›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

How much people hate Wikipedia

DonZabuDonZabu
edited 2011-10-10 20:10:54 in General
What a lot of people don't realize about Encyclopedia Dramatica is that, underneath all the trolling and the shock humor, it exists first and foremost as a satire of Wikipedia, skewering such Wikipedia policies that NPOV by taking them to their opposite extremes.

What's lost on me is how Wikipedia inspires such rage that a six-year collaborative endeavor like that is seen as necessary. I won't deny that Wikipedia has flaws, and not particularly minor flaws at that, but at no point am I driven to that kind of anger for it.

(No, this isn't exclusively about Encyclopedia Dramatica).

Comments

  • ForzareForzare
    edited 2011-10-10 20:13:26
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    I don't think ED was necessarily created out of hate for Wikipedia.  Wasn't it's original point to be about memes?

    Unless something has been said to contradict that.
  • CrimsonCrimson
    Give us fire! Give us ruin! Give us our glory!
    This applies to Tv Tropes as well. With people being so afraid of being like Wikipedia.
  • ForzareForzare
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    ^ Agreed.
  • RedEyedAbyssRedEyedAbyss
    edited 2011-10-10 20:14:50

    "it exists first and foremost as a satire of Wikipedia, skewering such Wikipedia policies that NPOV by taking them to their opposite extremes."

    Well then, it's a pretty lousy satire. Or was. Does it exist anymore?

  • DonZabuDonZabu
    @Forzare: From ED's "About" page:

    >While the articles themselves are mostly satirical jabs at Internet users (both individually and in groups) and phenomena, bear in mind that the Encyclopædia Dramatica itself is a parody of a much less funny online encyclopedia. As such, ED articles tend to make fun of the supposed objectivity and accuracy, elitism, and stupid edit wars of such sites. In other words, expect blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly.

    Even if it's not the foremost angle to the site, it's still a very prominent one.
  • KinkajouKinkajou
    Kamen Rider MADOKA
    My biggest gripe with Wikipedia is that its math articles aren't readable by anyone without at least a master's degree in mathematics, which awfully sounds rather masturbatory.
  • GelzoGelzo
    Pony Sleuth
    Wikipedia is pretty good at what it does for the most part.

    I think one of its bigger problems is the way it limits its coverage.
  • Naas_HumanNaas_Human
    edited 2011-10-12 12:05:40
    If you have a problem with English Wikipedia limiting its coverage,(I myself don't, honestly) German Wikipedia is even more infamous with that kind of stuff.
  • captainbrasscaptainbrass

    I've been reading ED a bit lately, and I suspect the anti-Wikipedia stuff is more to do with the fact that some influential people there were pissed-off Wikipedia editors than with some grand theory. Actually, I think they'd be funnier if they tried to be more neutral/deadpan and let people hang themselves with their own words, which you really should be able to do when the subject is "stupid people on the Internet".


    At the moment, there's a lot of "X claim to be (something good), but in fact they're just a bunch of jew faggots who everyone hates, even niggers!" It's quite deliberately juvenile.  

  • IcalasariIcalasari
    No rainbow star
    ^ One day they will use 'Autistic Jew Faggot Nigger Bitch' and still no one will care
  • MalkavianMalkavian
    MORONS! I'VE GOT MORONS ON MY PAYROLL!
    Encyclopedia Dramatica has too much self-loathing and shock value to be funny. It's also trying to hard.
  • KinkajouKinkajou
    Kamen Rider MADOKA
    At the moment, there's a lot of "X claim to be (something good), but in
    fact they're just a bunch of jew faggots who everyone hates, even
    niggers!" It's quite deliberately juvenile. 

    They got the beef against TOW but none of the wit, or there used to be wit but then all the retards with "hurr durr jews hurr durr niggers hurr durr fags" took over.
  • NyktosNyktos
    a little muffled
    Uncycopledia is better at being a parody of Wikipedia, but I don't find most of it funny anymore either.
  • KinkajouKinkajou
    Kamen Rider MADOKA
    Yeah, Uncyclopedia was bigger when it was smaller. Now it's also filled with infantile humor.
  • NyktosNyktos
    a little muffled
    Yeah, Uncyclopedia was bigger when it was smaller.
    What is it, a TARDIS or something?
  • KinkajouKinkajou
    Kamen Rider MADOKA
    Sure let's go with that. :P
  • ninjaclownninjaclown
    I just read the front page of Uncyclopedia, manage to get a few chuckles now and then.
  • ShichibukaiShichibukai
    Thane of rum-guzzling and necromancy

    What a lot of people don't realize about Encyclopedia Dramatica is that, underneath all the trolling and the shock humor [Citation Needed], it exists first and foremost as a satire of Wikipedia [Citation Needed], skewering such Wikipedia policies that NPOV by taking them to their opposite extremes. [Citation Needed] 


    What's lost on me is how Wikipedia inspires such rage [?] that a six-year collaborative endeavor like that is seen as necessary. I won't deny that Wikipedia has flaws [Citation Needed], and not particularly minor flaws at that, but at no point am I driven to that kind of anger for it. [Citation Needed]

    (No, this isn't exclusively about Encyclopedia Dramatica). 
  • DonZabuDonZabu
    ^ Should've done the last sentence, too, for added effect.
  • IcalasariIcalasari
    No rainbow star
    ^ [Original Research][Citation Needed]
  • ShichibukaiShichibukai
    Thane of rum-guzzling and necromancy

    ^^ [POV]


  • glennmagusharveyglennmagusharvey
    Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Encyclopedia Dramatica has too much self-loathing and shock value to be funny. It's also trying to hard.
  • BeeBee
    My Technical Writing prof explicitly told us that Wikipedia in an excellent resource to get an overview and get pointed at other sources, and there was also that study where it was more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica or something.  However, it's not a primary source and we can't use it directly.
  • captainbrasscaptainbrass

    ^ I think that's probably a fair enough summary of its strong points, and the rule against using Wikipedia directly seems typical of schools/universities nowadays.

  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    The rule against it isn't because of unreliability or anything. It's just that you aren't supposed to cite tertiary sources in formal papers.
  • InsanityAddictInsanityAddict
    Diet NEET
    ED's articles fall firmly under Sturgeon's Law. That said, I only really care about articles such as Unwarranted Self-Importance and Flounce, since they're handy to link when someone displays such behaviour.
  • ShichibukaiShichibukai
    edited 2011-10-14 13:44:59
    Thane of rum-guzzling and necromancy

    Y'all should try metapedia, the completely accurate alternative to wikipedia. Sounds legit.

    I jest


Sign In or Register to comment.