Talk:Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture

message: It seems to me that this article should really be part of the Infinite monkey theorem article: all other articles I know of list their popular culture references on the same page. Aprogressivist 13:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put me down for a "yes" vote. — Loadmaster 23:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge? Conclusion: no

message: I disagree with article deletion. At the same time I think that it requires a major cleanup. Only entries of significant cultural interest or these which constitute an important element of plot must be retained. Casual mentionings of "monkeys and typewriters" must be deleted, according to the general idea of notability in wikipedia. I am starting this kind of trimming. Mukadderat 14:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod vs cleanup 

message: If this article is to survive the AfD then we are going to need to find and add some sources. I am going to start looking now, but the original contributers might be able do so more swiftly.--Cronholm144 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for those. The last one looks the most promising, being a direct claim in the title of the article that the "typing monkey" has become "proverbial". Carcharoth 16:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want the full text? (I have wikipedia e-mail enabled or you can use my userboxes and email me conventionally) —Cronholm144 16:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't got round to setting up an e-mail address to use on Wikipedia yet. When I do, I'll get in touch, but for now it would be best for people to add stuff to the article themselves. Even just a quote of the paper, title, year, details, etc. Plus a relevant short quote from the paper, here on the talk page, would be enough to be going on with. Carcharoth 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The following were removed from the article. To be re-added, please find a way to verify the entries and also find an independent source that comments on it as an example of mathematics in popular culture (or more specifically, of the infinite monkey theorem in popular culture). Done indicates a source was found and the entry was moved back to the article. Not done indicate the entry could not be verified or was deemed too peripheral for the article.
*  Comedian Bob Newhart has a stand-up routine in which a lab technician monitoring an "infinitely many monkeys" experiment discovered that one of the monkeys has typed "To be, or not to be; that is the gezortenblatt."
::*See  Ken Ringle, "Hello? This is Bob", Washington Post, October 28, 2002; page C01. The article gives the quote as "Hey, Harry! This one looks a little famous:'To be or not to be -- that is thegrrdnm zsplkt.'" Paul August ☎ 16:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *See also this Google search. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks! Added below and put back in the article. Carcharoth 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article 

message: Some potential sources for the article are being listed here:
* - popular mathematics book that mentions the theorem.
* - not a source, but follow the "link to the artist's website" - this "music.download.com" website is linking to Wikipedia articles, and the "link to the artist's website" takes you straight to Infinite monkey theorem!
* - includes press cuttings of the coverage of the experiment.
* - Wired article that indicates that this is a well-known thought experiment.
* Mathematics and Literature paper (JSTOR link) from 1982
* (PDF) - "Monkeys, Typewriters and Networks - the Internet in the Light of the Theory of Accidental Excellence" (also published in German in 2001)
*   - independent source verifying the Morrison comic book entry
*   - Amazon page verifying the Morrison comic book cover
*   - collection of quotations including reference to the Infinite monkey theorem in a Usenet signature quote.
*   - completely trivial mention in a DVD review: "All of the above acknowledged, this is still a Christmas ornament of a movie: a glittering glass shell gorgeously decorated on the outside but with nothing but vacuum on the inside. The plot is pedestrian both literally (we spend an excruciating amount of screen time watching dinosaurs walking…and walking…and walking) and figuratively—you could come up with a better story with one of those write-your-own-screenplay software programs. Maybe even just by sitting two lemurs in front of a keyboard." - but a classic illustration of how this phenomenon has really, truly, entered the popular consciousness.
*   - not a great source, but at least suggests there is some truth in the 'I am Weasel' entry.
* - "Why Creativity Is Not like the Proverbial Typing Monkey" (backs up the claim that the IMT [the typing monkey] is proverbial) - from Cronholm
* - "Can a Computer Produce and Critique Art?" - presumably mentions the IMT in relation to computers (random generators) producing art (Shakespeare), but needs verification. Nevertheless, this is an example of the IMT being a proverbial idea that is not just used by mathematicians, but is used by computer scientists and art theorists (in addition to being used by comic strip authors, TV programme makers, authors and stand-up comedians). In fact, the recurring theme is not use in popular culture, but use by comedians. - source from Cronholm, thoughts by Carcharoth.
* - "Is the End of the World Nigh?" - no idea why this paper is referring to the IMT. If verified, this could be anything from "monkeys/computers take over the world" to "don't be silly, human creativity can't be randomly generated". - source from Cronholm, thoughts by Carcharoth.
*   - independent, secondary commentary, on Newhart's comedic routine (from Google search link provided by Paul August).
*   - the Washington Post on Newhart, mentioning his IMT routine - source from Paul August.
* - absolute gold - provides a history of the theorem and mentions several of the examples given here, plus several new ones not even mentioned by Reeds (eg. the Vonnegut short story 'Epicac' and 'The Universal Library', a short story by Kurd Lasswitz).
*   - JSTOR link to "Tomfoolery: Stoppard's Theatrical Puns", The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 9, Theatrical Literature Special Number (1979), pp. 204-220 doi:10.2307/3506619. This mentions the infinite monkey theorem joke made by Stoppard.
*   - "ENGL 363: Study Questions and Notes" by Lloyd Edward Kermode, Associate Professor, Department of English, California State University, Long Beach. Which says: "The characters often attempt to but can’t complete common sayings, concepts, and clichés. The one that Guildenstern cannot complete on this page is that if six monkeys were placed in a room with six typewriters, eventually they would write the works of Shakespeare."
Initial batch added by Carcharoth 13:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some potential sources 

