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?"

Comments

This article sounds complete nonsense to me.

[GozzoMan]

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.

Please, not "Archnemesis"

[fm6]

I think, "Evil Twin" is much more appropriate.

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.

Re:Please, not "Archnemesis"

[fm6]

It's been said before, but let me say it again: if it's broken, fix it, don't complain.

How, exactly? I can nibble away at the edges, by correcting problematic articles. But what can I do about the great mass of un-fact-checked crap, and useless trivia that floods Wikipedia?

*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 if I'd said "there shouldn't be an article on the FSM", you'd have a point. But that's not what I said. I said that too much of the effort goes to trivia, and not enough to the basic work of building an encyclopedia.

Face it, five years from now, an article on a satirical pseudo-cult will be of passing interest. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on it. But it does indicate that the relative priorities of Wikipedia contributors are very short sighted.

List of Wikipedia parodies

[jokestress]

Don't forget Wickerpedia and Wiccapedia! List of Wikipedia parodies

Re:Theres a place for us.

[interiot]

Uncyclopedia is for people gifted at humor, to create an "alternate reality" that's only perhipherally related to any realistic wikis (wikipedia, city wikis).

Though I don't quite understand why Uncyclopedia has to be internally consistent. If Oprah Winfrey's page can describe a history that's so far away from reality (yet still funny), why isn't there room for alternate histories of Oprah Winfrey that are similarly humorous?

Re:Honestly

[jdgeorge]

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.

This is a strange argument. Traditional encyclpedias are published in book form, and now also on the web. Historically, respectable encyclopedias documented their sources; has this changed? (Seriously, I'd like to know.)

I am mystified by the suggestion that traditional encyclopedias are "closed and opaque". The information they contain is available to anyone who owns a copy, or has access to a public library. There is no obfuscation of the information encyclopedias contain in a way that one could describe as "opaque".

The model for wikis and traditional encyclopedias is similar, except that in the case of the traditional encyclopedia there are trained writers , reviewers, and editors paid by the publisher, whereas wikipedia depends on the training and editorial reliability of the world at large.

It is certainly possible that the staff of an encyclopedia publisher could have an editorial bias, but the same is true for the editors of different content areas in the wikipedia.

Re:Theres a place for us.

[RLiegh]

The worst thing about it is that over half of the people who do are either cranks or trolls.

Re:Hardly new...

[lowrydr310]

Silly news can be fun sometimes, but it can also get you into trouble.