Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia's New Archnemesis
euniana writes "Forget about Britannica, and meet Uncyclopedia. Formally the adoptive first cousin of Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies. Does this prove that satire and humour can take off in a collaborative environment, a possibility often contested by grumpy Wikipedians? What many people don't know is that the Wikipedia article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster was partly copied from the FSM article on Uncyclopedia. Will the confusion ever end?"
Ralph: "Where do I learn everything? The Uncyclopedia!"
Chief Wiggum: "Ha ha ha! That's my boy!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Uncyclopedia's been around since the start of the year. In Internet terms, this does not exactly make it new...
One comment, and their server is un-responding to requests. How's that for satire?
Good to see the fine folks at uncyclopedia are participating in Talk Like a Pirate Day.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
This makes sense. A lot of people who help moderate Wikipedia have their own opinions on what should and shouldn't be articles on the wiki. They also have some questionable policies on doing your own research. While I can see the point of not accepting information from non-verifiable sources. It also prevents Wikipedia from growing beyond a certain amount of information. I would think that one of the great things about Wikipedia would be to provide a NPOV and extensive information for a lot of subjects that are not covered by a standard encyclopedia.
On another level. Wikipedia covers only a part of information space (if you will, Wikispace). Mainly, the global part. So it mostly only allows people, ideas, places and things that are known globally. Meanwhile, sites like Bloomingpedia, which is a city wiki for Bloomington, IN is like a local part of wikispace. It doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to cover local information, nor should it. But City Wikis (like Seattle Wiki) can cover this more specific information.
Likewise, Uncyclopedia can cover all the global information that Wikipedia cannot. So I think there is a place for the content of Uncyclopedia, or as they say Arr, Pirateopedia.
It would be great if it had half the bandwidth of Wikipedia so I could actually see what all the fuss is about now ;)
Colaborative effort to spread misinformation and confuse lies? I thought that had already been done: http://www.rnc.org/ ?
I visit wikipedia mainly because it is the perfect "pop culture" encyclopedia. Its great for quick searches on things traditional sources wont have for years. However, when doing detailed academic research, I avoid it because I'd rather have information from EXPERTS. Same with this "Uncyclopedia" I'd rather get my humor from EXPERTS (like the onion) and actual funny people than just any AOLer with a fart joke to tell.
"Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies."
and easly slashdottable!
Sadly, I believe the Uncyclopedia could quickly turn into some kind of meta-statement on itself, with every urban legend having "supporters" and detractors. I mean, if I turn to it for real information about bullshit, then aren't they obligated to obfuscate the truth?
blarg.
All I know is that the Uncyclopedia article on Slashdot favorite, Wil Wheaton is approximately the funniest thing I have ever read. It has me bent over in paroxysms of hilarity just thinking about it.
Wil Wheaton
Martin
Wikipedia has its share of misinformation and lies as well. Overall the content is quite nice, but I really don't think it competes with fact-checked and edited encyclopediae yet in accuracy (although it has an obvious edge in breadth). Still, the information cannot be trusted 100%.
I like the idea and I use Wikipedia a lot, but the quality control is somewhat lacking.
check here
what about Encyclopedia Dramatica? :)
Actually, according to the Uncyclopedia, the confusion is scheduled to end 5 Dec 2014. Though I am confused why.
Uncyclopedia can't be slashdotted
I prefer this one myself. It even has chicks!
It's just the intelligent design proponents. None of them are good christians, and they completely deserve it.
Besides, martyrdom/persecution/victimization gives you guys a chubby, so stop whining.
the best part is that some of the articles are so lame that you just have to rewrite them and make fun of them. whereas some other articles are really funny, with jokes you won't get unless you really understand what the article is supposed to be about (which i dont always). i think its a good new use of wiki's to challenge the whole wikipedia mindset. many people i talk to think wikipedia invented wiki's. wiki's can be so much more than a wikipedia or an uncyclopedia, but the majority of people right now are so limited with what they believe a wiki can do that we gotta start challenging assumptions anywhere./
Yeah, this has been around a while. While you're there, search for the Oprah page; good times.
This sig rocks the casbah.