message: Completely new entries go here, as the above section was getting a bit long:
* - On the Beach, novel by Nevil Shute, includes a reference to the monkey typewriter idea. That is the movie script. Need a reference to confirm whether it appears in the book (as the talk page of IMT indicates), in which case it dates to 1957.
:Nevil Shute, On the Beach, House of Stratus; (1957) New Ed edition (October 31, 2002). . p. 145, 146:
::They turned to a discussion of the radio signals still coming from somewhere in the vicinity of Seattle ...
::"How many hours' transmission, in all, were monitored?"
::"About a hundred and six hours."
::"And in all that time only two words have come through in clear? The rest gibberish?"
::"That is correct."
::The admiral said, "I don't think the words can be significant. It's probably a fortuitous transmission. After all, if an infinite number of monkeys start playing with an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will write a play from Shakespeare."
:Paul August ☎ 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New entries 

message: Listed here are the sources that best exemplify commentary on the phenomenon, or verifying that the example is indeed referring to the infinite monkey theorem cultural phenomenon.
===Proverbial===
The strongest references confirming the existence of a cultural phenomenon are references that state that the "typing monkeys" are proverbial ("A proverb (from the Latin proverbium) is a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated..."):
* - 1999 paper titled "Why Creativity Is Not like the Proverbial Typing Monkey".
* - collection of references that includes the following from Koestler in 1972: "Neo-Darwinism does indeed carry the nineteenth-century brand of materialism to its extreme limits--to the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, hitting by pure chance on the proper keys to produce a Shakespeare sonnet." (my emphasis).
===Existence of the phenomenon===
Some sources reinforce the claim that this phenomenom exists:
* - Washington Post article from 2002 that says "Plenty of people have had fun with the famous notion that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time could eventually write the works of Shakespeare."
* - Wired magazine article that include the infinite monkey theorem in a list of classic thought experiments. The wording used is particularly illuminating: "You know the deal: An infinite number of monkeys pecking at typewriters for an infinite length of time will "almost surely" produce the complete works of Shakespeare." (my emphasis).
* - "Monkeys, Typewriters and Networks - the Internet in the Light of the Theory of Accidental Excellence" (2001) "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters."
===Educational use===
Some sources indicate that this is a standard educational analogy:
* - the theorem is mentioned in a book written for non-mathematicians.
===Press coverage===
Some sources indicate that the phenomenon can achieve widespread press coverage:
* - collection of press cuttings on the now infamous experiment. Demonstrates something about the quality of newspaper journalism, but maybe not a lot else.
===Mathematics and literature===
Some sources confirm that the phenomenon of mathemetics in literature has been studied:
* - "Mathematics in Literature" (1982): "Mathematics provides writers with a rich source of themes, images, and metaphors", and includes a reference to the infinite monkey theorem. This would seem to justify the literary examples.
===Existing histories===
Some sources are direct examples of existing histories of the theorem, with examples similar to the ones given here, thus demonstrating that the concept of the phenomenon is not new, and crucially, that the concept of studying the phenomenon is not new:
* (2001) - mentions many examples, mostly taken from the next website.
* - Jim Reeds' history and collection of IMT references (last updated 2000, now hosted by the Infinite Monkeys experimental music/dance/performance art group).
* - "Monkeying Around with Text" (2007) - includes a brief history of the phenomenon, with literary examples.
===Visual references===
An interesting class of references is the visual ones, with several visual references ranging from the abstract to the crystal-clear:
*:Image:A Thousand Monkeys.png - the classic Simpsons screenshot.
*Screenshot from the Family Guy episode, but which was deleted recently. If anyone wants to undelete it, I'll write a non free use rationale for it.
*The episode of I Am Weasel could also be a source of a screenshot of the depiction of the theorem.
*Picture of the album The Quality of Mercy is Not Strnen (1979) - the debut album by Leeds punk rock band the Mekons.
*"The June 1980 Esquire magazine had a monkey sitting at a typewriter. The lettering across the cover asked, "Is anyone out there not writing a screenplay?"" - wording inside the magazine could confirm the intent of the image. Picture is here. The magazine's issue was on eBay, though bidding has now ended. (Warning: image will not remain on eBay indefinitely - I have a copy of the scan saved).
*Cover image of Deus ex Machina, the graphic novel collection of the Animal Man comic strip.
===Real use of the concept===
* - experimental music/dance/performance art group (they host Jim Reeds' literary list).
* - the interactive infinite monkeys experiment, founded in 1999.
So the question is whether any of the above sources count as secondary literature about the topic? Secondary coverage of the two primary examples above (which I only discovered just now) need to be found, but the rest (apart from the primary visual references)  qualify in my opinion as secondary literature. Carcharoth 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. What do you think about the first five references? And what about this being a timeline or history article about the history of the concept, rather than a cultural studies article about the impact on popular culture? Carcharoth 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly?  The proper place for this discussion is at Talk:Infinite monkey theorem, because the valuable part of what you're proposing would be to extend the coverage of that article in certain ways.  It doesn't at all justify having a list of pop culture references, which no source but Wikipedia seems remotely interested in.  Why not just redirect this back and improve the main article?  Mangojuicetalk 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused now, because I have already done this. Did you not look at Infinite monkey theorem before writing the above? I have copied the introduction I wrote here, to there, which I think has improved the article. Carcharoth 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that.  