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 > <[email protected]> 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 > (<[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>) escribió: >> Dear all, >> >> This is a fascinating topic, and I hope we can all continue to contribute to >> the development of Wikipedia. >> Many thanks to Viviane for starting the discussion. >> >> I completely agree with Hans, and I firmly believe that contributing to >> Wikipedia is our duty and that we should start doing so the moment we spot a >> gap or an omission. >> >> I firmly believe in the value of Wikipedia for a number of important reasons: >> - it is free and does not require registration or the creation of user >> accounts or profiles; >> - it's open and transparent; >> - it is democratically run and somehow decentralised; >> Therefore >> - It is NOT controlled by any small group of people; >> - It is NOT sectarian or elitist; it does NOT serve the interests of a >> select few; >> >> It is up to us, and us alone, to enrich Wikipedia. So, to move on to some >> concrete proposals, I suggest that those of us who have the time and >> inclination should take the initiative to: >> - encourage each creator to write a page about themselves, even if it’s just >> a basic one; >> - encourage other organisations to do the same, passionately arguing the >> importance of contributing to the world’s largest encyclopaedia; >> - start compiling a list of "entries" relating to origami (as well as people >> and organisations) that we would like to see on Wikipedia >> >> We can carry out the first two points mentioned above ‘privately’ by >> contacting creators and organisations. >> As for the third point, I’m not sure whether we should be flooding this >> mailing list with messages. But perhaps we should. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Lorenzo >> >> On Sun, 15 Mar 2026 at 22:31, Laura R via Origami >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >>> Hi Viviane, Dianne, Hans, Manuel and everyone else! >>> >>> I agree that the perfect can be the enemy of the good, and I’m glad to see >>> a critical mass beginning to take an interest in the history of origami. >>> But when I refer to a historiographical framework, I mean that we first >>> need some agreement about what exactly we are trying to study or write >>> about, and how we intend to approach it. >>> >>> It is true that anyone can write on Wikipedia. However, it is generally not >>> advisable for someone who has never edited there before to begin by writing >>> an article or making extensive paragraph-level revisions. The usual >>> recommendation is to start Wikipedia as an editor making small corrections >>> (typos, across different articles) which helps build a record of >>> reliability. Only after some time do Wikipedia editors typically move >>> toward more substantial contributions. >>> >>> The entry on origami already exists and contains numerous errors. Still, it >>> can be frustrating to make corrections only to have an “editor of editors” >>> come along and delete everything you wrote, or worse, block you. One >>> requirement that is often enforced is the use of sources. We may know a >>> great deal about a particular origami artist, but if we cannot point to >>> sources that can be cited and linked, that biography will very likely be >>> challenged. >>> >>> A few years ago I had a long conversation with Ilan Garibi. At the time, I >>> was the one insisting on the need to improve the Wikipedia page on the >>> history of origami. Ilan was more inclined to develop a history of origami >>> on the CFC website. I argued that only people already devoted to origami >>> would ever check a website, while a Wikipedia page is seen by everyone. >>> >>> Time passed and we ended up doing neither. In the meantime, I devoted >>> myself to thinking about how the question on the history of paperfolding >>> should be approached. People outside of the origami community know little >>> about the subject or have rather confused ideas about it, I mean, even >>> people who should know, such as some museum curators, art historians, etc., >>> they don’t know much. Why is it that museum curators often do not know what >>> origami actually is, or think of it simply as paper boats? I think one of >>> the reasons is because origami is not a subject being studied in Art >>> History courses or Art History careers. There are no university textbook >>> that devote an entire chapter (not just a side box or an insert) to the >>> subject. It is not studied at the bachelor’s or master’s level, so we >>> cannot really blame young art historians for not knowing much about it. >>> There are, of course, a few specialized niches—for example, some >>> universities offer courses dealing with the mathematics of folding—but that >>> is not the history of origami. It is a specialized technical subject. So we >>> have a good starting point for building the basis of that kind of >>> information. >>> >>> However, there are some caveats. While those of us in the origami community >>> know a great deal and could contribute substantially, we cannot turn a >>> Wikipedia article into an origami bazaar. That would only add to the >>> confusion. >>> >>> When I say that we need to think about a historical