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?"

Theres a place for us.

[suso]

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 [bloomingpedia.org], 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 [seattlewiki.org]) 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.

Re:Hardly new...

[fm6]

Yeah, but it's the first I've heard of it. And worth talking about even if I hadn't.

I dont know

[UndyingShadow]

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.

Re:Hardly new...

[double-oh three]

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.

This could be a great resource

[jeblucas]

I could see this turning into a competitor for snopes [snopes.com]. I have always HATED the layout of that site, but it's so damn indispensible. I would love to able to turn to a wiki for the same "No, you're an idiot for forwarding this to me" insights that have made me smile in the past.

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?

Re:Hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

God that was clever. Sad thing is it'll get to +5 funny, while if you replaced the "r" with a "d" it would be at -1 flamebait

Watch the /. groupthink in action kids!

Re:Hardly new...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's especially true in Uncyclopedia, where all kind of humors coexist.

Yes, all of it bad humour.

Re:Honestly

[arkanes]

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.

Re:FSM

[MightyMartian]

Yeah. It's just so much fun to ridicule Christians with stuff like FSM.

Grow up people.

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:Please, not "Archnemesis"

[slavemowgli]

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.

Re:Theres a place for us.

[superpulpsicle]

The best thing about Wikipedia is the fact that people without advanced PhD degrees can make a contribution too.

Re:Theres a place for us.

[ArsonSmith]

The worst thing about Wikipedia is the fact that people without advanced PhD degrees can make a contribution too.

Re:I dont know

[Kevin Stevens]

If youre using any encyclopedia for "detailed academic research" and not just as a starting point to get a general overview of a subject, I have to wonder if you have any place doing academic research at all.

Needs to have an article updated.

[raider_red]

It looks like the uncyclopedia needs to be updated to include an article on this [wikipedia.org]

trust wikipedia?

[Adult film producer]

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

Re:I dont know

[mlewan]

Why would you avoid wikipedia for detailed academic research? I realise you cannot quote it as is, but in about any subject I can think of, it is an excellent source of compiled facts, which one then can verify elsewhere as needed.

Re:Honestly

[NineNine]

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.

Re:Hardly new...

[Golias]

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, [wikipedia.org] 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?

Re:Why?

[Arimus]

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 ;)

Re:I dont know

[birge]

So you think Encyclopedia Brittanica hires expert to write all of their articles? If you want a chance at a real expert, I actually think the Wikipedia is not a bad place to look. Often, the people writing articles on scientific topics are those currently doing research in those areas. Were Britannica to actually pay these people to write articles, they'd go bankrupt. I think your entire post was pure conjecture based on bias. Amazingly enough, if you actually read articles on Wikipedia (which you should do before posting about it) you'd find that they are often technically more advanced than those in commerical encyclopedias. For example, do you really think you could learn about the index of refraction in any detail from the World Book? That the Wikipedia works as well as it does is one of the most optimistic things I've ever seen.

Re:Please, not "Archnemesis"

[fm6]

But one very real possibility is that this sort of satirical effort is what will eventually do in the religious fundies' attacks on the teaching of science.

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 think it's going to have any effect on policy or public opinion, you're fooling yourself.