion of this effort for the benefit of the community.


Best regards,

Ilan Garibi
Site Admin, Everything Origami 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Ilan Garibi via Origami]

Dear All,

I believe there is little chance a community-led Wikipedia project will
succeed in the origami field. Out of approximately 10,000 serious folders,
only about 600 are active creators, and perhaps only 10 possess the
inclination and skill to write in a Wikipedia style. Just read the emails
above; while many like the idea, most are too busy with their own projects
to volunteer. In my experience recruiting for various community
initiatives, initial excitement almost always fades quickly.

Furthermore, relying on Wikipedia is a false hope due to its strict "Golden
Rule" regarding significant, independent coverage. To qualify for a page,
an artist must be featured in major newspapers, reputable news broadcasts,
or traditionally published art books. Personal websites, social media
followings, self-published books, and even internal newsletters from
organizations like OrigamiUSA or the BOS generally do not count. Only a few
notable persons meet these criteria, and most of them are already
documented.
I recently used AI to compile relevant English Wikipedia pages and found 71
entries:
Value Count
*Person* 33
*Mathematics* 11
*General* 8
*Technique* 8
*Model* 6
*Related Art* 5
You can see the full list here
,
if you wish. I will soon add it as a resource to the Everything Origami
 site. So this is what the community has
managed to do until now. The collection is chaotic, following no logic,
criteria, or importance. There is a page on Paper Popper
. Why? I have no idea.

The "Everything Origami " site (formerly CFC)
is actually our best chance at building a comprehensive resource. While it
has been described by Lorenzo as a failure (and God, please help me
understand why he said that), it is managed by people who truly understand
paper folding and the needs of this community, and are *willing to dedicate
time *to this project. Our platform allows authors to upload their own
data, which is the most effective way to build a complete directory of
creators, origami books, and models. By following the logic of OriWiki and
empowering creators to contribute their own content, we can achieve what
Wikipedia's rigid structure cannot. Yet, as we can see from the Origami
Database, the community never stood up to the challenge, and the data has
been stuck for many years. So to make it work, we need to find ways to
motivate the owners of the content to upload it themselves. Our updated
site is trying to do exactly that.
Furthermore, Wikipedia will never add diagrams to a page of a creator. We
can do it. We can create a full net of data, connecting all the pieces,
without adhering to the strict rules of Wikipedia.

Instead of launching a new project on a platform we cannot control, I urge
you to join the Everything Origami team and take responsibility for a
portion of this effort for the benefit of the community.

Best regards,

Ilan Garibi
Site Admin, Everything Origami 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Robert Lang]

And I don’t think he was from Afghanistan. When I knew Lewis, he was in Los 
Angeles.

Robert


> On Mar 17, 2026, at 9:18 AM, Rona Gurkewitz via Origami 
> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> The name should be Lewis Simon, not Simon Lewis on the masters website.
> From: Origami  <mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com>> on behalf of Ilan Garibi 
> via Origami  <mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:42 AM
> To: Manuel Sirgo Álvarez  <mailto:manuelsi...@gmail.com>>; The Origami Mailing List 
> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update
>  
> Please be cautious
> This email was sent from outside of your organization
> We already have a section dedicated to our masters. Ite not perfect, but it's 
> solid.
> https://www.cfcorigami.com/origami-masters
> Best,
> 
> Ilan Garibi
> Site Admin
> Everything Origami  <https://www.cfcorigami.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 7:02 PM Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami 
> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
> 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 
> >  > <mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com 
> > <mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com>] 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.
> > 
> > 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Rona Gurkewitz via Origami]

The name should be Lewis Simon, not Simon Lewis on the masters website.

From: Origami  on behalf of Ilan 
Garibi via Origami 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:42 AM
To: Manuel Sirgo Álvarez ; The Origami Mailing List 

Subject: Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

Please be cautious
This email was sent from outside of your organization

We already have a section dedicated to our masters. Ite not perfect, but it's 
solid.
https://www.cfcorigami.com/origami-masters
Best,

Ilan Garibi
Site Admin
Everything Origami <https://www.cfcorigami.com/>



On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 7:02 PM Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami 
mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
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 
> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com<mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com>]
>  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.
>
>

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Ilan Garibi via Origami]

We already have a section dedicated to our masters. Ite not perfect, but
it's solid.
https://www.cfcorigami.com/origami-masters
Best,

Ilan Garibi
Site Admin
Everything Origami  



On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 7:02 PM Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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 <
> origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Laura R via Origami]

I will make another attempt with Sam Randlett’s wikipedia page. There’s a lot 
to fix. Finché c’è vita c’è speranza!

