Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia's New Archnemesis

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the the-joy-of-cartoon-rivals dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 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?"

cancel ×

335 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ob Ralph Wiggum (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596501)

Ralph: "Where do I learn everything? The Uncyclopedia!"
Chief Wiggum: "Ha ha ha! That's my boy!"

Re:Ob Ralph Wiggum (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596527)

[rumandmonkey.com]

What kind of pirate am I? [rumandmonkey.com] You decide!
You can also view a breakdown of results [rumandmonkey.com] or put one of these on your own page [rumandmonkey.com] !
Brought to you by Rum and Monkey [rumandmonkey.com]

'monkey' (1)

Professor S. Brown (780963) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596670)

If I see one more website with 'monkey' somewhere in the title, I'm going to single handedly smash the internet to bits. PS I didn't check out your links.

Hardly new... (1, Informative)

keesh (202812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596513)

Uncyclopedia's been around since the start of the year. In Internet terms, this does not exactly make it new...

Re:Hardly new... (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596550)

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

Re:Hardly new... (1)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596737)

I have a friend who's big on it. Personally, I think it's just silliness. Nothing wrong with silliness, but it gets old pretty fast, in this case.

Re:Hardly new... (3, Insightful)

double-oh three (688874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596561)

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.

Re:Hardly new... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596622)

The issue is that usually, it's not collaborative as in "let's write together", but as in "I'm funnier, so let's replace the stuff that was there altogether".

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

Re:Hardly new... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596635)

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

Yes, all of it bad humour.

Re:Hardly new... (2, Informative)

dajobi (915753) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596633)

I've been reading it since way before I got fired, and that was ages ago, so definitely not new.

Re:Hardly new... (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596678)

Well, it's dead now.. Thanks /. =)

Obligitory (4, Funny)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596686)

" 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.

Re:Obligitory (5, Funny)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596758)

They do it with CSS, dumbass.

Re:Obligitory (5, Funny)

ellem (147712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596827)

for the love of GOD. Do some Googling and learn about the <worm_hole "/future/#years"> tag

Payback... (1)

jargoone (166102) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596516)

One comment, and their server is un-responding to requests. How's that for satire?

Re:Payback... (0, Redundant)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596563)

So much the better as the actual link to the FSM article is here:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_mons ter [uncyclopedia.org]

Re:Payback... (2)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596664)

Or just link to the site itself. http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org] It doesn't need an explanation.

Re:Payback... (2, Funny)

tambo (310170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596685)

Maybe their offices were destroyed by a fleet of Vogon construction crew.

(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

Arrrrgggghhhh (3, Funny)

justforaday (560408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596517)

Good to see the fine folks at uncyclopedia are participating in Talk Like a Pirate Day [talklikeapirate.com] .

Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (5, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596646)

"Arrrrrrh!" is talking like a pirate."Arrrgggghhhh", on the other hand, is merely talking like someone who's been hit in the testicles.

Ya ought ta be keel-hauled, ya scurvy dog.

Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (4, Funny)

wiggles (30088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596729)

"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!

Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (5, Funny)

xSquaredAdmin (725927) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596843)

Maybe he was dictating...

Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596740)

"Arrrrrrh!" is talking like a pirate."Arrrgggghhhh", on the other hand, is merely talking like someone who's been hit in the testicles.

Or is that the Castle Arrrrgggghhhh?

Re:Arrrrgggghhhh (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596728)

Good to see the fine folks at uncyclopedia are participating in Talk Like a Pirate Day.

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! (2, Funny)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596854)

Avast! Pure Hilarity Spotted Dead Ahead! Arrrrrrrrr.

Theres a place for us. (2, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596518)

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:Theres a place for us. (4, Informative)

justforaday (560408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596580)

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.

Re:Theres a place for us. (4, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596794)

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:Theres a place for us. (4, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596732)

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 [wikipedia.org] " 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 [wikipedia.org] isn't capable of properly scrutinizing. (on the other hand, pages like the Electric Universe concept [wikipedia.org] are somehow allowed to survive, consisting mainly of many scientific details that have never been published).

Re:Theres a place for us. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596766)

(if you will, Wikispace)

Hey, you got your Wikispace in my blogsphere!

Re:Theres a place for us. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596842)

Hey, you got your lame jokes in my Slashdot!