What I'm saying is that this still doesn't justify the existence of the list of references.  The references have already been cleaned up somewhat, but only a couple have any sources attributing any kind of significance to the connection, and those are significant enough to merit inclusion in text.  Even there, the sources are analyses of the work in question, rather than writings about the Infinite Monkey Theorem.  (I think the distinction is important, here: if we're looking to sources to justify the inclusion of those references that are considered important ones in sources, we can't really rely on analyses of individual works, because they will mention the connection no matter how important the reference is.)  Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not quite sure what you are looking for. I'll quote from the article the bits I think lead to the article satisfying the "significance" criterion: "the proverbial typing monkey" (quoted twice in a footnote, and both mean the theorem when they use the phrase "typing monkey"), note: Proverbial: a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated); "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters."; "Plenty of people have had fun with the famous notion that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time could eventually write the works of Shakespeare."; "In 2003, an Arts Council funded experiment involving real monkeys and a computer keyboard received widespread press coverage."; "In 2007, the theorem was listed by Wired magazine in a list of eight classic thought experiments.". If you are not talking about overall 'article' significance, but rather want a source for each instance saying that it is significant, well, I think that is an impossible request. Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: "1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; 2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and 3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." (my emphasis). I've also outlined criteria for the timeline. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list (and never could be), but is rather a timeline, a survey, giving a few examples from each decade, and organised by genre. Have a look at List of premature obituaries. Where in that list is there an independent source for each premature obituary saying that it is an important and notable premature obituary? Carcharoth 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The premature obituary list is clearly of the 1st type, and membership is well-defined (see the introduction: it lays out what a premature obituary is).  There are a few entries for people without articles, which I would think could be removed (see Mackayala Jespersen and "Mr Hopkins" - clearly unnecessary entries).  Just because that list is featured doesn't mean it's perfect.  Anyway, this article is not a list of the 1st type, but as you point out, is attempting to be a list of the 3rd type, except that it seems effectively impossible to make it complete, and inclusion is not well defined.  The question I am still asking is: what is the overall plan for presenting information on the Infinite Monkey Theorem, and how is this article, and in particular, the list of unimportant references, a part of that plan?  I am not questioning the notability or importance of the Infinite Monkey Theorem, but only the idea of having this subarticle, which doesn't seem to cover an important aspect of the topic: rather, it seems to be only a way to keep unwanted stuff out of the main article.  Mangojuicetalk 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, think of it as a timeline. You could say, in the main article, that known examples range from the 1940s to the present day. But then you could also provide a timeline to show this, and this is what has been done here. That is why the ability to verify a date is important. That is one of the criteria. Inclusion is defined in a footnote: "The examples included invariably refer directly to a variation on the theme of a large number of typing monkeys producing a work of literature, usually, but not always, a work by Shakespeare. Infinite libraries, and random text generation (instead of monkeys) are also included. Trivial or incomplete references are excluded." Once the timeline has been constructed, it is too large for the main article, so it becomes its own article per WP:SUMMARY. Also, it is obviously not an indiscriminate list. There are 30 entries, if you include the "early history" ones, but lots of rejected entries can be found on this talk page (and possibly some of the ones on the list will be rejected in a future tightening up of the list). Which ones do you think could be removed? A few still need tidying up, as I didn't get the time to do everything I had planned for the article. Some entries could be turned into text (eg. the Wilensky entry should be seen in the context of the Keen quotes below), and the external links should actually be to several sites operating on the principle of the theorem. Or let me put this another way, which examples would you keep, if any? What criteria would you use? Carcharoth 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdent) Then maybe it should be written like a timeline, and include all relevant events, not just cultural references.  But honestly, the idea of having a timeline seems like an excuse to keep the list rather than a good idea.  Timelines are good ideas when the topic is about a series of events: see, for instance, Virginia Tech massacre timeline or Progress of the SARS outbreak; see List of timelines and you'll find nothing that like this.  A history is appropriate, but it should be written as text... and it seems to already be part of the main article.  I would personally not include any references if I couldn't write meaningful, sourced text about them.  Collecting the list for the sake of having the list is an exercise in trivia.  Mangojuicetalk 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the Borges' story is certainly relevant here. The meaning of "popular culture" here is culture as distinguished from say  academic culture. There is a difference between and "popular culture" and "pop culture". Paul August ☎ 17:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Borges would certainly qualify as academic culture.  And I don't understand what distinction you see between "pop" culture and "popular" culture: one is the abbreviation of the other, nothing more.  Mangojuicetalk 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going by the notions presented in popular culture.  Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are claims that the article popular culture is misleading. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing the sources 