> On Mar 17, 2026, at 6:55 AM, Lorenzo  wrote:
> 
> Hi Laura, 
> 
> Thank you for what you’ve written and for sharing your experience here. 
> I think we should do plenty of practice so we can get a better grasp of what 
> we’re talking about. I, for example, have no experience of editing or 
> creating wikipedia pages.
> 
> One thing I feel I can say is that, sooner or later, Wikipedia will also 
> adopt AI, and its first application could well be in the field of 
> translation. In other words, it is possible that at some point pages will be 
> created in English only, and their availability in other languages will be 
> entrusted to AI. This, at least, is what is happening in the documentation 
> and technical interfaces of certain IT products used worldwide, on which I 
> work: Deepl + AI.
> 
> Lorenzo
> 
> (After all, I wrote this message in my own language too and had Deepl 
> translate it into English :-) )
> 
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 01:02, Laura R via Origami 
> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
> wrote:
>> My experience with Wikipedia is that, instead of operating like the 
>> democratic community it claims to be, it can sometimes feel more like you 
>> are among a gang of soviets. There are patrols that swoop in and undo, 
>> almost overnight, things you spent a lot of time carefully putting together.
>> 
>> I started editing Wikipedia quite a few years ago. Like most people, I began 
>> by building up the necessary good points, fixing typos and making small, 
>> routine corrections.
>> 
>> A couple of years ago, Susan Randlett, the daughter of Samuel Randlett, 
>> asked if I could help improve her father’s Wikipedia page. She wanted to add 
>> some information and a set of bibliographic references, mostly about his 
>> career as a music professor. Because of Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest 
>> rules, she didn’t want to add the material herself, so I helped her 
>> introduce the information (editing is very easy now that they improved the 
>> interface, you don’t have to write html code anymore but you have to learn 
>> how to introduce references, footnotes, etc.) 
>> 
>> Within a few days, the additions had been removed by... “Big Brother.” I say 
>> that with a bit of irony, but it is genuinely frustrating. I suggested to 
>> move the material to the “Talk” tab (below the name Samuel Randlett, you’ll 
>> see the “Article” tab, which is the main page, and nexto to it the “Talk” 
>> tab). in theory, that’s where you leave well-sourced information so that a 
>> more established editor can eventually add it to the article.
>> 
>> It has been sitting there ever since.
>> 
>> I’m not trying to discourage anyone. What’s puzzling is that there are 
>> plenty of Wikipedia biographies that include things no serious encyclopedia 
>> article should ever consider publishing—gossip, for example—and they remain 
>> untouched. I`m just saying if you think it’s piece of cake, well, it’s not. 
>> 
>> Because Wikipedia organizes much of its activity by language, it can 
>> sometimes be easier to get an article accepted in one language than in 
>> another. That is another approach worth trying. Some communities are more 
>> flexible than others, and in some cases they are actively looking for 
>> content to expand their coverage.
>> 
>> It is also useful to know that Wikipedia has regional and national 
>> coordinators (not volunteers, I mean, paid coordinators), and they often 
>> organize thematic edit-a-thons. During those events, contributors are 
>> encouraged to write about specific topics. That can be a good opportunity to 
>> introduce new material.
>> 
>> I have suggested the topic of origami in Uruguay several times, but 
>> apparently it does not carry the same appeal as soccer or “maté”, the 
>> national drink (more frustration on my part).
>> 
>> Laura
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2026, at 8:03 PM, Lorenzo via Origami 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Malachi wrote: 
>>> Autobiographical articles are discouraged by wikipedia
>>> 
>>> The world of origami is a small one, and the biographies of creators / 
>>> important origamists aren't yet shared like those of a soccer player in 
>>> Europe or a basketball player in America. So I tend to think that, at least 
>>> initially, the creators / origamists themselves (and the people who 
>>> contributed to origami) could write something about themselves, if they're 
>>> still alive, of course. Then, perhaps, the submission could be done by 
>>> someone else, perhaps after an "editorial" round with a group of people.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hans wrote:
>>> I guess most of us writing in this thread, myself included, are not too 
>>> much inclined to add to Wikipedia. If we were, we would have done so 
>>> already. We all have preexisting projects. But it would be great if someone 
>>> would.
>>> 
>>> This is why

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Hi Laura,

Thank you for what you’ve written and for sharing your experience here.
I think we should do plenty of practice so we can get a better grasp of
what we’re talking about. I, for example, have no experience of editing or
creating wikipedia pages.

One thing I feel I can say is that, sooner or later, Wikipedia will also
adopt AI, and its first application could well be in the field of
translation. In other words, it is possible that at some point pages will
be created in English only, and their availability in other languages will
be entrusted to AI. This, at least, is what is happening in the
documentation and technical interfaces of certain IT products used
worldwide, on which I work: Deepl + AI.

Lorenzo

(After all, I wrote this message in my own language too and had Deepl
translate it into English :-) )

