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?"
Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (Score:1, Interesting)
No, they're just making sure the slashdot editors don't have to scour the web to find content. :) The slashdot editors still have to sift through it to find which content is most likely to start a flame war, bash MS, etc.
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.
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.
List of Wikipedia parodies (Score:2, Interesting)
Misleading Title!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies.
Shouldn't that be:
"Slashdot's New Competitior"
I know why I am posting this as AC
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: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: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:Theres a place for us. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hardly new... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Honestly (Score:1, Interesting)
Exactly. When faced with a fact that disagrees with your beliefs you assume the fact is wrong. Read that again.
Both Brittanica and Wikipedia contain articles which are factually wrong, misleadingly edited, or so poorly written that they are useless. One of them has a transparent process for correcting these problems.
Every few months someone I know stumbles onto Wikipedia for the first time, and almost always when they're breathlessly telling me about it they say that it seems inevitable that vandals will destroy the whole thing soon. They say something like "It's a shame anyone can edit it, probably it ought to be restricted" but of course they haven't taken a single moment to think about it further. Everyone's instincts are tribal. The bad guys are outsiders, and we should guard ourselves against them. Lock the doors. Stick with people you know. But those instincts are our greatest weakness.
A few comments up you'll see someone asserting that the historical articles in Wikipedia about the USSR are full of US propaganda. Could be, I wasn't there. But plenty of Russian and ex-Soviet Republic citizens are contributing to Wikipedia. They were there. Of course they were subject to their own propaganda...
Actually rants against Wikipedia (as opposed to rants merely about Wikipedia, such as those concerning specific editorial content policies) have followed the same pattern as the anti-Free Software rants. At first they said "It won't work, you're wasting your time", and then they said "You're good at a few things, but don't bother attempting the rest, stop while you're ahead", and now they're saying "You're good, but you'll never be as good as the best". I believe the last remaining part is "You're the best, but no-one else really cares anyway".