Well, the misinformation and lies, at least, have entropy on their side. Not only can they "take off", they're destiny...
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
Colaborative effort to spread misinformation and confuse lies? I thought that had already been done: http://www.dnc.org/ ?
Anyone recall this radio program? I listened to it in the 80's. It was a wonderfully funny parody with fake song info and interviews.
on uncyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia
and uncyclopedia article on wikipedia:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
This is not a satire
but is there any mirror for this uncyclopedia !?!
Well, there are few things more funny, immature and tragic than Christianity.
..and when he was in a lighter mood, he put it this way: "What! Have you no monks to teach, to dispute, to govern, to intrigue and to burn people who do not agree with them?"
As Voltaire put it about 300 years ago: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."
Oh well, what the hell...
But FSMism isn't satire. It's real.
Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies.
Someone forgot to tell Wikkipedia about this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
" Uncyclopedia's been around since the start of the year. In Internet terms, this does not exactly make it new...
Yeah, but this is Slashdot. My running theory is that this post was submitted 5 years in the future, but ran through some sort of wormhole to appear in our time. Didn't know you could do that with basic HTML.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
First, I don't see how the two projects conflict with each other, since their objectives are simply different and not in any way opposing.
Second, I'd like some pointers to "Grumpy Wikipedians" contesting the possibility that "satire and humour can take off in a collaborative environment". If this statement comes from the fact that satire and humor in Wikipedia are not allowed in the compiling of articles, it seems to me a case of complete non-sequitur.
Third, I don't see any confusion here: Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, Uncyclopedia is a satire of an encyclopedia (more or less); it doesn't seem confounding at all to me that there can be some content exchange between the two, especially in the context of humor-related articles and net folklore.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Slashdot
The Sovereign State of Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/ is an independent nation roughly located between the Republic of Sourceforge and Jesus Ocean. Formerly a member of the UN, Slashdot left and joined the UN's arch-enemy, NATO, following its invasion by Oprah in the Gulf War.
That Flying Spaghetti Monsterism article is an example of what bothers me most about Wikipedia. If something gets a lot of attention online generates a lot of Google hits, it gets a big Wikipedia effort -- even if it's of limited reference value. Same goes for TV shows -- popular ones have detailed summaries of every episode. Meanwhile, the basic work of building an encyclopedia, like researching obscure historical subjects and even basic fact-checking, is largely neglected.
When I was participating in Wikipedia editing, I considered making a project of correcting the time zone articles, which have factual errors in their very titles. Part of that would have meant researching how time zones are drawn up in Canada. I could have done it myself, but it would have been less work for somebody with access to a Canadian public library. So I asked a conspicuous Canadian Wikipedian to lend me a hand. He declined. Not because he didn't want to do the work -- he spends a lot of time working on Wikipedia. But because he "never goes to libraries"! Not something that encourages you as to the quality of the information Wikipedia supplies.
I wonder if trolls are going to vandalize it by inserting useful information into the articles.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Don't forget Wickerpedia and Wiccapedia! List of Wikipedia parodies
Evil sig is livE.
Not all Christians are Creationists or ID advocates, so clearly it is not directed at Christians, merely at the heretical subset that advocate nonsensical interpretations of the Bible or, even worse, try to deceive by pushing their a Creationism Lite.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wikipedia's New Archnemesis[...]
:-)
Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies.
Shouldn't that be:
"Slashdot's New Competitior"
I know why I am posting this as AC
about misinformation on uncyclopedia
(From http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Category:Games)
Rule of Thumb: Games are fun until someone loses an eye. After that, it is considered a sport.
I had always been thinking that was the truth.
I never knew this thing existed! Damn, I have been living under a rock! How do I Join the new rage that is Spaghetti!?
And you like the layout of Uncyclopedia? On my browser the page won't fit even when I expand to full screen, and you have to scroll horizontally to read it. (I don't get it - why do people need to reinvent the wheel and turn it into crap with no regard for usability, when they could have just cloned the tried-and-true Wikipedia template and be done with it?)
and you get.....
I for one welcome our new spaghetti monster overlords!!
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
Wikipedia has plenty of misinformation, satire, and lies.