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 01:02, Laura R via Origami <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> My experience with Wikipedia is that, instead of operating like the
> democratic community it claims to be, it can sometimes feel more like you
> are among a gang of soviets. There are patrols that swoop in and undo,
> almost overnight, things you spent a lot of time carefully putting together.
>
> I started editing Wikipedia quite a few years ago. Like most people, I
> began by building up the necessary good points, fixing typos and making
> small, routine corrections.
>
> A couple of years ago, Susan Randlett, the daughter of Samuel Randlett,
> asked if I could help improve her father’s Wikipedia page. She wanted to
> add some information and a set of bibliographic references, mostly about
> his career as a music professor. Because of Wikipedia’s
> conflict-of-interest rules, she didn’t want to add the material herself, so
> I helped her introduce the information (editing is very easy now that they
> improved the interface, you don’t have to write html code anymore but you
> have to learn how to introduce references, footnotes, etc.)
>
> Within a few days, the additions had been removed by... “Big Brother.” I
> say that with a bit of irony, but it is genuinely frustrating. I suggested
> to move the material to the “Talk” tab (below the name Samuel Randlett,
> you’ll see the “Article” tab, which is the main page, and nexto to it the
> “Talk” tab). in theory, that’s where you leave well-sourced information so
> that a more established editor can eventually add it to the article.
>
> It has been sitting there ever since.
>
> I’m not trying to discourage anyone. What’s puzzling is that there are
> plenty of Wikipedia biographies that include things no serious encyclopedia
> article should ever consider publishing—gossip, for example—and they remain
> untouched. I`m just saying if you think it’s piece of cake, well, it’s not.
>
> Because Wikipedia organizes much of its activity by language, it can
> sometimes be easier to get an article accepted in one language than in
> another. That is another approach worth trying. Some communities are more
> flexible than others, and in some cases they are actively looking for
> content to expand their coverage.
>
> It is also useful to know that Wikipedia has regional and national
> coordinators (not volunteers, I mean, paid coordinators), and they often
> organize thematic edit-a-thons. During those events, contributors are
> encouraged to write about specific topics. That can be a good opportunity
> to introduce new material.
>
> I have suggested the topic of origami in Uruguay several times, but
> apparently it does not carry the same appeal as soccer or “maté”, the
> national drink (more frustration on my part).
>
> Laura
>
> On Mar 16, 2026, at 8:03 PM, Lorenzo via Origami <
> origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:
>
> Malachi wrote:
> *Autobiographical articles are discouraged by wikipedia*
>
> The world of origami is a small one, and the biographies of creators /
> important origamists aren't yet shared like those of a soccer player in
> Europe or a basketball player in America. So I tend to think that, at least
> initially, the creators / origamists themselves (and the people who
> contributed to origami) could write something about themselves, if they're
> still alive, of course. Then, perhaps, the submission could be done by
> someone else, perhaps after an "editorial" round with a group of people.
>
>
>
> Hans wrote:
> *I guess most of us writing in this thread, myself included, are not too
> much inclined to add to Wikipedia. If we were, we would have done so
> already. We all have preexisting projects. But it would be great if someone
> would.*
>
> This is why I'd love it if we could all put together a ToDo list, so that
> people like you or me, who already have a thousand other things to do,
> could contribute by drawing from the ToDo list and doing a little bit...
> for example, a short page on a topic or the bio of a creator.
>
>
>
> *Dennis*, the work, effort, and time you invested in *Oriwiki* is
> extremely commendable and appreciated, and whe

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Viviane Berty via Origami]

Oh Laura, Internet is such a place of solitude... This is important you 
told your story so we can think about it and try to take the best 
decisions. Let us keep in touch and talk to each other, we the origami 
friends.


Viviane.

Le 17/03/2026 à 01:01, Laura R via Origami a écrit :


My experience with Wikipedia is that, instead of operating like the 
democratic community it claims to be, it can sometimes feel more like 
you are among a gang of soviets. There are patrols that swoop in and 
undo, almost overnight, things you spent a lot of time carefully 
putting together.


I started editing Wikipedia quite a few years ago. Like most people, I 
began by building up the necessary good points, fixing typos and 
making small, routine corrections.


A couple of years ago, Susan Randlett, the daughter of Samuel 
Randlett, asked if I could help improve her father’s Wikipedia page. 
She wanted to add some information and a set of bibliographic 
references, mostly about his career as a music professor. Because of 
Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest rules, she didn’t want to add the 
material herself, so I helped her introduce the information (editing 
is very easy now that they improved the interface, you don’t have to 
write html code anymore but you have to learn how to introduce 
references, footnotes, etc.)


Within a few days, the additions had been removed by... “Big Brother.” 
I say that with a bit of irony, but it is genuinely frustrating. I 
suggested to move the material to the “Talk” tab (below the name 
Samuel Randlett, you’ll see the “Article” tab, which is the main page, 
and nexto to it the “Talk” tab). in theory, that’s where you leave 
well-sourced information so that a more established editor can 
eventually add it to the article.


It has been sitting there ever since.

I’m not trying to discourage anyone. What’s puzzling is that there are 
plenty of Wikipedia biographies that include things no serious 
encyclopedia article should ever consider publishing—gossip, for 
example—and they remain untouched. I`m just saying if you think it’s 
piece of cake, well, it’s not.


Because Wikipedia organizes much of its activity by language, it can 
sometimes be easier to get an article accepted in one language than in 
another. That is another approach worth trying. Some communities are 
more flexible than others, and in some cases they are actively looking 
for content to expand their coverage.


It is also useful to know that Wikipedia has regional and national 
coordinators (not volunteers, I mean, paid coordinators), and they 
often organize thematic edit-a-thons. During those events, 
contributors are encouraged to write about specific topics. That can 
be a good opportunity to introduce new material.


I have suggested the topic of origami in Uruguay several times, but 
apparently it does not carry the same appeal as soccer or “maté”, the 
national drink (more frustration on my part).


Laura


On Mar 16, 2026, at 8:03 PM, Lorenzo via Origami 
 wrote:


Malachi wrote:
/Autobiographical articles are discouraged by wikipedia/
/
/
The world of origami is a small one, and the biographies of creators 
/ important origamists aren't yet shared like those of a soccer 
player in Europe or a basketball player in America. So I tend to 
think that, at least initially, the creators / origamists themselves 
(and the people who contributed to origami) could write something 
about themselves, if they're still alive, of course. Then, perhaps, 
the submission could be done by someone else, perhaps after an 
"editorial" round with a group of people.