Re:Theres a place for us. (3, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596780)

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

misinformation, satire, and lies (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596523)

So they're cloning slashdot?
Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies

Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596636)

Check out their entry on George Bush being the greatest president ever

Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596657)

No, Slashdot is cloning Slashdot.

Dupe at 11.

Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596765)

No, Slashdot is cloning Slashdot
Gee, cloning a site to serve up 503s is news?

Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (5, Funny)

Tacommander (798798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596692)

That won't be completely the case until they hire CmdrTaco as a grammar editor.

Re:misinformation, satire, and lies (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596698)

So they're cloning slashdot?

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.

FSM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596536)

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

Grow up people.

Re:FSM (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596607)

It's just the intelligent design proponents. None of them are good christians, and they completely deserve it.

Besides, martyrdom/persecution/victimization gives you guys a chubby, so stop whining.

Re:FSM (0, Offtopic)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596661)

Well, there are few things more funny, immature and tragic than Christianity.

As Voltaire put it about 300 years ago: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." ..and when he was in a lighter mood, he put it this way: "What! Have you no monks to teach, to dispute, to govern, to intrigue and to burn people who do not agree with them?"

Re:FSM (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596727)

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.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596548)

It would be great if it had half the bandwidth of Wikipedia so I could actually see what all the fuss is about now ;)

Hmm.. (4, Funny)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596549)

Colaborative effort to spread misinformation and confuse lies? I thought that had already been done: http://www.rnc.org/ [rnc.org] ?

Re:Hmm.. (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596570)

Yup, can't type worth crap today. Make that misinformation, confusion and lies.

Re:Hmm.. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596573)

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:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596767)

Thank goodness we have your hard-hitting commentary from the sidelines to keep us all in check.

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596800)

Let's find out. [slashdot.org]

Re:Hmm.. (1)

freewaybear (906222) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596578)

Yes, but does it play Wesley Willis?

Re:Hmm.. (0, Flamebait)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596616)

Uncyclopedia intends to spread misinformation, confusion, and lies, in an ironic and humorous manner [uncyclopedia.org] . ...okay, you're right, the RNC is the same.

I dont know (5, Insightful)

UndyingShadow (867720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596556)

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.

Everything? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596558)

"Uncyclopedia stands for everything Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies."

and easly slashdottable!

This could be a great resource (2, Insightful)

jeblucas (560748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596562)

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?

Shitty layout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596783)

I could see this turning into a competitor for snopes [snopes.com]. I have always HATED the layout of that site

And you like the layout of Uncyclopedia? On my browser the page won't fit even when I expand to full screen, and you have to scroll horizontally to read it. (I don't get it - why do people need to reinvent the wheel and turn it into crap with no regard for usability, when they could have just cloned the tried-and-true Wikipedia template and be done with it?)

Re:This could be a great resource (4, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596819)

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.

Wil Wheaton Overdrive (1)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596572)

All I know is that the Uncyclopedia article on Slashdot favorite, Wil Wheaton is approximately the funniest thing I have ever read. It has me bent over in paroxysms of hilarity just thinking about it.

Wil Wheaton [uncyclopedia.org]

Martin

Honestly (1)

portscan (140282) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596575)

Wikipedia has its share of misinformation and lies as well. Overall the content is quite nice, but I really don't think it competes with fact-checked and edited encyclopediae yet in accuracy (although it has an obvious edge in breadth). Still, the information cannot be trusted 100%.

I like the idea and I use Wikipedia a lot, but the quality control is somewhat lacking.

Re:Honestly (3, Insightful)

arkanes (521690) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596641)

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:Honestly (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596814)

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.

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 lose with bad or wrong information, and it can be done at absolutely no cost. There is no reason, whatsoever, to think that Wikipedia has correct information.

Re:Honestly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596689)

Proof?

Re:Honestly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596775)

Okay, since you're so hip on everything being fact checked and accurate, lets us see your sources.

Re:Honestly (1)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596812)

but I really don't think it competes with fact-checked and edited encyclopediae yet in accuracy

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!

diOc4 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596581)

not so bad. To the current core were the problems NiggErs everywhere a BSD box that backward and said

Wondering why you can't get to the site? (4, Funny)

yecrom2 (461240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596585)

check here [wikipedia.org]

encyclopedia dramatica? (3, Informative)

packman (156280) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596588)

what about Encyclopedia Dramatica [encycloped...matica.com] ? :)

Re:encyclopedia dramatica? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596640)

"It's like Wikipedia on crack, heroin, and meth all at once."