Why do you think they have to start the Lord of the Flies cycle over for every article?
can you spell OLD!?
Why not post something about NASA returning to the moon in 15 years *heh*
The titles will be changed: the Wikipedia will be known as the "Ecyclopedia Galactica", and all parodies will be merged into a famous hitchhiker's guide to something gargantuanly big.
Everything2.
And informally speaking, Uncyclopedia would be what?
Avast! Pure Hilarity Spotted Dead Ahead! Arrrrrrrrr.
music lover since 1969
...misinformation, satire, and lies. Does this prove that satire and humour can take off in a collaborative environment, a possibility often contested by grumpy Wikipedians?
Slashdot, but of course! We've got Uncyclopedia beat by miles.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
I'd argue that satire is information. It would be very interesting if Wikipedia (which I use often - some weeks daily) contained a "Satirical" link - pointing to the Uncyclopedia entry.
Given how political commentary is often satirical, it would provide an interesting angle on Wikipedia entries. Especially those of a historical/ political nature.
Also, what a great editorial tool! If a satirical entry closely matches a Wikipedia entry, the result would be better informed discussion around an entry's meaning - in both systems!
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
Finally, a site I won't be duped into looking like an idiot on April fools day.
Finally a place to learn about Nemory (what never happened that is not remembered) without getting censored by ignorant anti-intellectuals.
--
make install -not war
Flying spaghetti monsterism I believe highlights one of the best things of wikipedia. The work that the "FSM movement" is doing I believe is ridiculously powerful and needed to be done a long time ago, and any press it gets is fantastic. Now the actual debate for why this is necessary and the good vs. evil of ID being taught in US schools is not what I want to get into, I think we can both agree if nothing else FSM is bringing more attention to a topic that is crying for more people to get involved.
The fact that a place like wikipedia can have an article on FSM is amazing, knowing that other reference sources would not include this. Regardless of the "flash in the pan" type of media coverage, if a neutral article on any topic can be written why not include it, that's one of the highlights of the project.. no?
Your comment makes you come off as an elitist, where only topics you feel are important should be included, but why stop there?
I'm sorry I don't intend to offend here. I just want to highlight some of the powers that wikipedia holds for me. And I would also like to thank you for all your work on this project. As you can probably tell from my grammar and spelling errors I myself do not visit the library very often.
Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
I wonder if Wikipedians will go there and post 100% correct information on items, only for the users of this one to rollback the changes to the misinformative versions. :)
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
I figure the world can't get enough humor, so I'll try to put in a feeble attempt, and continue to admire the likes of Dave Barry and Andy Borowitz for having a more fertile imagination than I do.
"Elsewhere, Dave Barry was overheard in a Miami bistro saying that 'Katrina and the Waves' would be a terrible name for a rock band."
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us
Somewhere
Make a FSM cardboard sign and go picket your local lowest common denomination church.
Thought you either had a nemesis or you didn't?
Maybe there are degrees of nemesisness?
Has anyone else used nemesisness in a sentence today?
Go me.
I prefer Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's LiveJournallers taking the piss out of LiveJournallers/The Internet, and a whole load of other stuff besides. It's great.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Apparently the uncyclopedia is also unloadable.
It may be useful to have a "rightopedia" and a "leftopedia" which don't make any claims to a lack of bias.
Best Buy can have you arrested
http://uncyclopedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wiki/Wil_Whe aton
Yeah. It's just so much fun to ridicule Christians with stuff like FSM.
:-)
Grow up people.
The point is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more and no less real than the Christian God, and it's a whimsical reminder of that fact, to people who haven't "grown up" enough to stop believing in invisible, intangible creatures, like God or the FSM.
Plus, it explains global warming more "scientifically" than most Christian apolgists can.
Retrieved from "http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/FlyingSpaghettiMonst er"
Evil Overlord Rule #86. I will make sure that my doomsday device is up to code and properly grounded.
Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies.
Bull honky. Wikipedia has plenty of all three.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Formally the adoptive first cousin of Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies.
So the Uncyclopedia will be a lot like Slashdot, right? Nothing new here people!
