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
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.
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.
check here
Actually, according to the Uncyclopedia, the confusion is scheduled to end 5 Dec 2014. Though I am confused why.
Ya ought ta be keel-hauled, ya scurvy dog.
on uncyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia
and uncyclopedia article on wikipedia:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
" 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.
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
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.
Avast ye swab! Here be the only keyboard yer evar need! 'Ave they got 'er in yer precious Uncyclopedia or e'en yer Wikipedia? Oi'd be scupper'd if oi hadn't studied me three Arr's at Pirate U.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Arrrgggghhhh", on the other hand, is merely talking like someone who's been hit in the testicles.
You wouldn't write "Arrrgggghhhh", you'd just say it!
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).
Or is that the Castle Arrrrgggghhhh?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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?
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.
Maybe he was dictating...
Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
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.
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.
Simply coming up with a quip that gets a giggle and a "+1, Funny" mod out of the Slashdot crowd is a challenge.
It's really not.