Hans wrote:/
I guess most of us writing in this thread, myself included, are not 
too much inclined to add to Wikipedia. If we were, we would have done 
so already. We all have preexisting projects. But it would be great 
if someone would./


This is why I'd love it if we could all put together a ToDo list, so 
that people like you or me, who already have a thousand other things 
to do, could contribute by drawing from the ToDo list and doing a 
little bit... for example, a short page on a topic or the bio of a 
creator.




/Dennis/, the work, effort, and time you invested in /Oriwiki/ is 
extremely commendable and appreciated, and when it was born it was a 
much-appreciated innovation, but unfortunately today it no longer 
reflects the ways in which we generally like it.
Places like Oriwiki or CFC (whose recent transformation speaks 
volumes, in my opinion, about its failure, which in my eyes was clear 
from the very beginning) for me bring no significant value to the 
community and to origami, for many reasons, one of the most 
significant being that they are managed by a small number of people, 
and those who manage them has an extraordinarily distinctive and 
influential effect on it.
Wikipedia remains, in my opinion, the only place to value and 
consider when deciding to enrich the wealth of information available 
to the entire world.
It might make sense, for exa

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

Malachi wrote:
*Autobiographical articles are discouraged by wikipedia*

The world of origami is a small one, and the biographies of creators /
important origamists aren't yet shared like those of a soccer player in
Europe or a basketball player in America. So I tend to think that, at least
initially, the creators / origamists themselves (and the people who
contributed to origami) could write something about themselves, if they're
still alive, of course. Then, perhaps, the submission could be done by
someone else, perhaps after an "editorial" round with a group of people.



Hans wrote:
*I guess most of us writing in this thread, myself included, are not too
much inclined to add to Wikipedia. If we were, we would have done so
already. We all have preexisting projects. But it would be great if someone
would.*

This is why I'd love it if we could all put together a ToDo list, so that
people like you or me, who already have a thousand other things to do,
could contribute by drawing from the ToDo list and doing a little bit...
for example, a short page on a topic or the bio of a creator.



*Dennis*, the work, effort, and time you invested in *Oriwiki* is extremely
commendable and appreciated, and when it was born it was a much-appreciated
innovation, but unfortunately today it no longer reflects the ways in which
we generally like it.
Places like Oriwiki or CFC (whose recent transformation speaks volumes, in
my opinion, about its failure, which in my eyes was clear from the very
beginning) for me bring no significant value to the community and to
origami, for many reasons, one of the most significant being that they are
managed by a small number of people, and those who manage them has an
extraordinarily distinctive and influential effect on it.
Wikipedia remains, in my opinion, the only place to value and consider when
deciding to enrich the wealth of information available to the entire world.
It might make sense, for example, to move some of the content from Oriwiki
to Wikipedia.

Lorenzo


Lorenzo Lucioni
Duesseldorf - Germany
lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 17:38 Aurèle Duda,  wrote:

> Hi Manuel,
>
> Do not take this or my comment personally : it was an answer to Lorenzo
> question about autobiographical page :
> *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.*
>
> There is some "autobiographical" article on wikipedia by some origami
> author, which is generally not the best way. On a more popular subject than
> origami on wikipedia, a lot of discussion would arise to "clean" the
> article.
>
> I hope some people would write articles on origami people (as you,
> Herman, Giang Dinh, or Vicente Palacios
>  - but not the footballer
> or the baseball player who have both a wikipedia page) and subjects on
> wikipedia.
>
> The best thing to do is to test, writing the beginning of an article on
> wikipedia to see how it works. Wikipedia is already a collective process
> and a quite complex thing, doing a collective work before and outside
> wikipedia is probably a big effort.
>
> Best,
>
> Aurèle
>
>
>
> Le 16/03/2026 à 15:03, Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami a écrit :
>
> I wasn't planning on publishing anything about myself, if that's how you 
> interpreted it. Rather, my idea was for a team of creators to publish, 
> requesting information and conducting research. Not a single person 
> responsible for that publication. When I replied that I would be willing to 
> write my own autobiography, I meant that I would be willing to provide that 
> information to a team if requested. I'm not trying to boast about myself by 
> being the one publishing it. My origami career is well-established; I have my 
> books, conventions, publications, etc. I don't need to boast. I only wanted 
> to help, but it seems that's not appreciated. Oh well, I'll continue with 
> origami as I have been, helping new creators fold their models.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> El 16 mar 2026, a las 2:52, Malachi Brown via Origami 
>   
> escribió:
>
>
>
>

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[David Mitchell via Origami]

M "KDianne Stephens"  wrote:

>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.

Yes. I agree an edit on this subject would be useful. As I am sure you know, 
from what you wrote, there is very little, if any, evidence that recreational 
paperfolding (as opposed to paperfolding with a practical purpose) existed in 
China prior to 1903 when it was introduced from Japan as part of the 
kindergarten curriculum.

If you are interested in the evidence for this (or indeed the lack of evidence) 
then see my three brief histories at David Mitchell's Origami Heaven - History 
Index.

A word of warning though ... they are not completely up to date.