After the /. raid is over, lookup "huffing kittens"
it's a sig, wtf?
The Uncyclopedia has the advantage that it is slightly cheaper and has a cover with the words "Don't Panic" in large friendly letters.
It looks like the uncyclopedia needs to be updated to include an article on this
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Not long ago I was having a conversation with some friends. All of us were stoned and couldn't remove ourselves from where we sit, we were all stuck, some very high quality shit we were smoking (took everybody by surprise because it didn't cost all that much.) Anyways, I started an argument over whether or not the moon was flat, stating that it was not a sphere/globe like everybody believes.. more or less I argued it was a solid carbon disc floating above earth created by an ancient race of silicon based alien insects... I'm not sure how long it took but everybody ended up agreeing with me...
That's pretty much how wikipedia operates AFAIK
Check out the Bush entry. Odly enough, it has a serious bit of text on the top right, providing a link to the Bush wikipedia entry.
Yarr, though she be the nemesis of Wikipedia, ye Uncyclopedia be still a minnow in these fair waters of the Internets, for Behold ye skurvy dogs! She cannot yet stand a Slashdottin', it be true.
Why would anyone go to such a thing for information. I have no problem with there actually BEING something like this. But what if google and other search engines get metadata and content from the page that will get it listed on searches for LEGITIMATE information. If this occurs, you could bet that someone is going to get a F on a school research paper. Anyone else worried about this?
NO~, I read Slashdot because I think it's stupid.....
I used the en.wikipedia to look up a political commentator that I've grown to respect and found false information that was obviously inconsistent with his beliefs. I'm not sure how many more cases there are, but it just demonstrates another of the many weaknesses of a wikipedia.
How much karma do I whore by... posting links to Uncyclopedia from Slashdot? The standard average for Wikipedia is about +3, so is Uncyclopedia -3?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Aren't you guilty of that same mindset by belittling anyone who believes in a certain religion?
If you look up uncyclopedia on wikipedia, it says:
"Uncyclopedia, which aims to be the 'encyclopedia of politically incorrect non-information', is a humorous parody of Wikipedia, although Uncyclopedia claims the reverse."
Sounds like blatant denial to me...
aagh! I mean freakin' partisanship! Idiot!
"everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies" Ha,ha,ha - "does a chicken have lips?" No misinformation or lies in Wikipedia - ha,ha,ha. Wikipedia is run by illiterates.
Did anyone else read that headline as "Wikipedia's New Archimedes"?
No, I think people who believe in religion is nuts... I enjoy science fiction, poetry, history and philosophy and I actually know the christian bible quite well - I have read all the books, not just the canon, but it is just that: Old books about super beings. The sci-fi and fantasy of 1500 to 2500 years ago. I have also read a bunch of books by Homer, Aristotle, Plato, Stoa, Virgil and many other philosophers and historians up to modern times. So, I know the history of Christianity. Basically, a King used his army to quell his foes and then he sent in the priests to scare the bejeezus out of everybody to keep the populace in line. There was method in the madness hundreds of years ago, but nowadays, we have electricity. "I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman" and you can add to that the Tooth Fairy, Santa and the Easter Bunny...
Oh well, what the hell...
Hmm, dunno, right now, it pretty much looks like it's suffering from heavy slashdotting...
And, what's worse, it looks like it has been goatsed too!
Hemos posted a Goatsex link on the front page, FFS. He should be banned from posting any more articles.
Picture of the day on Uncyclopedia.org is goatse porn. Someone should remove the link asap.
Right on the front page, goddammit.
So you practice blanket intolerance, then use a quote like...
What! Have you no monks to teach, to dispute, to govern, to intrigue and to burn people who do not agree with them?
...to criticize those people for their intolerance. I'm guessing irony isn't your forte.
I started a wiki about Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, net.kook, peyote pusher, and all around weirdo. He threatened to sue Wikipedia, and I'm pretty sure the Uncyclopedia is a response at least in part to the, er, contributions of other members of the Yahoo SCOX stock board regarding Merkey's behavior.
http://merkey.info/ is a nice place to start or you can read for yourself starting with http://yah.warmcat.com/ - his user ID is jeff_v_merkey, and be careful as there are many, many trolls
Some of us are at work bastards. The front page is completely not work safe. At least at 3:41pm Eastern on 9/19/05 it isn't.
