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?"
Uncyclopedia's been around since the start of the year. In Internet terms, this does not exactly make it new...
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 sounds like you've never actually read anything at uncyclopedia (nor can you, for today at least). Go back there tomorrow and take a good look around. I'd suggest hitting the "random article" button a few times for starters.
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.
what about Encyclopedia Dramatica? :)
The "no original research" rule may be applied maybe a little too much, but it definitely has its place. Read the "origin of this policy" section of the rule's page. The rule is one of the better ways to get rid of physics cranks, and applies generally to topics which there ARE experts out there who can validate theories, but which Wikipedia's semi-democracy isn't capable of properly scrutinizing. (on the other hand, pages like the Electric Universe concept are somehow allowed to survive, consisting mainly of many scientific details that have never been published).
I could see this turning into a competitor for snopes.*snip* Sadly, I believe the Uncyclopedia could quickly turn into some kind of meta-statement on itself, with every urban legend having "supporters" and detractors.
Well - the site was slashdotted, so a little hard for you to rtfa - but maybe next time wait & read before posting.
This is nothing like snopes. It is a satire/joke encyclopedia. You will not be able to forward anything authorative from here to your friends.
Oh - if you really find snopes too hard to navigate, just do a google search with site:snopes.com included.
My pics.
Everything2.
I trust encyclopdias because I know that they were written by reputable people (look at the list of authors), I know that they have editors
I know of one very senior academic who wrote a detailed entry for Britannica. The editors, reasonably enough, reserve the right to edit for style, and did so, sending the revised version back to the academic for approval. Unfortunately, the style changes had altered the sense of the article to the point where it was no longer accurate. The academic pointed this out and asked for the text to be corrected. The editors refused. Rinse. Repeat. Ultimately, the text went out in its factually incorrect form, and the academic refused to let them put his name to it.
Sh*t happens everywhere.
Wikipedia [...] can be done at absolutely no cost.
It can also be corrected at absolutely no cost. There's a trade-off here.