Dave

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Aurèle Duda]

Hi Manuel,

Do not take this or my comment personally : it was an answer to Lorenzo 
question about autobiographical page :


/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./


There is some "autobiographical" article on wikipedia by some origami 
author, which is generally not the best way. On a more popular subject 
than origami on wikipedia, a lot of discussion would arise to "clean" 
the article.


I hope some people would write articles on origami people (as you, 
Herman, Giang Dinh, or Vicente Palacios 
 - but not the 
footballer or the baseball player who have both a wikipedia page) and 
subjects on wikipedia.


The best thing to do is to test, writing the beginning of an article on 
wikipedia to see how it works. Wikipedia is already a collective process 
and a quite complex thing, doing a collective work before and outside 
wikipedia is probably a big effort.


Best,

Aurèle



Le 16/03/2026 à 15:03, Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami a écrit :

I wasn't planning on publishing anything about myself, if that's how you 
interpreted it. Rather, my idea was for a team of creators to publish, 
requesting information and conducting research. Not a single person responsible 
for that publication. When I replied that I would be willing to write my own 
autobiography, I meant that I would be willing to provide that information to a 
team if requested. I'm not trying to boast about myself by being the one 
publishing it. My origami career is well-established; I have my books, 
conventions, publications, etc. I don't need to boast. I only wanted to help, 
but it seems that's not appreciated. Oh well, I'll continue with origami as I 
have been, helping new creators fold their models.

Regards.


El 16 mar 2026, a las 2:52, Malachi Brown via 
Origami escribió:

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami]

I wasn't planning on publishing anything about myself, if that's how you 
interpreted it. Rather, my idea was for a team of creators to publish, 
requesting information and conducting research. Not a single person responsible 
for that publication. When I replied that I would be willing to write my own 
autobiography, I meant that I would be willing to provide that information to a 
team if requested. I'm not trying to boast about myself by being the one 
publishing it. My origami career is well-established; I have my books, 
conventions, publications, etc. I don't need to boast. I only wanted to help, 
but it seems that's not appreciated. Oh well, I'll continue with origami as I 
have been, helping new creators fold their models.

Regards.

> El 16 mar 2026, a las 2:52, Malachi Brown via Origami 
>  escribió:
> 
> 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Dennis Walker via Origami]

Hi all,

The origami database can hold much of this info. Log in and you can
register as a creator or even request moderator privileges. And edit away!

https://www.oriwiki.com/odbInfo.php

Notes:
1: I am aware that it looks like an old website.
2: It’s not a full functioning wiki!
3: I am no longer the maintainer of the website (but I do have moderator
status).

It can at least serve as a holding area.

Dennis

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 12:18 Malachi Brown via Origami, <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> wrote:

> Autobiographical articles are discouraged by wikipedia.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiographies
>
>>

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Malachi Brown via Origami]

Autobiographical articles are discouraged by wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiographies

>

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Aurèle Duda]

Hello everyone,

The topic of Wikipedia articles is really interesting.

I would avoid writing an article about myself on Wikipedia due to a 
conflict of interest. We've already seen this kind of "advertising" on 
Wikipedia, and it's not what we want to read and update. A personal 
website or a page on a community site is a place for self-glorifying or 
autobiographical writing.


I work on researching and writing content related to origami, but I 
primarily write for the MFPP association (for an exhibition, a workshop, 
a article or a long-term cultural project). From time to time, I think 
about publishing related articles in a more open public space, like 
Wikipedia. But so far, my conclusion is always the same: it is not my 
role, it is eventually our global role to write this, citing paper, 
articles, website and magazine where we find the informations. To be 
reliable, information on Wikipedia must be sourced, so let's go to write 
first and second hand sources before writing on Wikipedia.


Moreover, the work of writing and publishing within an association is a 
way for it to show its members (present and future) one of its reasons 
for existence and to collect membership fees and support (in order to 
survive and still want to do it).


Despite what some new organizations claim, describing associations as 
outdated and on the verge of disappearing, the somewhat silent work of 
building knowledge and friendships still partly happens through them.


Best,

Aurèle

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami]

What you're saying hurts me too. I think we can start little by little, as 
Lorenzo mentioned. I retired last year. Now I have plenty of time to contribute 
to this project if needed. I wouldn't mind being part of a team where I could 
contribute information, research, or contact creators and experts on the 
history of origami—some of whom are excellent and almost unknown to modern 
generations. If someone with technical and computer skills were to lead this 
group, I could help. Even if they could explain how to upload information, 
etc., I could contribute work in addition to information.
The cases you mention are sad. Perhaps my own is the least sad. But I find it 
incredible that such relevant figures in origami over the last 30 years, like 
Makoto Yamaguchi, for example, are not mentioned. And what little there is 
about Robert Lang or John Montroll is very scarce.
If someone is willing to lead the team, I'm ready to collaborate.
Manuel Sirgo