F*cktards.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Mai n_Page
The thing is, people who are non-religious are more than happy to be tolerant of people who are religious, provided they MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
But they don't seem to be able to do that.So if they are going to express their opinion that we are godless evil people who are going to hell, we are going to express our opinion that they are brain-dead whack jobs that believe in mystical all-powerful beings absent any physical proof.
Then we are labeled as intolerant, when we didn't start the argument in the first place.
No, I am not intollerant - quite the contrary. I am not a religious fanatic, I read philosophy for fun. I don't preach from the street corners, I don't tell people what to wear and what to eat, I don't go house to house with pamphlets and begging lists, I don't do bible punching with Darwin's Origin of the Species...
/dev/zero > /dev/null
Here is another Voltaireism:
"Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed."
Or as I like to put it:
"Religion is an air castle built from blood bubbles."
Religious nuts tend to view atheism as an anti-religion while in reality it isn't anti-anything.
Atheism is: cat
Atheism is: Tell someone who cares.
Atheism is: Whatever gets you through the night.
Atheism is: Taking responsibility for your own actions.
Oh well, what the hell...
I think your ability to quote on the subject ad nauseum suggests otherwise, in your case at least.
You, yourself, do appear to be equally intolerant as the "whack-jobs" you criticize. Congratulations on bringing yourself down to their level.
I was actually going to post this a few months ago! But then I figured it was probably already /.ed... :-(
I absolutely love This Guy, though.
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Beware of a man of only one book...
Oh well, what the hell...
Something to cheer the world up after arguing with each other.
Don't tell me the world couldn't do with a little more laughter.
I'm a "wikipedian" and I think uncyclopedia is funny as hell. I don't go to uncyclopedia for factual info and I don't go to wikipedia for satirical. What's the beef?
I've known about Uncyclopedia FOREVER. It's awesome. Right up there with bash.org when you need a good laugh. Maybe even better in some cases.
"Netcraft confirms it...it is whack." -- Oscar Wilde on Slashdot
So much I didn't know!
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
Reminds me of a site I've done a lot of work on, YVGS. YVGS (short for Your Video Games Suck) is a wiki that gives negative reviews for video games, and basically takes the piss out on the games, much like Uncyclopedia.
Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies. Oh yes, it can!
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
... won't GNAA start flooding it with informative content, truths and insights?
http://www.myspace.com/fsmonster
he's there.... join up!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/
You're intending to submit this to the Uncyclopedia, aren't you? You think the writers for the onion are either experts or humorous? (I admit a couple of articles made me smirk, but they're definitely not experts) Please, could you send us detailed academic research on Actual Funny People?
and I've been trying to access it for a bit tonite, and I keep getting timeouts. then I browse slashdot for a bit and find this, no wonder :)
Uncyclopedia's new archnemesis is Slashdot?
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Slashdot
Oh... God!
Any excuse, you know.
It didn't occur to me that since it was a wiki, any of the socially stunted creatures skulking under the Slashdot bridge could have done this. In fact it was tediously predictable, to the point of being inevitable.
I agree that it could help the most at the starting point, but even after that:
1. ...it could (ideally speaking) save time as a reference to help find related scientific papers or related reference materials. It may be quicker at this task than the average library index and have a more uniform interface than disparate libraries. If it points to inappropriate references, it will be either obvious from the title or will soon be discovered (and hopefully deleted by the researcher.)
2. After a paper is finished, it might help to have a quick sanity check for formulae and that sort of thing. Trolls can change those things, but if they are inconsistent with the paper they would need to be double-checked anyway, so it is no worse for that, and the researcher may then correct the wiki if necessary. (It can also help with hints about less crucial things like conventions for spelling and notation.)
3. The more scientists use it, the more authoritative it will become. Or, it may evolve or fork into a more authoritative source.
4. How well would the traditional publishing industry survive a spate of troll submissions? Is its immune system even prepared to handle a determined effort by trolls in the future?