Wikipedia's New Archnemesis 335
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?"
Ob Ralph Wiggum (Score:4, Funny)
Chief Wiggum: "Ha ha ha! That's my boy!"
Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Ya ought ta be keel-hauled, ya scurvy dog.
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:4, Funny)
You wouldn't write "Arrrgggghhhh", you'd just say it!
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:2)
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Or is that the Castle Arrrrgggghhhh?
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:2, Funny)
And along the lines of "Can God make a sandwich so big he can't eat it?"...what would the Flying Spaghetti Monster say if struck in the tenticles?
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Avast ye swab! Here be the only keyboard [upenn.edu] 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.
Mod Pirate Up! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (Score:2)
Theres a place for us. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Theres a place for us. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Theres a place for us. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Theres a place for us. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Theres a place for us. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Theres a place for us. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Theres a place for us. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Theres a place for us. (Score:2)
No. I think you misunderstand the point of Uncyclopedia - go and read it through Coral Cache [nyud.net] and you will see what I mean.
or as they say Arr, Pirateopedia.
Amusingly enough, someone (since you've posted I believe) has added this to the top of the front page:
misinformation, satire, and lies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (Score:2)
Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Watch the /. groupthink in action kids!
Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
I dont know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dont know (Score:2)
Re:I dont know (Score:2)
There are a lot of funny people out there, but they don't always have time time to create a site where they can be funny on their own. Sites like this let anyone with something funny to say get it out in a clean, formal way. Sure, there is some lame stuff on there, but most of those articles are well-written and thoughful.
Re:I dont know (Score:2)
Re:I dont know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dont know (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be a great resource (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:This could be a great resource (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Wondering why you can't get to the site? (Score:4, Funny)
encyclopedia dramatica? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:encyclopedia dramatica? (Score:2, Informative)
Or the Wiki After Dark [wikiafterdark.com]?
That contains some funny pages, I remember visiting it by accident once via a google search...
Re:encyclopedia dramatica? (Score:2)
When? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, according to the Uncyclopedia, the confusion is scheduled to end 5 Dec 2014. Though I am confused why.
Can it thrive? (Score:2)
Well, the misinformation and lies, at least, have entropy on their side. Not only can they "take off", they're destiny...
wikipedia artcile (Score:4, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia [wikipedia.org]
and uncyclopedia article on wikipedia:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia [uncyclopedia.org]
Mirror! (Score:2)
but is there any mirror for this uncyclopedia !?!
Re:Mirror! (Score:2)
Re:Mirror! (Score:2)
http://uncyclopedia.org.nyud.net:8090/wiki/ipod [nyud.net]
Satire? (Score:2, Funny)
This article sounds complete nonsense to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
The Sovereign State of Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] is an independent nation roughly located between the Republic of Sourceforge and Jesus Ocean. Formerly a member of the UN, Slashdot left and joined the UN's arch-enemy, NATO, following its invasion by Oprah in the Gulf War.
Please, not "Archnemesis" (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Please, not "Archnemesis" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Please, not "Archnemesis" (Score:3, Insightful)
In what universe? Whose mind will it change? Fundamentalists will look at the FSM as a disrespectful joke in dubious taste. People with a Darwinian bent will maybe get the joke -- but they're already on the no-God-in-the-classroom track.
Like most political jokes, the LSM fable is a joke people who already agree with each other tell each other. If you
Re:You have got to be kidding (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if trolls are going to vandalize it by inserting useful information into the articles.
List of Wikipedia parodies (Score:2, Interesting)
What ppl say about it is not true (Score:2)
(From http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Category:Games [uncyclopedia.org])
Rule of Thumb: Games are fun until someone loses an eye. After that, it is considered a sport.
I had always been thinking that was the truth.
Not really antonymical (Score:2)
Why do you think they have to start the Lord of the Flies cycle over for every article?
OLD (Score:2)
Why not post something about NASA returning to the moon [bbc.co.uk] in 15 years *heh*
There's already an anti-Wikipedia (Score:5, Informative)
Where else... (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot, but of course! We've got Uncyclopedia beat by miles.