> El 16 mar 2026, a las 11:44, Viviane Berty via Origami 
>  escribió:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> This is a good conversation, I learned a lot, thank you so much.
> 
> I understand it would be better to get some agreement and strong method, as 
> Laura suggested. However, if I refer to professional historians in any fieds, 
> who have solid historiographical framework, this doesn't garantee against 
> serious errors or frauds. We are knowwing so many examples nowadays. 
> According to me, the main problem would be that the Information and archives 
> may be controlled by a "small" group of people, as Lorenzo pointed out.
> 
> I asked my question, because checking Toshikazu Kawasaki Wikipedia's page, I 
> found it so short !
> 
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshikazu_Kawasaki
> 
> I checked  Manuel Sirgo's book I have in my collection : "Imaginando en 
> papel" it was published 20 years ago, on 2006 ! And no Wikipedia page so far.
> 
> No Wikipedia page for Giang Dinh, our dearest origami poet. And neither for 
> Victor Coeurjoly, another wonderful poet.
> 
> And last but not least, no Wikipedia page for Herman van Goubergen, one of 
> the most creative origami artist, I would call him our Leonardo da Vinci, for 
> his numerous creative and innovative ideas .
> 
> And I wondered : why ?
> 
> There is something wrong in that situation. What could we DO ? (As for me, 
> first of all I am enable to manage these computers' labyrinth, and above all, 
> I would not dare enter before the Artists I named !!).
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Viviane.
> 
> 
> 
> Le 14/03/2026 à 21:42, Viviane Berty via Origami a écrit :
>> 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.
>> 
>> 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Viviane Berty via Origami]

Dear all,

This is a good conversation, I learned a lot, thank you so much.

I understand it would be better to get some agreement and strong method, 
as Laura suggested. However, if I refer to professional historians in 
any fieds, who have solid historiographical framework, this doesn't 
garantee against serious errors or frauds. We are knowwing so many 
examples nowadays. According to me, the main problem would be that the 
Information and archives may be controlled by a "small" group of people, 
as Lorenzo pointed out.


I asked my question, because checking Toshikazu Kawasaki Wikipedia's 
page, I found it so short !


https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshikazu_Kawasaki

I checked  Manuel Sirgo's book I have in my collection : "Imaginando en 
papel" it was published 20 years ago, on 2006 ! And no Wikipedia page so 
far.


No Wikipedia page for Giang Dinh, our dearest origami poet. And neither 
for Victor Coeurjoly, another wonderful poet.


And last but not least, no Wikipedia page for Herman van Goubergen, one 
of the most creative origami artist, I would call him our Leonardo da 
Vinci, for his numerous creative and innovative ideas .


And I wondered : why ?

There is something wrong in that situation. What could we DO ? (As for 
me, first of all I am enable to manage these computers' labyrinth, and 
above all, I would not dare enter before the Artists I named !!).


Yours,

Viviane.



Le 14/03/2026 à 21:42, Viviane Berty via Origami a écrit :

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.

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami]

I agree with you again, Lorenzo. Although I haven't been creating many models 
lately, I wouldn't mind sending a summary of my beginnings in origami and model 
making. A brief overview of my start, the associations I belong to, 
publications, books, convention invitations, iconic models, current 
perspectives, etc., would suffice. I'm sure other very active creators today 
wouldn't mind contributing the kind of autobiography you mentioned. I share the 
idea of ​​starting with the basics and gradually expanding the vast current 
knowledge of origami, both historical and modern.

> El 16 mar 2026, a las 1:31, Lorenzo via Origami 
>  escribió:
> 
> 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
> lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com <mailto:lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com>
> 
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 01:01 KDianne Stephens via Origami, 
> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com 
> <mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com>] 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 
> ( <mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>>) 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

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

Laura is right that you don't just start writing articles on Wikipedia. You have to understand the structure, the requirement of references and notes, etc. And that is learned (and you obtain some credibility) by making small changes like typo-fixing to existing pages.You don't need a huge framework before you start. 90 % I know about origami and might like to write about, is not history. It is everything else, like how to produce paper, Kawasaki's theorem, etc. Even within history, you can write about small topics, like Onna Chohoki (Illustrated Handbook on Daily Life of Women, 1st edition 1629) which contains a section on noshi and other ceremonial models folded from paper - combined with the collection origata tehon (1697) which contains many similar models. The chronology and contents is framework enough. If you want to extend with e.g. its part in the culture of the time, you need more historical anchoring, but for at start that is not needed. One more point: You'll want pictures, but often they are only available at museums and they have copyrights to the photos, so you need to obtain rights to use photos. That is grunt work and can be done with no framework as well. I hope you already know that you cannot lift a photo from Wikipedia and use it without checking its terms of permissions?As more articles on origami emerge, you may begin consider the overall, polished framework.That is much like you already see it in The Fold: many articles on origami as a subject, including history, exists, all written without being put into a common framework. And on David Mitchell's valuable History of Origami pages, where observation after observation are added, with references. Each page, each reference, does not require a historical framework. Over time patterns may emerge, leading to restructuring or even splitting up pages, but you don't need, actually cannot know in advance, the complete framework.I'll repeat myself: To make an encyclopedia on origami requires grunt work, in writing, researching, references, permissions, ... This regardless if you make your own page (like David Mitchell - all respect to his putting in the effort) or add to Wikipedia.I guess most of us writing in this thread, myself included, are not too much inclined to add to Wikipedia. If we were, we would have done so already. We all have preexisting projects. But it would be great if someone would.Finally, the existing origami entry may have faulty details, yes. Calling origami the Japanese art of paperfolding is more inaccurate than it is wrong, though. Yes, when I give talks, I am careful to spell out the concurrent development in many parts of the world, but origami is more associated with Japan than any other single country. If you see errors in the article, fix them (including references to support your case). This helps everyone.By the way, have you ever taken a renowned encyclopedia, read articles on subjects you know in depth, just to discover they contain errors, and then wondered how many errors are in articles on other subjects? In general, Wikipedia is in the better end as the hive mind beats most experts most of the time.Which is, of course, an argument for writing articles on Wikipedia. Another advantage is that Wikepedia is likely more longlived, certainly more than individual pages like Origami Heaven, but likely also more than in this context smaller organisations' pages like The Fold (even if I have high expectations of that one).Regards,	HansHans Dybkjærhttp://papirfoldning.dkSociety: http://foldning.dkOn 16 Mar 2026, at 01.31, Lorenzo via Origami  wrote: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.LorenzoLorenzo LucioniDuesseldorf - Germanylorenzo.luci...@gmail.comOn Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 01:01 KDianne Stephens via Origami, <origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] On Behalf Of Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via OrigamiSent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 4:16 PMTo: Lorenzo; Th

