Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

That parody of wikipedia.org

  1. Dec 11, 2005 #1
    hey a while ago someone posted a link to a parody of wikipedia.org whose name i forget. i forgot to bookmark it & the search engine doesn't seem to find it for me. can someone put up the link 1 more time?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 11, 2005 #2
    You mean the Uncyclopedia: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
     
  4. Dec 11, 2005 #3
    I forgot about that website too, thanks motai!
     
  5. Dec 11, 2005 #4
    :rofl: coo, thx
     
  6. Dec 12, 2005 #5

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One thing I dont like about both of these sites is that anyone can edit the articles. Then when they save it everyone can read it :surprised

    Imagine what someone with alot of time on their hands could do.
     
  7. Dec 12, 2005 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Then you must have missed the latest debacle surrounding Wikipedia. Someone already did!

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

    Which is why I never use wikipedia as a source for anything. When I'm looking for something, the last thing I want to worry about is the validity of the content. Things like this simply prove that you can't trust the content.

    Zz.
     
  8. Dec 12, 2005 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  9. Dec 12, 2005 #8

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Thank god I never relied on Wikipedia. I certainly never will.
     
  10. Dec 12, 2005 #9

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Quoted for emphasis.
     
  11. Dec 12, 2005 #10

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    This is something that I never knew before. I just noticed the "edit" button. I mostly used wiki as a reference and I also refer users of PF there for some good reading. I guess I'll be removing that from my bookmarks then.
     
  12. Dec 12, 2005 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Don't get me wrong. There are some good info on Wikipedia. I know DrChinese actively tries to keep the information on Bell theorem on there as close to what is conventionally accepted. However, when there is the question on who is doing what, and whether it is accurate, then I cannot rely on such a source because I simply do not have time to figure out if the person doing the entry is a crackpot, an amateur, or an expert. I need a source of info that is reliable, and that is just not what I see in Wikipedia.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people reading wikipedia are not aware of this, even though this is the disclaimer written on the site. The accuracy of the information there is not guaranteed. While this is a common disclaimer even for Encyclopedia Britanica, the latter already has a distinguished reputation, and has a reputation to maintain. Thus, they have a vested interest in having their in-house editors to maintain the accuracy of the information they publish. I don't see the same thing for wikipedia.

    I know that they have instituted a number of "safeguards" in light of this latest debacle. But I still do not have enough of a confidence to recommend it. There are many other more reliable resources I would go to first.

    Zz.
     
  13. Dec 12, 2005 #12

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why is it so hard for wiki to have in-house editors? Mayb a lack of funding?

    Can you please share a few :biggrin:
     
  14. Dec 15, 2005 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Fair is fair.

    I have experessed my weariness of using Wikipedia as a reliable source. In this week's Nature[1], and talk about uncanny timing, the Editors of Nature did a comprehensive study of the accuracy of a set of information gathered from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britanica (EB). Surprise! They didn't find a significant difference in the accuracy of the information. You have to read the article to figure out what and how they tested this and came to this conclusion.

    However, one striking agreement that everyone had was that the articles written in Wikipedia are not as well-written and coherent as that found in EB. One quote from the article reads:

    But when Wikipedia screws up, it REALLY screws up. For example:

    But here's an interesting piece of information. When Nature asked 1000 of their authors, 70% has heard of Wikipedia. But get this, only 17% actually consulted it on a weekly basis, and only 10% are actually involved in updating it.

    Zz.

    [1] J. Giles, Nature v.438, p.900 (2005).

    P.S. While I never use Wikipedia, to be fair, I also never use Encyclopedia Britanica either.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2005
  15. Dec 15, 2005 #14

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm pretty sure I haven't used Encyclopedia Britannica as a source since the 6th grade! Equating Wikipedia to that doesn't mean much in my mind. It's hardly the most updated, authoritative source on a subject. All it does is provide a quick overview if you need a definition of something with which you're entirely unfamiliar. I have periodically referenced Wikipedia here, not as the authoritative source on something, but rather because they have an understandable, plain English explanation of something that I know from other sources is accurate. There are too many contributors who can't write proper sentences though, and their entries can sometimes be very difficult to understand or open to misinterpretation because of poor writing.

    The other concern I have is that it can be edited at any time. So, I might link to an article that is accurate today, but if some nitwit changes it tomorrow, people might get inaccurate information until it's corrected.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2005
  16. Dec 15, 2005 #15
    Wikipedia is a underrated. My friends and I tested it, and people are monitoring all edits done on a regular basis, even minor ones.

    The simple way to maintain the enjoyment of using wikipedia as a fast and effective research tool is to first find the info on wikipedia, and then look for another source.
     
  17. Dec 15, 2005 #16
    I mostly use wikipedia for entertainment purposes, things that I am somewhat curious about, but I don't want to read a whole book about. I have, however, used wikipedia for math defnitions, and I think wikipedia has been quite reliable there.
     
  18. Dec 15, 2005 #17
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/15/wikipedia.ap/index.html

    Whenever I do projects, I usually use wikipedia as one of my sources. If something I read on wikipedia were to not agree with what tons of other websites/books/encyclopedias, then obviously I wouldn't use that portion of it.

    I love wikipedia whenever I wish to find out what something I recently heard is.
     
  19. Dec 15, 2005 #18

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You must have missed my follow-up regarding the Nature article.

    But see, this is a perfect illustration on why I don't use Wikipedia, or even Britannica. Rather than read or rely on 2nd hand reporting done by CNN, I went directly to Nature that was doing the study itself. Note that the Nature article clearly stated that a lot of researchers do not use Wikipedia.

    Zz.
     
  20. Dec 15, 2005 #19
    :redface: I read this thread once, and then I found the link and didn't know that anyone replied to it :uhh:

    It came as a shock to me, however, that Britannica has so many errors.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: That parody of wikipedia.org
  1. Flash Parodies (Replies: 3)

  2. Apple 1984 parody (Replies: 4)

Loading...