message: * - experimental music/dance/performance art group (they host Jim Reeds' literary list).
* - the interactive infinite monkeys experiment, founded in 1999.
So the question is whether any of the above sources count as secondary literature about the topic? Secondary coverage of the two primary examples above (which I only discovered just now) need to be found, but the rest (apart from the primary visual references)  qualify in my opinion as secondary literature. Carcharoth 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real use of the concept

message: The last source in the "histories" section is the only one that comes close: at least is about the concept as used in society, not just about the concept, and at least it is (according to the site) published somewhere.  However, I don't think that is about this topic either, because that one is about the history of this concept, not about popular culture at all.  (The Borges story is as close as this article and that source get, but honestly, Borges is a prominent, famous writer: high culture, not pop culture).  Mangojuicetalk 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. What do you think about the first five references? And what about this being a timeline or history article about the history of the concept, rather than a cultural studies article about the impact on popular culture? Carcharoth 09:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly?  The proper place for this discussion is at Talk:Infinite monkey theorem, because the valuable part of what you're proposing would be to extend the coverage of that article in certain ways.  It doesn't at all justify having a list of pop culture references, which no source but Wikipedia seems remotely interested in.  Why not just redirect this back and improve the main article?  Mangojuicetalk 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused now, because I have already done this. Did you not look at Infinite monkey theorem before writing the above? I have copied the introduction I wrote here, to there, which I think has improved the article. Carcharoth 00:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that.  What I'm saying is that this still doesn't justify the existence of the list of references.  The references have already been cleaned up somewhat, but only a couple have any sources attributing any kind of significance to the connection, and those are significant enough to merit inclusion in text.  Even there, the sources are analyses of the work in question, rather than writings about the Infinite Monkey Theorem.  (I think the distinction is important, here: if we're looking to sources to justify the inclusion of those references that are considered important ones in sources, we can't really rely on analyses of individual works, because they will mention the connection no matter how important the reference is.)  Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not quite sure what you are looking for. I'll quote from the article the bits I think lead to the article satisfying the "significance" criterion: "the proverbial typing monkey" (quoted twice in a footnote, and both mean the theorem when they use the phrase "typing monkey"), note: Proverbial: a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated); "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters."; "Plenty of people have had fun with the famous notion that an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time could eventually write the works of Shakespeare."; "In 2003, an Arts Council funded experiment involving real monkeys and a computer keyboard received widespread press coverage."; "In 2007, the theorem was listed by Wired magazine in a list of eight classic thought experiments.". If you are not talking about overall 'article' significance, but rather want a source for each instance saying that it is significant, well, I think that is an impossible request. Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: "1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; 2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and 3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." (my emphasis). I've also outlined criteria for the timeline. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list (and never could be), but is rather a timeline, a survey, giving a few examples from each decade, and organised by genre. Have a look at List of premature obituaries. Where in that list is there an independent source for each premature obituary saying that it is an important and notable premature obituary? Carcharoth 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The premature obituary list is clearly of the 1st type, and membership is well-defined (see the introduction: it lays out what a premature obituary is).  