Hilarious rival of Wikipedia
-
Have a look http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page[^] Just search there.. :laugh:
-
Have a look http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page[^] Just search there.. :laugh:
I don't see it as a rival but a complement.
Signature construction in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.
-
Have a look http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page[^] Just search there.. :laugh:
"Rival"? A parody is not a rival. If you're looking for Wikipedia rivals, you might come a bit closer with mirrors and forks: sites that host the same content as Wikipedia. Or even closer to "rival" is the likes of Conservapedia: wikis that was created to fix some perceived problem of Wikipedia.
-
"Rival"? A parody is not a rival. If you're looking for Wikipedia rivals, you might come a bit closer with mirrors and forks: sites that host the same content as Wikipedia. Or even closer to "rival" is the likes of Conservapedia: wikis that was created to fix some perceived problem of Wikipedia.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Conservapedia: wikis that was created to fix some perceived problem of Wikipedia.
And I think it does it pretty successfully, like with this[^]. Let's face it, all Wikipedia tries to do is reference reliable sources; they don't perform their own research, which is what a good encyclopaedia like Conservapedia is supposed to do! This concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia. When this entry was generated here, a Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" did not find a single reference on the Internet: "No results found for 'invisible hand of marriage.'"
-
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Conservapedia: wikis that was created to fix some perceived problem of Wikipedia.
And I think it does it pretty successfully, like with this[^]. Let's face it, all Wikipedia tries to do is reference reliable sources; they don't perform their own research, which is what a good encyclopaedia like Conservapedia is supposed to do! This concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia. When this entry was generated here, a Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" did not find a single reference on the Internet: "No results found for 'invisible hand of marriage.'"
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
all Wikipedia tries to do is reference reliable sources; they don't perform their own research
Some would argue that that's exactly how it should be. Certainly the people who decided on Wikipedia's "no original research" rule feels that way. I'm a bit curious as to how quality can be guaranteed on an encyclopedia-like wiki that allows original research. Without some peer-review system, anyone can just spew whatever garbage they want and have it accepted as facts by those who know little of the subject matter. Can a workable peer-review system be implemented on a wiki? That said, I certainly don't think Wikipedia's policy on original research is perfect. I just haven't encountered a more practical alternative. Also, just to make it absolutely clear: I don't frequent Conservapedia, so I am in no position to judge the quality of the their information.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
all Wikipedia tries to do is reference reliable sources; they don't perform their own research
Some would argue that that's exactly how it should be. Certainly the people who decided on Wikipedia's "no original research" rule feels that way. I'm a bit curious as to how quality can be guaranteed on an encyclopedia-like wiki that allows original research. Without some peer-review system, anyone can just spew whatever garbage they want and have it accepted as facts by those who know little of the subject matter. Can a workable peer-review system be implemented on a wiki? That said, I certainly don't think Wikipedia's policy on original research is perfect. I just haven't encountered a more practical alternative. Also, just to make it absolutely clear: I don't frequent Conservapedia, so I am in no position to judge the quality of the their information.
I agree with you.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Also, just to make it absolutely clear: I don't frequent Conservapedia, so I am in no position to judge the quality of the their information.
OK, I'll help you out: Conservapedia is considered a laughing stock by just about everybody who comes across it. Every single piece of information it contains, no matter how trivial, must be considered entirely suspect. But it's also extremely entertaining--its founder, Andy Schlafly, is a ridiculous human being with the most irritating and hilarious voice I've ever heard. He's rewriting the Bible to remove 'liberal bias'.
-
I agree with you.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Also, just to make it absolutely clear: I don't frequent Conservapedia, so I am in no position to judge the quality of the their information.
OK, I'll help you out: Conservapedia is considered a laughing stock by just about everybody who comes across it. Every single piece of information it contains, no matter how trivial, must be considered entirely suspect. But it's also extremely entertaining--its founder, Andy Schlafly, is a ridiculous human being with the most irritating and hilarious voice I've ever heard. He's rewriting the Bible to remove 'liberal bias'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Conservapedia is considered a laughing stock by just about everybody who comes across it.
Including me, to a degree. When I first came across Conservapedia, I tried reading an article or two* to try it out, but it seemed incredibly biased and not too truthful, so I abandoned the idea of relying on its information. I haven't visited it since, which is why I believe I do not know it well enough to comment on its quality. Not that I'm really interested in knowing much more about Conservapedia. As far as easy access to reasonably accurate information goes, Wikipedia still serves my needs perfectly well. *If memory serves me correctly, I was introduced to Conservapedia with their article on Hitler. This article seemed oddly... positive... towards Naziism. Needless to say, that is very effective at raising a few eyebrows.
-
"Rival"? A parody is not a rival. If you're looking for Wikipedia rivals, you might come a bit closer with mirrors and forks: sites that host the same content as Wikipedia. Or even closer to "rival" is the likes of Conservapedia: wikis that was created to fix some perceived problem of Wikipedia.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
It should righly be called Christianopedia.
-
Have a look http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page[^] Just search there.. :laugh:
The Mad magazine of the web
-
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Conservapedia: wikis that was created to fix some perceived problem of Wikipedia.
And I think it does it pretty successfully, like with this[^]. Let's face it, all Wikipedia tries to do is reference reliable sources; they don't perform their own research, which is what a good encyclopaedia like Conservapedia is supposed to do! This concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia. When this entry was generated here, a Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" did not find a single reference on the Internet: "No results found for 'invisible hand of marriage.'"
