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?"
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
Watch the /. groupthink in action kids!
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.
The best thing about Wikipedia is the fact that people without advanced PhD degrees can make a contribution too.
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.