Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Mark — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:16:32 GMT

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

[My list was of spoof sites. Or maybe Consevapedia is a really subtle spoof? -Raymond]

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Mark — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:15:15 GMT

You mean by Poe's law? http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Nick Fitzsimons — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:47:48 GMT

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

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:41:06 GMT

ED sometimes has some funny stuff

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikigroaning

It's not remotely worksafe though.

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Mike Dunn — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:47:08 GMT

That page on Heroes is awesome.

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Boris — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:11:44 GMT

Should we take the <i>BSG</i> and <i>Heroes</i> references to mean that Raymond's television habits are correct?

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Anonymuse — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:47:43 GMT

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

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Anatoly Vorobey — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:54:04 GMT

My most favourite page on Uncyclopaedia, by far: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/AAAAAAAAA!

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Drak — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:31:45 GMT

@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?

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Karellen — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:30:22 GMT

"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!)

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Dave H — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:39:02 GMT

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."

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

anon — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:50:46 GMT

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.

re: anon @ July 09, 2008 7:50

Mark — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:04:01 GMT

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.

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Lazbro — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:56:01 GMT

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.

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:24:59 GMT

Lazbro: did you just mention "In popular culture"?

Obligatory xkcd reference: http://xkcd.com/446/

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

MS — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:53:59 GMT

[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.

Battlestar Wiki Blog » MSDN shoutout

Battlestar Wiki Blog » MSDN shoutout — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:27:39 GMT

PingBack from http://blog.battlestarwiki.org/2008/07/09/msdn-shoutout/

re: Wikipedia has created its own reactionary subculture

Worf — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:25:55 GMT

@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.

Uncyclopedia

phazed.com — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:01:42 GMT

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.

The Old New Thing : What do these topics have in common?

The Old New Thing : What do these topics have in common? — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:56:20 GMT

PingBack from http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/11/10/9056611.aspx