I assume you're being tongue-in-cheek here.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Conservapedia is considered a laughing stock by just about everybody who comes across it.
Including me, to a degree. When I first came across Conservapedia, I tried reading an article or two* to try it out, but it seemed incredibly biased and not too truthful, so I abandoned the idea of relying on its information. I haven't visited it since, which is why I believe I do not know it well enough to comment on its quality. Not that I'm really interested in knowing much more about Conservapedia. As far as easy access to reasonably accurate information goes, Wikipedia still serves my needs perfectly well. *If memory serves me correctly, I was introduced to Conservapedia with their article on Hitler. This article seemed oddly... positive... towards Naziism. Needless to say, that is very effective at raising a few eyebrows.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
I was introduced to Conservapedia with their article on Hitler. This article seemed oddly... positive... towards Naziism. Needless to say, that is very effective at raising a few eyebrows.
Well, that surprises me. The conservative commentators that I have read, have emphasised the statism and socialism inherent in the Nazi government. I suppose I shall have to view 'Hitler' in the Conservapedia, and see for myself. Edit: The links to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party on Conservapedia do not work, so perhaps they are re-writing them. (Can't get to Hitler from their Atheist Agenda page either.) They're back now - a glitch. The current article is in no way positive about Naziism, which it compares to Marxism and Liberalism (or Marxism Lite). As for Der Führer himself, "the incarnation of absolute evil" is hardly a positive comment. (O.K. the page was updated recently - 21st Feb - but I doubt it was a complete rewrite.)
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
Have a look http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page[^] Just search there.. :laugh:
Damn funny, actually.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
TheOtherCPian wrote:
I was introduced to Conservapedia with their article on Hitler. This article seemed oddly... positive... towards Naziism. Needless to say, that is very effective at raising a few eyebrows.
Well, that surprises me. The conservative commentators that I have read, have emphasised the statism and socialism inherent in the Nazi government. I suppose I shall have to view 'Hitler' in the Conservapedia, and see for myself. Edit: The links to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party on Conservapedia do not work, so perhaps they are re-writing them. (Can't get to Hitler from their Atheist Agenda page either.) They're back now - a glitch. The current article is in no way positive about Naziism, which it compares to Marxism and Liberalism (or Marxism Lite). As for Der Führer himself, "the incarnation of absolute evil" is hardly a positive comment. (O.K. the page was updated recently - 21st Feb - but I doubt it was a complete rewrite.)
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
Well, in that case the article either changed significantly in the year or two since I last laid eyes on it; or, more likely, my memory failed me. If that's the case, then I apologize for my accidental defamation of Conservapedia. Also, it occurred to me that I discovered Uncyclopedia at the same time as Conservapedia, so my mind might be trying to play tricks on me. Looking at their article[^] convinces me of this, with statements like: "[Hitler] socially and economically reformed Germany after the injustice of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles" "he liberated Poland from Jewish influence, liberated France from incompetent rulers, and liberated Austria from itself." "Hitler was criticized for his policies of tolerance, not yet fully understood by the inferior world outside of the Reich." Again, I apologize to Conservapedia. Please don't smack me on the head with the Holy Book. :-)
-
Have a look http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page[^] Just search there.. :laugh:
"390,000,000 BC - A meteor carrying a portion of the dispersed Gruesømellæ germ culture crashes on Earth, killing Chuck Norris." :confused:
-
"390,000,000 BC - A meteor carrying a portion of the dispersed Gruesømellæ germ culture crashes on Earth, killing Chuck Norris." :confused:
-
I thought that was how Chuck Norris was created...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
*cough*
Chuck Norris
-
Well, in that case the article either changed significantly in the year or two since I last laid eyes on it; or, more likely, my memory failed me. If that's the case, then I apologize for my accidental defamation of Conservapedia. Also, it occurred to me that I discovered Uncyclopedia at the same time as Conservapedia, so my mind might be trying to play tricks on me. Looking at their article[^] convinces me of this, with statements like: "[Hitler] socially and economically reformed Germany after the injustice of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles" "he liberated Poland from Jewish influence, liberated France from incompetent rulers, and liberated Austria from itself." "Hitler was criticized for his policies of tolerance, not yet fully understood by the inferior world outside of the Reich." Again, I apologize to Conservapedia. Please don't smack me on the head with the Holy Book. :-)
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Again, I apologize to Conservapedia.
Sorry, I came across too pedantic. I was merely surprised at a possible semi-endorsement of Adolf by conservatives.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Please don't smack me on the head with the Holy Book.
The Very Hungry Caterpillar[^] :confused:
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Again, I apologize to Conservapedia.
Sorry, I came across too pedantic. I was merely surprised at a possible semi-endorsement of Adolf by conservatives.
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Please don't smack me on the head with the Holy Book.
The Very Hungry Caterpillar[^] :confused:
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
ict558 wrote:
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Please don't smack me on the head with the Holy Book.
The Very Hungry Caterpillar[^] :confused:
Huh? What does a caterpillar have to do with it? Oh, well. At least it would be less painful than the one I had in mind[^]
-
ict558 wrote:
TheOtherCPian wrote:
Please don't smack me on the head with the Holy Book.
The Very Hungry Caterpillar[^] :confused:
Huh? What does a caterpillar have to do with it? Oh, well. At least it would be less painful than the one I had in mind[^]