There are a few entries for people without articles, which I would think could be removed (see Mackayala Jespersen and "Mr Hopkins" - clearly unnecessary entries).  Just because that list is featured doesn't mean it's perfect.  Anyway, this article is not a list of the 1st type, but as you point out, is attempting to be a list of the 3rd type, except that it seems effectively impossible to make it complete, and inclusion is not well defined.  The question I am still asking is: what is the overall plan for presenting information on the Infinite Monkey Theorem, and how is this article, and in particular, the list of unimportant references, a part of that plan?  I am not questioning the notability or importance of the Infinite Monkey Theorem, but only the idea of having this subarticle, which doesn't seem to cover an important aspect of the topic: rather, it seems to be only a way to keep unwanted stuff out of the main article.  Mangojuicetalk 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, think of it as a timeline. You could say, in the main article, that known examples range from the 1940s to the present day. But then you could also provide a timeline to show this, and this is what has been done here. That is why the ability to verify a date is important. That is one of the criteria. Inclusion is defined in a footnote: "The examples included invariably refer directly to a variation on the theme of a large number of typing monkeys producing a work of literature, usually, but not always, a work by Shakespeare. Infinite libraries, and random text generation (instead of monkeys) are also included. Trivial or incomplete references are excluded." Once the timeline has been constructed, it is too large for the main article, so it becomes its own article per WP:SUMMARY. Also, it is obviously not an indiscriminate list. There are 30 entries, if you include the "early history" ones, but lots of rejected entries can be found on this talk page (and possibly some of the ones on the list will be rejected in a future tightening up of the list). Which ones do you think could be removed? A few still need tidying up, as I didn't get the time to do everything I had planned for the article. Some entries could be turned into text (eg. the Wilensky entry should be seen in the context of the Keen quotes below), and the external links should actually be to several sites operating on the principle of the theorem. Or let me put this another way, which examples would you keep, if any? What criteria would you use? Carcharoth 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdent) Then maybe it should be written like a timeline, and include all relevant events, not just cultural references.  But honestly, the idea of having a timeline seems like an excuse to keep the list rather than a good idea.  Timelines are good ideas when the topic is about a series of events: see, for instance, Virginia Tech massacre timeline or Progress of the SARS outbreak; see List of timelines and you'll find nothing that like this.  A history is appropriate, but it should be written as text... and it seems to already be part of the main article.  I would personally not include any references if I couldn't write meaningful, sourced text about them.  Collecting the list for the sake of having the list is an exercise in trivia.  Mangojuicetalk 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the Borges' story is certainly relevant here. The meaning of "popular culture" here is culture as distinguished from say  academic culture. There is a difference between and "popular culture" and "pop culture". Paul August ☎ 17:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Borges would certainly qualify as academic culture.  And I don't understand what distinction you see between "pop" culture and "popular" culture: one is the abbreviation of the other, nothing more.  Mangojuicetalk 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going by the notions presented in popular culture.  Mangojuicetalk 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are claims that the article popular culture is misleading. Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Carcharoth 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: I found a reference desk thread, just in case anyone is interested.
*Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2006 November 11#Hamlet written into pi
Please add more above if you find them. Carcharoth 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference desk thread(s) 

