Keen invented the second Internet, making George Bush's reference of "the Internets" technically correct.
Uncyclopdia?
-
- Intellectuality
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 0:38
Uncyclopdia?
I wonder if anyone's seen this yet.
"In order to ensure our security, and continuing stability, the Kingdom has been reorganized into the First Vorticon Intellectuality!"
I've been to Uncyclopedia before but never even thought about checking if there's anything about Keen in there!
Haha...
Haha...
My newest mod - Commander Keen: Sunset: viewtopic.php?t=8568 | codename H.Y.E.N.A.
- entropicdecay
- Mad Mushroom
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 15:00
- Contact:
Nice find, I new about Uncyclopedia but I never knew they had an article about Keen.Recently, Keen married Princess Zelda of Hyrule, who stated in an official press release, that she was " tired of waiting". Most Hyrulians are overjoyed at the news, although Kokiri forest resident Link was notably upset, despite having a stalker from Zora's River. Link apparently vowed revenge, but no one can seem to verify this, as no one has heard him speak.
With the total of $7.59. Well, I'd rather donate to Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia any day! (Not that I will.)
My newest mod - Commander Keen: Sunset: viewtopic.php?t=8568 | codename H.Y.E.N.A.
Because I hate Wikipedia. In case I have to explain let's just say that: It's so childish with its mission. It's biased, full of false information, and can be very dangerous as so many take its info for truth. I just hate it!
My newest mod - Commander Keen: Sunset: viewtopic.php?t=8568 | codename H.Y.E.N.A.
It's not. I can hate whatever I want to, and I hate Wikipedia, which is not KeenWiki. And I didn't say I hate the concept of wikis. KeenWiki is about Keen and Keen only. Wikipedia is attempt to collect all the information in the world and trust people make it unbiased. People don't use information from KeenWiki to anything 'important', and the info given at KeenWiki is different, you can't compare these two. In Wikipedia the info (or false info) can be harmful.
My newest mod - Commander Keen: Sunset: viewtopic.php?t=8568 | codename H.Y.E.N.A.
Of course you can, what do I care? I'm only pointing out to you that it is hypocrite.KeenRush wrote:It's not. I can hate whatever I want to,
That concept was first used this way on Wikipedia. Taking that concept and than condemning the source is hypocrite.And I didn't say I hate the concept of wikis. KeenWiki is about Keen and Keen only.
No Keenwiki is unbiased, we've seen that in the past...Wikipedia is attempt to collect all the information in the world and trust people make it unbiased.
I'm not comparing the info I'm comparing the concept: trying to give quality information about a subject. How wiki is dangerous escapes me. I've never heard of any wiki murders and even if I did, people are responsible for their own deeds it's wrong to blame the source for it if it's in itself harmless.People don't use information from KeenWiki to anything 'important', and the info given at KeenWiki is different, you can't compare these two. In Wikipedia the info (or false info) can be harmful.
Aaaah, not the bees!
No. The concept was first used by WikiWikiWeb in 1995. Wikipedia was launched in 2001.Djaser wrote:That concept was first used this way on Wikipedia. Taking that concept and than condemning the source is hypocrite.
Well, it's not possible to be completely unbiased. And KeenWiki isn't that strict either. For example, there's completely made-up stuff for its humour value.Djaser wrote:No Keenwiki is unbiased, we've seen that in the past...
Consider you're for example a politician. The elections are nearing. Someone edits your wiki info a bit... People take Wikipedia for granted... It's easy to change small things and bring small pieces of false information to the entries. The point is that even if the info is harmless -- no false information can jump out of screen and slice your guts wide open -- people use that info and decide basing on it, and don't give a garg whether they're responsible or not, or whether the info is right or if someone is manipulating them, which of course happens there. Those with admin priviledges or such can control more however they want to, and I doubt the system works that democratically there. And then of course Wikipedia is owned by Wikipedia Foundation or something like that that can do freely whatever they want to do, for example destroying the whole edit history of some page, or so I've read about.Djaser wrote:I'm not comparing the info I'm comparing the concept: trying to give quality information about a subject. How wiki is dangerous escapes me. I've never heard of any wiki murders and even if I did, people are responsible for their own deeds it's wrong to blame the source for it if it's in itself harmless.
My newest mod - Commander Keen: Sunset: viewtopic.php?t=8568 | codename H.Y.E.N.A.
- Commander Spleen
- Lord of the Foobs
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 22:54
- Location: Border Village
- Contact:
A valid stance, though I advise being cautious when mixing emotion with opinion on such matters. I do wonder what is so childish about its mission.KeenRush wrote:It's so childish with its mission. It's biased, full of false information, and can be very dangerous as so many take its info for truth.
Interestingly, this period's Nexus magazine has an article on that very topic called The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld, by Philip Coppens. Of course, remember to apply discretion with this information source as well.
Ah, you forget the power of information when people take it as undeniable fact. Just look at the state of the mass media. Think of how many people must base their belief systems purely on what they see on networks like CNN.Djaser wrote:I've never heard of any wiki murders and even if I did, people are responsible for their own deeds it's wrong to blame the source for it if it's in itself harmless.
Control people's information streams and you can control the people. The Internet is a great blessing in that it decentralises information, but it also has its curse that it's so much more difficult to find the truly reliable information.
As you say, people are responsible for themselves, and this includes where they place their trust, yet it also applies to those who would partake in the use of disinformation.
Ehm no, Wikiwikiweb was the first to use the database program wiki. The encyclopaedia concept as the Keenwiki uses is from Wikipedia, you won't find that on Wikiwkiweb.KeenRush wrote:No. The concept was first used by WikiWikiWeb in 1995. Wikipedia was launched in 2001.Djaser wrote:That concept was first used this way on Wikipedia. Taking that concept and than condemning the source is hypocrite.
So we agree that both Wikipedia and Keenwiki are biased?Well, it's not possible to be completely unbiased. And KeenWiki isn't that strict either. For example, there's completely made-up stuff for its humour value.Djaser wrote:No Keenwiki is unbiased, we've seen that in the past...
Ah the great conspiracy theory. Don't you think you exaggerate things that happen on a small scale there?Consider you're for example a politician. The elections are nearing. Someone edits your wiki info a bit... People take Wikipedia for granted... It's easy to change small things and bring small pieces of false information to the entries. The point is that even if the info is harmless -- no false information can jump out of screen and slice your guts wide open -- people use that info and decide basing on it, and don't give a garg whether they're responsible or not, or whether the info is right or if someone is manipulating them, which of course happens there.Djaser wrote:I'm not comparing the info I'm comparing the concept: trying to give quality information about a subject. How wiki is dangerous escapes me. I've never heard of any wiki murders and even if I did, people are responsible for their own deeds it's wrong to blame the source for it if it's in itself harmless.
Democracy is something rare in internet communities, this place is no example.Those with admin priviledges or such can control more however they want to, and I doubt the system works that democratically there.
What's the big deal? You used to delete closed topics on the pckf.And then of course Wikipedia is owned by Wikipedia Foundation or something like that that can do freely whatever they want to do, for example destroying the whole edit history of some page, or so I've read about.
Aaaah, not the bees!