framework, what I mean >>> is that we should first think about the structure: the house that will >>> eventually be inhabited. It is much harder to fill a house with all kinds >>> of furniture and then start throwing things out the window once we realize >>> that we actually needed a different kind of house. I honestly believe that >>> the level of knowledge we have today is not the same as it was ten, twenty, >>> or thirty years ago, and that we are now in a position to aim for a serious >>> consensus. >>> >>> What happens if we do not do this? The problem is that people do not always >>> mean the same thing when they talk about origami. Nor is everyone satisfied >>> with the usual answers about its “origins.” We could tell the story through >>> biographies of the main practitioners, through the objects, or through a >>> guiding thread—the fold itself—which historians of origami often refer to >>> as the “technical gesture.” But it would be difficult to approach the >>> history of origami through all of these frameworks at the same time. >>> >>> Cutting, carving, weaving, or molding are all examples of technical >>> gestures. They are called gestures because they involve a physical, bodily >>> effort when working a substrate. Paperfolders tend to recognize historical >>> continuity on the basis of the persistence of the same gesture, that is the >>> fold. If we agree that this is the history thread we want to tell—the >>> history of the gesture “fold"—then that is one possible approach. But it >>> carries risks. One of those risks is the temptation to interpret different >>> developments as part of a linear historical evolution (event A leads to >>> event B leads to event C). This is precisely what Hatori Koshiro is >>> pointing to when he writes, “We can see no relationship between Japanese >>> religion and the origin of origami.” And, being Japanese, it is all more >>> striking that he argues: "Origami is not a Japanese art” (the Wikipedia >>> entry begins by sayind “Origami is the Japanese art of paperfolding”. Who’s >>> going to change this and will the “editor of editors” accept the change?) I >>> will not pursue this point further here, since I do not want to extend the >>> discussion too much, but these are all important issues to consider before >>> undertaking such a challenging article. >>> >>> All of this opens up a series of considerations that, in my view, should be >>> thought through before attempting to write an article on the history of >>> origami, wheter it is for Wikipedia, for the CFC, or wherever, even if that >>> article can always be revised later. Conceptual issues are harder to >>> revise, and they tend to remain in the collective imagination much longer. >>> >>> Thank you for reading this far, and apologies for the length of this email. >>> >>> Laura Rozenberg >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 15, 2026, at 2:02 PM, Manuel Sirgo Álvarez via Origami >>>> <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I completely agree with Viviane. I think Wikipedia can be gradually >>>> expanded with different contributions. The first contributions might not >>>> be entirely accurate, or better contributions might be offered later, but >>>> for me, the important thing is to start. Perhaps one way to do this is >>>> with short biographies of authors, folders, or creators, both current and >>>> deceased, but of whom we fortunately have fond memories and documentation. >>>> We also have experts in the history of origami in various associations, >>>> both from local history and from other countries, and we could ask them to >>>> contribute. Even the recently created website, Everything Origami, could >>>> be managed by someone or a team to handle these contributions. >>>> Best regards >>>> Manuel Sirgo >>>> >>>>> El 14 mar 2026, a las 23:21, KDianne Stephens via Origami >>>>> <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> escribió: >>>>> >>>>> Viviane said This was my little idea of the day. (Wikipedia) >>>>> Wonderful idea, and long overdue >>>>> Orifun to all >>>>> Dianne >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Origami [mailto:[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Viviane >>>>> Berty via Origami >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 2:43 PM >>>>> To: The Origami Mailing List >>>>> Subject: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update >>>>> >>>>> Dear origami Friends, >>>>> >>>>> Forgive my stupid question : does anyone know why there is so few >>>>> Information on Wikipedia about origami ? With the aim of spreading the >>>>> origami knowledge, is there a team working to to add a complete and >>>>> reliable information into the largest encyclopedia ever ? How wonderful >>>>> it would be to contribute to the general art culture, don't you think ? >>>>> >>>>> I have heard that Wikipedia is no AI, is free, and it works >>>>> democratically, is it true ? >>>>> >>>>> I am terrible at computers things... (Moreover my English style is so >>>>> ugly... ! I do apologize.) >>>>> >>>>> This was my little idea of the day. >>>>> >>>>> Yours, >>>>> >>>>> Viviane. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lorenzo Lucioni >> Duesseldorf - Germany >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > -- > Manuel Sirgo Álvarez > Saludos.