Hell, I'm sold! Where do I sign up?

When? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596591)

Will the confusion ever end?


Actually, according to the Uncyclopedia, the confusion is scheduled to end 5 Dec 2014. Though I am confused why.

"Slashdotted" entry into Uncyclopedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596595)

Uncyclopedia can't be slashdotted

Another one... (1, Funny)

Darkon (206829) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596596)


I prefer this one [encycloped...matica.com] myself. It even has chicks [encycloped...matica.com] !

How about... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596597)

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/>

just good dirty fun (1)

naiv (768305) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596608)

the best part is that some of the articles are so lame that you just have to rewrite them and make fun of them. whereas some other articles are really funny, with jokes you won't get unless you really understand what the article is supposed to be about (which i dont always). i think its a good new use of wiki's to challenge the whole wikipedia mindset. many people i talk to think wikipedia invented wiki's. wiki's can be so much more than a wikipedia or an uncyclopedia, but the majority of people right now are so limited with what they believe a wiki can do that we gotta start challenging assumptions anywhere./

Check out Oprah. (1)

Vorondil28 (864578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596629)

Yeah, this has been around a while. While you're there, search for the Oprah page; good times.

Can it thrive? (1)

moviepig.com (745183) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596634)

...misinformation, satire, and lies. Does this prove that satire and humour can take off...?

Well, the misinformation and lies, at least, have entropy on their side. Not only can they "take off", they're destiny...

Hmm.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596638)

Colaborative effort to spread misinformation and confuse lies? I thought that had already been done: http://www.dnc.org/ [dnc.org] ?

The Uncylopedia of Rock (1)

Tarq666 (545095) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596647)

Anyone recall this radio program? I listened to it in the 80's. It was a wonderfully funny parody with fake song info and interviews.

Mirror! (1)

vijaya_chandra (618284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596652)

This is not a satire
but is there any mirror for this uncyclopedia !?!

Re:Mirror! (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596675)

Google's cache [64.233.161.104] of the front page should give you an idea of the fun they have going on there.

YUO FAIL] IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596665)

Satire? (2, Funny)

Darvin (878219) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596668)

But FSMism isn't satire. It's real.

Someone Forgot to Tell Wikkipedia (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596683)

Wikipedia cannot have: misinformation, satire, and lies.

Someone forgot to tell Wikkipedia about this.

This article sounds complete nonsense to me. (5, Interesting)

GozzoMan (808286) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596704)


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? (3, Funny)

iLogiK (878892) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596706)

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Slashdot [uncyclopedia.org]

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" (4, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596717)

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 [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" (3, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596770)

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.

Hmmm... (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596719)


I wonder if trolls are going to vandalize it by inserting useful information into the articles.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596750)

That was just plain funny.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596804)

They do. We have a section, TFAODP, for True Facts and Other Deleted Prose.

Please be kind with Uncyclopedia.

- An Uncyc admin

List of Wikipedia parodies (2, Interesting)

jokestress (837997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596722)

Don't forget Wickerpedia and Wiccapedia! List of Wikipedia parodies [wikipedia.org]

Misleading Title!!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596735)

Wikipedia's New Archnemesis[...]
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 :-)

What ppl say about it is not true (1)

vijaya_chandra (618284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596748)

about misinformation on uncyclopedia

(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.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596751)

I never knew this thing existed! Damn, I have been living under a rock! How do I Join the new rage that is Spaghetti!?

lies on the internet??? (1)

necromcr (836137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596773)

.. where is the world going to..

Then you add a dash of Slashdot to the mix (1)

waterlogged (210759) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596798)

and you get.....

I for one welcome our new spaghetti monster overlords!!

Not really antonymical (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596809)

Wikipedia has plenty of misinformation, satire, and lies.

Why do you think they have to start the Lord of the Flies cycle over for every article?

OLD (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596816)

can you spell OLD!?

Why not post something about NASA returning to the moon [bbc.co.uk] in 15 years *heh*

In a near future... (1)

franksp (570748) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596822)

The titles will be changed: the Wikipedia will be known as the "Ecyclopedia Galactica", and all parodies will be merged into a famous hitchhiker's guide to something gargantuanly big.

There's already an anti-Wikipedia (4, Informative)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13596828)

Everything2 [everything2.com] .

Formally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13596845)

And informally speaking, Uncyclopedia would be what?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>