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

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
lorenzo.luci...@gmail.com

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 01:01 KDianne Stephens via Origami, <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] *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 (<
> origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>) 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 <
> origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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 Wikipedi

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[KDianne Stephens via Origami]

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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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 
() 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 
 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 p

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Laura R via Origami]

Manuel, 

If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that my point is far from 
proposing paralysis. 

Laura


> On Mar 15, 2026, at 7:15 PM, Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 
> ( >) 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 
>> mailto:origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>> 
>> 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, o

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami]

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 (<
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com>) 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 <
> origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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 bla

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Lorenzo via Origami]

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 <
origami@lists.digitalorigami.com> 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 i

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Laura R via Origami]

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:

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami]

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 
>  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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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.
> 
> 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[David Beard via Origami]

I very much agree with KDianne Stephen’s sentiments and with Hans thoughtful 
comments. To paraphrase a well known saying, if we build it they will come!

David
Sent from my iPad

> On 15 Mar 2026, at 9:53 pm, KDianne Stephens via Origami 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hans wrote Do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.
> All info evolves over time as more is discovered
> I agree 100%
>  
> From: Origami [mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] On Behalf Of 
> Papirfoldning.dk
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 1:11 AM
> To: Laura R; The Origami Mailing List
> Cc: The Origami Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update
>  
> I believe the most important issue is that somebody needs to have the energy 
> to edit and add articles.
>  
> Laura wrote: "There’s a lot of work to be done, and a serious academic study 
> has to come before anyone tries to just “patch” Wikipedia."
> I humbly disagree, for a few reasons: First, Wikipedia is a site for 
> continuous improvement. We do know something about the history of origami, 
> and that could be the starting point of articles about the history of origami.
> Do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.
>  
> Second, we already have strong frameworks about folding theory, you could 
> write about that. Both mathematical, engineering, ontological etc. None of 
> that requires a historical framework.
>  
> Third, there is already much about origami, e.g. there is an article about 
> origami, and it took me a few seconds to find Kawasaki's theorem. I found it 
> directly because I know its existence, but you could have followed the link 
> from origami to Kawasaki and from there to his theorem. There is also an 
> article about Gershon Legman, with a few notes on his origami work but no 
> link from the main article on origami.
>  
> The main article about origami is reasonable as an encyclopedia entry. Such 
> are meant to provide first timers with a qualified taste of the subject, not 
> to be an entire monograph. It is also maintained, latest by AcerodonSp, an 
> anonymous user name (as seems common i Wikipedia). Before that a long range 
> of names, mostly anonymous, mostly unknown if they know anything qualified 
> about origami. The creator and editors of the Legman article are mostly 
> anonymous as well.
>  
> I suggest the efforts should be on quality checking existing articles, 
> creating new articles for topics that are missing, and better linking and 
> navigation between articles related to origami. 
>  
> A final note: Language. The origami entry in Danish is quite brief and was 
> last maintained in 2021, and neither Kawasaki nor Legman have entries. There 
> may be loads of articles on origami in Spanish, French Japanese, or Nepalese 
> - I have no idea, I do not read those languages (well, I recall some French 
> from high school). I could extend the Danish articles, and I could contribute 
> to the English ones, in theory in British English, in practice mostly the 
> spelling but with lots of American terms mixed in. And could and could, I 
> would need the energy and priority for writing and editing entries ... as the 
> saying goes, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
>  
> Best regards,
> Hans
>  
> Hans Dybkjær
> http://papirfoldning.dk
> Society: http://foldning.dk
> 
> 
> On 14 Mar 2026, at 23.34, Laura R via Origami 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> My humble two cents: We need a solid historiographical framework first, and 
> we don’t have one yet. That’s what will allow meaningful discussions and a 
> clearer understanding of what we mean when we talk about the history of 
> paperfolding. There’s a lot of work to be done, and a serious academic study 
> has to come before anyone tries to just “patch” Wikipedia.
> 
> Laura Rozenberg
> 
> On Mar 14, 2026, at 7:21 PM, KDianne Stephens via Origami 
>  wrote:
>  
> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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.
> 
> 
>  

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[KDianne Stephens via Origami]

Hans wrote Do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.

All info evolves over time as more is discovered

I agree 100%

 

From: Origami [mailto:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] On Behalf Of 
Papirfoldning.dk
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 1:11 AM
To: Laura R; The Origami Mailing List
Cc: The Origami Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

 

I believe the most important issue is that somebody needs to have the energy to 
edit and add articles.