Satire is information (Score:2)
I'd argue that satire is information. It would be very interesting if Wikipedia (which I use often - some weeks daily) contained a "Satirical" link - pointing to the Uncyclopedia entry.
Given how political commentary is often satirical, it would provide an interesting angle on Wikipedia entries. Especially those of a historical/ political nature.
Also, what a great editorial tool! If a satirical entry closely matches a Wikipedia entry, the result would be better informed discussion around an entry's meani
Thanks for the Nemories (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:2)
Can you have an Archnemesis? (Score:2)
Maybe there are degrees of nemesisness?
Has anyone else used nemesisness in a sentence today?
Go me.
lulz (Score:2, Redundant)
The truth is... (Score:2)
It may be useful to have a "rightopedia" and a "leftopedia" which don't make any claims to a lack of bias.
Misinformation, satire, and lies. (Score:2)
Bull honky. Wikipedia has plenty of all three.
Don't Panic (Score:3, Funny)
Needs to have an article updated. (Score:3, Insightful)
How much karma do I whore by (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hardly new... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardly new... (Score:3, Insightful)
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, [wikipedia.org] you are not likely to ever be universally recogn
Re:Hardly new... (Score:5, Funny)
It's really not.
Re:Hardly new... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hardly new... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardly new... (Score:2, Informative)
Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
Just rememer that in XHTML it's <worm_hole destination="/future/#years"/>. Then put that space in to make it compatible with older browsers which won't render it anyway. Oh, and remember it has to be inside a block-level element, after an <h1> or an <h3> but not before a <p> or anywhere near an <h2>. You can also put it inside the <head> area so long as you're not using the Strict scheme, taller than six feet, or it's a full moon.
Re:Obligitory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligitory (Score:4, Funny)
b4n
PS: I know no-one in the US is uninformed. The media and the administration would never lie to anyone.
Re:Honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honestly (Score:2)
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 that librarians approve and buy them, and I know that a sizeable expense was put into making them in the first place. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is largely written by anonymous people with nothing at all to
Re:Honestly (Score:2)
You have no idea what that print encyclopedia's fact-checking procedures are, whether their research department is a thousand PhD holders or one bored junior-college dropout, or if any of those names on the title page even represent real people. Yet you trust them because they spend lots of money printing real books, because librarians (who may not have opened an encyclopedia volume since high school) pay for them, and because their factual errors and political bic
Re:Honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honestly (Score:2)
Then you can bet that the article(s) on library science will be pretty accurate. However, when your librarian approves and buys an encyclopedia, what makes you think that the articles on quantum physics or renaissance art are not complete BS?
Re:Honestly (Score:2)
On a serious note: I agree with you totally. Encyclopedias are fine. They are peer reviewed, written by experts, widely accepted, and have many standards (including moral) that they uphold. That does not mean I only use encyclopedia's while researching, but they definitly get my nod (as well a
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Honestly (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Honestly (Score:2)
Accepting anything that you can't verify yourself as being 100% reliable is always unwise. And even if you can verify something yourself, there's still a chance your verification process is wrong. Bottom line, documented information can never be 100% reliable, and objectivity is a matter of opinion.
But traditional encyclopedias do have a stronger incentive to be reliable/objective than online collaborative o
Re:Honestly (Score:2)
You can have a large staff of writers and still have problems. A simple typo can cause factual issues, such as the Household Cyclopedia article on hedgehogs: "If it ever has been found eating poultry or fame, as has by some been asserted, they must previously have been killed by rats, weasels, or some more ferocious animal than the hedgehog." Eating "fame"? How dare those hedgehogs eat our fame!
Re:Payback... (Score:3, Funny)
(I can't be the only one to have had an instant associative link between "Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies" and the "Don't Panic! logo.)
- David Stein
Re:Payback... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Payback... (Score:2)
Re:FSM (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:In a near future... (Score:2)
Re:Another one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GOATSE WARNING!!! (Score:3, Funny)
I guess that's what you get when you link a wiki from Slashdot...