not actually to establish a blogging point where individuals can enrich their learns on facilitating and leveraging .NET-related activities most effectively
Holy cow, I wrote a book!
Now that Wikipedia has catapulted the wiki into the general consciousness, where there's a wiki, a spoof of a wiki can't be far behind.
Reactionary subculture you say? Don't forget Conservapedia.com, for when Wikipedia is too biased for your taste: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
You mean by Poe's law? http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
One of my favourite snippets from Uncyclopedia is the IRC transcript of a dialogue between Bertrand Russell and Kurt Gödel:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Battle_with_G.C3.B6del
ED sometimes has some funny stuff
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikigroaning
It's not remotely worksafe though.
That page on Heroes is awesome.
Should we take the <i>BSG</i> and <i>Heroes</i> references to mean that Raymond's television habits are correct?
There's also the Richardopedia (but use Richard's nickname), and not to mention Chickopedia.... there's actually a wiki for just about anything you want. You can also find just about anything you want at: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia
My most favourite page on Uncyclopaedia, by far: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/AAAAAAAAA!
@Conservapedia:
sigh, for a country which values freedom so much why are there so many idiots who think their view is the only correct one in the US?
Can't we all just get along?
"maybe Consevapedia is a really subtle spoof?"
It's interesting that even the people who run the site have a hard time telling "real" articles from satirical spoofs.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_can_we_protect_Conservapedia_by_distinguishing_real_conservative_encyclopedia_articles_from_satires_written_by_liberals%3F
(Of course, if it *is* all a spoof, then that page is a very clever double-bluff!)
I like the Frakr entry on Sexy Treason Stubble, which finishes with the line "This article is a stubble. You can help Wiki Frakr by growing it out or shaving it."
Why doesn't MS employees in their free time at home or at the company contribute to Microsoft articles on WP? Several users read incorrect FUD on some WP pages and get the wrong impression.
Probably partly because companies who do that tend to get negative articles about them in the mainstream press, especially if it has any sort of "offical encouragement".
And also probably partly because Wikipedia isn't designed to allow experts to correct popular opinion. It's great to allow anyone to edit wrong information, and Wikipedia is a great source for information on topics without a bias in the opinion of the masses. I suspect it would be impossible, however, to write a Wikipedia article on Microsoft that would be acceptable to a Microsoft Employee, Microsoft Management, the ABM and /. crowd, and the typical consumer. Correcting the article, then defending it from future corrects, could quickly become a full time job, and that's not everyones idea of a fun hobby.
Wikipedia isn't meant to be the Brittanica. What it does - and is supposed to do - is provide you with a quick overview of ANYTHING, no matter how far-fetched, accompanied by a number of of links that are usually a lot more on the mark than what you'll get out of google.
Also, it allows you to quickly find associations: search for your favourite writer, click a few links and you have a bunch of new names to try.
I'd love to see a third party spider that goes through all articles and deletes everything between 'In popular culture' and the footnotes, though.
Lazbro: did you just mention "In popular culture"?
Obligatory xkcd reference: http://xkcd.com/446/
[My list was of spoof sites. Or maybe Consevapedia is a really subtle spoof? -Raymond]
One can only hope. Of course, the hilarity in free market proponents rejecting the product of a free market is a special kind of awesome.
PingBack from http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/07/09/msdn-shoutout/
@Lazbro: Actually, Wikipedia and Britannica and other encyclopedias are the same. The differences lie in their editing and organization.
One does not cite an encyclopedia,`but one can utilize one to get enough background info to hunt for primary sources.
The advantage Wikipedia has is that they also cover pop culture - TV shows, movies, etc.
Thanks go to Raymond Chen for guiding me towards another corner of the Internet that makes me smile. We all love Wikipedia , right? Source of all knowledge and resolver of pointless arguments over trivia ! But sometimes it’s a bit too serious, a tad realistic.
PingBack from http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/11/10/9056611.aspx