message: I see that the mention in Nevil Shute's novel On the Beach is not in this article.  If someone has the details, could they add that? Michael Hardy 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention is above. Will add that soon. Carcharoth 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't have time tonight - was busy writing the introduction. Will try and do it later. Carcharoth 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''On the Beach'' by Nevil Shute 

message: Carcharoth, did you look at these?
* "Amateur-hour America; How today's Internet is killing our culture", Andrew Keen, Chicago Sun-Times,  Jun 3, 2007.
* A book review of Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur".
Paul August ☎ 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of including those in an "internet analogy" section, probably just mentioning the Willensky quote (which is now quite famous), and mentioning the Keen quote as a recent example of this. There are lots of such "human=monkeys, product=internet" analogies out there! Were you thinking of referring to that quote in a different way? Carcharoth 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Keen's work, as influenced by the Infinite monkey theorem 

message: I have systematically replaced hyphen (and double hyphen) with an em dash ("—") where appropriate (essentially, everywhere except in URLs), per WP:DASH. Likewise "..." is now an ellipsis character ("…"). It would be good to use this better typography in future edits; both characters are readily available on the "Insert:" line below the edit window.
I do wonder if all those dashes are helpful. --KSmrqT 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never understood dashes, though I have tried reading WP:DASH a few times. Thanks for that. I didn't realise they were available for insertion in the edit window. I only use that selection for a few things, like ref, comments, and so on. The article still needs a lot of tidying up, using citeweb for example (or at least giving the date the webpages were accessed), and various other things here and there. Any help would be appreciated. Carcharoth 10:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typography 

message: The television show Braniac tried this experiment as well on a certain episode. It was something about monkeys vs blindfolded humans. No results though. HenryCorp (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainiac 

message: I can remember reading somewhere that a variant of this appeared in one of the Gullivers Travels stories. From memory it involved a machine made up of blocks with all the words in a particular language written on them (Four to a block). The blocks were manipulated and any meaningful phrases were copied. By this means the creator intended to create a complete library of all knowledge.Graham1973 (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of a variant in one of Gullivers Travels 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060623145132/http://www.familyguy.com:80/search/index.php?cat=flash&id=127 to http://www.familyguy.com/search/index.php?cat=flash&id=127
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513012236/http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2002/ii02-101.pdf to http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2002/ii02-101.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805082643/http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf99 to http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf99
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808185150/http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf464 to http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf464
*Added  tag to http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070727%2FLIFESTYLE%2F707270303%2F1004%2FLIFESTYLE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112051339/http://tvmegasite.net/day/yr/transcripts/older/2007/yr-trans-02-01-07.shtml to http://tvmegasite.net/day/yr/transcripts/older/2007/yr-trans-02-01-07.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101152515/http://www.goats.com/archive/050718.html to http://goats.com/archive/050718.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821121850/http://behind.lyrois.com/2010/06/free-e-book-beating-million-monkeys.html to http://behind.lyrois.com/2010/06/free-e-book-beating-million-monkeys.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified