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 > <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 01:01 KDianne Stephens via Origami, > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > Manuel wrote The journey is made by walking > > > > Maybe the walk can begin with a modest edit in Wikipedia expanding the > knowledge of Origami’s root beginning in China, albeit Origami being > formalized and coded in the Japanese culture. > > > > From: Origami [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Manuel Sirgo > Álvarez via Origami > Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 4:16 PM > To: Lorenzo; The Origami Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Origami] Wikipedia origami update > > > > I completely agree with Lorenzo. I think that making so many preliminary > considerations, as Laura suggests, makes it almost impossible to start the > project. It's paralysis by overanalysis, as they say in Quality. The journey > is made by walking. I think many of us know we want it to appear on > Wikipedia. The specialized discussions on different aspects should be a > product of that journey, something that emerges little by little, with errors > and disagreements, but with the project underway and not thinking "ad > infinitum" about how the project can be done. > > > > El dom, 15 mar 2026 a las 22:52, Lorenzo via Origami > (<[email protected] > <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. >
