
US Senate Candy Desk - akubera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Desk
======
2bitencryption
This type of article is why I love Wikipedia so much.

Really, this article has no place in any physical encyclopedia. It's
essentially an anecdote. A footnote, at best.

But it's human interest, and it's fascinating, if inconsequential. And because
of the collaborative power of Wikipedia, we can have a multi-paragraph
informative article like this, maintained by regular people, down to the
current contents of the candy desk, with links to the articles for the
specific candies...

Of course, we all already know this about Wikipedia, we've known it since the
start. But sometimes I forget this feeling, and then I'm especially struck by
it when I read an articles like this.

~~~
clubm8
When space is free (well, very cheap) it makes sense to document these things
if they bring joy to the reader.

~~~
tptacek
It's not free! Every article in Wikipedia imposes a human cost on the editors
and maintainers of the project. That cost dwarfs any conceivable storage cost
now, at the inception of the project, or even in the decade before the
project.

(This is a great article and does illustrate something Wikipedia does better
than conventional encyclopedias. At this point, I think the comparison to
Britannica has become unhelpful; WP is _sui generis_ , and one of the great
(maybe the great) intellectual accomplishments of the Internet.

~~~
ceejayoz
I think you're missing the point, though. This article simply couldn't be
justified in a printed encyclopedia - there's a finite number of pages you can
reasonably expect people to shell out for (and Britannia used to be a status
symbol even at that limited number; being able to personally own it meant you
were quite well off financially, as it cost well over a thousand dollars).

~~~
jacobolus
Yes, the limit in Wikipedia is not number of physical pages... but to be
honest that wasn’t really the biggest limit for Britannica either, just the
most obvious one.

The biggest limit is author/editor time. The Internet certainly provides a
bigger pool of editors (and a lower implied quality floor) than a centralized
company hiring authors/editors with a few people in charge of the organizing,
the way print encyclopedias did.

But even with a completely decentralized worldwide editor corps, there is
still some amount of organizational overhead which continues growing as the
project grows, and there is still a finite amount of author/editor attention.

Wikipedia _can’t_ in practice have an article about literally anything.

~~~
thebooktocome
At least, that's the way it's been since the deletionists won in 2007.

~~~
bcaa7f3a8bbc
[WP:NOTPAPER]([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTPAPE...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTPAPER)).

> _Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project.
> Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there
> is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the
> total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between
> what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under §
> Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for
> inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies,
> particularly those covered in the five pillars._

It basically says if the content is encyclopedic by nature, meets guide of
general notability, well-written to meet the quality standard, it has its full
rights to be included, and niche topics are usually deleted. However, if it
has been mentioned multiple times in books or by the media, even as anecdotes,
it can be included, so it depends...

~~~
thebooktocome
This is what the policy says, but this is not how the policy is implemented.

[https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism](https://www.gwern.net/In-
Defense-Of-Inclusionism)

------
apo
From the article:

 _In 1965, California 's George Murphy joined the Senate, and kept candy in
his desk to offer his colleagues, and for himself, though eating is not
allowed on the Senate floor. When he left the Senate after a six-year term,
other Republican senators maintained the custom. ..._

Murphy replaced Pierre Salinger, who himself was was appointed to serve the
remainder of a deceased senator's term:

 _In 1964, he [Murphy] was elected as a Republican to the Senate, having
defeated Pierre Salinger, the former presidential press secretary in the
Kennedy White House, who had been appointed several months earlier to serve
the remainder of the late Clair Engle 's unexpired term._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Murphy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Murphy)

The deceased senator, Clair Engle, is best known for having participated,
although paralyzed and unable to speak because of a brain tumor, in the vote
to break the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act:

 _On June 10, 1964, during the roll call for the historic, successful effort
to break the filibuster on what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
when the clerk reached "Mr. Engle", there was no reply. The tumor had robbed
Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting an arm, he pointed to his eye,
thereby signaling his affirmative vote ("aye").[6] The cloture vote was 71–29,
four votes more than the two thirds required to end the filibuster.[7] Nine
days later, the Senate approved the Act itself._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Engle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Engle)

------
notatoad
This article made me really hopeful and happy until i got down the the bit
about the democrats candy desk and realized that even the senate candy desk is
partisan.

The two parties can't even agree on a shared love of sweets, and have to have
separate candy desks?

~~~
dsr_
... and the Republican desk is stocked by contributions from donor companies
in their districts, and the Democratic desk is stocked by a fund paid into by
Senators who want candy.

It's emblematic, that's for sure.

~~~
tptacek
If you check the article again, it addresses this: the desk is stocked from
donor companies in the Senator's district because it has to be, due to Senate
gift rules.

~~~
maxxxxx
They could buy it themselves... I am sure they can afford it.

~~~
Johnny555
They could "afford" it, but it's not cheap, the Wikipedia article said that
Hershey was sending 400 lbs of chocolate a year. The cheapest price I could
find online (after a very brief search) for Hershey's kisses is $5.79/lb, so
that's over $2000/year - that's a lot of money to pay to feed your colleagues
just because you happened to sit at a particular desk.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Per the article, the Democrats' candy desk is funded by donations from
senators who want candy. It doesn't have to be either a single senator or
corporate gifts.

------
jancsika
How secure is the candy desk?

Also-- can you imagine being all excited about your first day at the NSA and
they tell you your job is securing the candy desk?

~~~
adventured
The US Capitol Police would be in charge of reviewing security for the Candy
Desk (if there is any consideration for such a thing, might be surprised that
there isn't).

~~~
jancsika
And the NSA would be in charge of whispering to the U.S. Capitol Police when
something needs to be reviewed.

Sorry, I set you up for that one. :)

(Should have left a little hash of this comment in the original comment.)

------
clubm8
How are withdrawals from this desk tracked? How is it's assignment handed out?
Do these "candies" influence the votes of those who take them - maybe senators
are less likely to vote against the "Candy Man"

After all, even small gifts from reps have been shown to influence doctors:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/research/19beha.ht...](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/research/19beha.html)

------
Yhippa
I need to start this tradition at work. Different teams have their own candy
but not one has them for everyone.

~~~
AstroJetson
I have one at work that is open to the 120+ people on my floor. Stop by to
have Snickers, 3 Musketeers, Milkyway, red licorice, Hershey's kisses and my
fav, peanut butter cups. I do a pound a week. People take and a few put a 5 or
10 under the jar sometimes. I'm overflowing now with Halloween candy
donations. But overall I spend about $50 a year on candy. It's a good trade
for goodwill and the daily scuttle butt.

------
wild_preference
What I love about Wikipedia is how it'll go a step further with the trivia,
like the Tenants section.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Desk#Tenants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Desk#Tenants)

