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?"
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.
Yeah, but it's the first I've heard of it. And worth talking about even if I hadn't.
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.
Also collaborative humor is nothing new either. Most comedians will admit to blatantly stealing other people's funny and using it, so I don't find it suprising it's been wikized.
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
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.
Watch the /. groupthink in action kids!
That's especially true in Uncyclopedia, where all kind of humors coexist.
Yes, all of it bad humour.
I believe you drastically over-estimate the reliability and objectivity of traditional encyclopedias. It's astonishing how willing people are to trust anything thats closed and opaque, simply out of the assumption that someone must have said it was okay.
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.
It's been said before, but let me say it again: if it's broken, fix it, don't complain. Only complain if you cannot fix it - because you lack the knowledge to do so, or because doing so would take too much time for a single person, or because the environment itself is hostile towards fixing attempts.
That being said, there's a saying where I live that "one man's owl is another man's nightingale". *You* may think that a detailed article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't important, but who are you to judge these things? What matters to you may not matter to other people, either.
And of course, you're making a mistake if you assume that people who work on things they *like* to work on now will go to work on things they don't like to work on if you try to forbid them to work on the things they like. They won't - rather, they'll stop working on *anything*.
You may think that the cathedral looks nicer, but in the end, the bazaar will win.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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
But I DO know for a fact that Wikipedia's policy of allowing ANYBODY to edit something virtually *guarantees* that a good bit of articles will be factually wrong at any one point. The "masses" coming to a "consensus" on "facts" is by definition, the very opposite of a quality, peer-reviewed academic article/paper, etc. It's the lowest common denominator, which is generally the least educated, and the least likely to have anything factually correct.
I find that it does a terrific job of demonstrating one thing: It's damn hard to be funny in written text.
There are those who find Ferber amusing, others who laugh at Hunter S. Thompson. Still others are tickled pink by Christopher Buckley or the scrbblings of Patrick McManus or George Carlin. Many sci-fi nerds swear by Douglas Adams, while would-be hobbits worship at the shrines of Peirs Anthony or Terry Pratchett...
But unless you happened to be this guy, you are not likely to ever be universally recognized as funny by the English-speaking world.
Simply coming up with a quip that gets a giggle and a "+1, Funny" mod out of the Slashdot crowd is a challenge. To write an actual work of satire which is not tiresome and sad is simply nigh impossible for the vast majority of people who think they are able to do it.
If you disagree, go read the Uncyclopedia a little while and you will quickly be joining my camp in this debate. There are a lot of people out there who think they are funny enough to write for The Onion or something very much like it, and they simply are not. They desperately need a "Simon Cowell" type to bluntly urge them to direct their energies elsewhere.
YMMV, obviously. Who am I to tell other people what they should or should not find amusing?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Hm. Any student of any age who relies soley on google hits to write any sort of homework etc deserves firstly an F and secondly a you shall check ALL sources lecture ;)
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Like most political jokes, the LSM fable is a joke people who already agree with each other tell each other. If you think it's going to have any effect on policy or public opinion, you're fooling yourself.