 

Laura wrote: "There’s a lot of work to be done, and a serious academic study 
has to come before anyone tries to just “patch” Wikipedia."

I humbly disagree, for a few reasons: First, Wikipedia is a site for continuous 
improvement. We do know something about the history of origami, and that could 
be the starting point of articles about the history of origami.

Do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.

 

Second, we already have strong frameworks about folding theory, you could write 
about that. Both mathematical, engineering, ontological etc. None of that 
requires a historical framework.

 

Third, there is already much about origami, e.g. there is an article about 
origami, and it took me a few seconds to find Kawasaki's theorem. I found it 
directly because I know its existence, but you could have followed the link 
from origami to Kawasaki and from there to his theorem. There is also an 
article about Gershon Legman, with a few notes on his origami work but no link 
from the main article on origami.

 

The main article about origami is reasonable as an encyclopedia entry. Such are 
meant to provide first timers with a qualified taste of the subject, not to be 
an entire monograph. It is also maintained, latest by AcerodonSp, an anonymous 
user name (as seems common i Wikipedia). Before that a long range of names, 
mostly anonymous, mostly unknown if they know anything qualified about origami. 
The creator and editors of the Legman article are mostly anonymous as well.

 

I suggest the efforts should be on quality checking existing articles, creating 
new articles for topics that are missing, and better linking and navigation 
between articles related to origami. 

 

A final note: Language. The origami entry in Danish is quite brief and was last 
maintained in 2021, and neither Kawasaki nor Legman have entries. There may be 
loads of articles on origami in Spanish, French Japanese, or Nepalese - I have 
no idea, I do not read those languages (well, I recall some French from high 
school). I could extend the Danish articles, and I could contribute to the 
English ones, in theory in British English, in practice mostly the spelling but 
with lots of American terms mixed in. And could and could, I would need the 
energy and priority for writing and editing entries ... as the saying goes, the 
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

 

Best regards,

Hans

 

Hans Dybkjær

http://papirfoldning.dk

Society: http://foldning.dk





On 14 Mar 2026, at 23.34, Laura R via Origami 
 wrote:



My humble two cents: We need a solid historiographical framework first, and we 
don’t have one yet. That’s what will allow meaningful discussions and a clearer 
understanding of what we mean when we talk about the history of paperfolding. 
There’s a lot of work to be done, and a serious academic study has to come 
before anyone tries to just “patch” Wikipedia.

Laura Rozenberg

On Mar 14, 2026, at 7:21 PM, KDianne Stephens via Origami 
 wrote:

 

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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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.



 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[Papirfoldning.dk]

I believe the most important issue is that somebody needs to have the energy to 
edit and add articles.

Laura wrote: "There’s a lot of work to be done, and a serious academic study 
has to come before anyone tries to just “patch” Wikipedia."
I humbly disagree, for a few reasons: First, Wikipedia is a site for continuous 
improvement. We do know something about the history of origami, and that could 
be the starting point of articles about the history of origami.
Do not let the perfect stand in the way of the good.

Second, we already have strong frameworks about folding theory, you could write 
about that. Both mathematical, engineering, ontological etc. None of that 
requires a historical framework.

Third, there is already much about origami, e.g. there is an article about 
origami, and it took me a few seconds to find Kawasaki's theorem. I found it 
directly because I know its existence, but you could have followed the link 
from origami to Kawasaki and from there to his theorem. There is also an 
article about Gershon Legman, with a few notes on his origami work but no link 
from the main article on origami.

The main article about origami is reasonable as an encyclopedia entry. Such are 
meant to provide first timers with a qualified taste of the subject, not to be 
an entire monograph. It is also maintained, latest by AcerodonSp, an anonymous 
user name (as seems common i Wikipedia). Before that a long range of names, 
mostly anonymous, mostly unknown if they know anything qualified about origami. 
The creator and editors of the Legman article are mostly anonymous as well.

I suggest the efforts should be on quality checking existing articles, creating 
new articles for topics that are missing, and better linking and navigation 
between articles related to origami. 

A final note: Language. The origami entry in Danish is quite brief and was last 
maintained in 2021, and neither Kawasaki nor Legman have entries. There may be 
loads of articles on origami in Spanish, French Japanese, or Nepalese - I have 
no idea, I do not read those languages (well, I recall some French from high 
school). I could extend the Danish articles, and I could contribute to the 
English ones, in theory in British English, in practice mostly the spelling but 
with lots of American terms mixed in. And could and could, I would need the 
energy and priority for writing and editing entries ... as the saying goes, the 
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Best regards,
Hans

Hans Dybkjær
http://papirfoldning.dk
Society: http://foldning.dk

> On 14 Mar 2026, at 23.34, Laura R via Origami 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> My humble two cents: We need a solid historiographical framework first, and 
> we don’t have one yet. That’s what will allow meaningful discussions and a 
> clearer understanding of what we mean when we talk about the history of 
> paperfolding. There’s a lot of work to be done, and a serious academic study 
> has to come before anyone tries to just “patch” Wikipedia.
> 
> Laura Rozenberg
> 
>> On Mar 14, 2026, at 7:21 PM, KDianne Stephens via Origami 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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.
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update

[KDianne Stephens via Origami]

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:origami-boun...@lists.digitalorigami.com] 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.