Uncyclopdia?

KeenEmpire · Post by **KeenEmpire** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 20:46

I wonder if anyone's seen this yet.

Keen invented the second Internet, making George Bush's reference of "the Internets" technically correct.

ckguy · Post by **ckguy** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 22:00

Holy crap!

That's hilarious!!

I'd never even heard of that Uncyclopedia before.

[Edit] God. Damn. Oscar. Wilde.

I'm going to have so much fun over there ...

Post by **KeenRush** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 22:46

I've been to Uncyclopedia before but never even thought about checking if there's anything about Keen in there!

Haha...

ckguy · Post by **ckguy** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 23:16

Just wrote a crap (i.e., stub) article on carcinogens. Let's see if it gets deleted for sucking.

entropicdecay · Post by **entropicdecay** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:18

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.

Nice find, I new about Uncyclopedia but I never knew they had an article about Keen.

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:52

One of the most funny things on this page is that only 5 people donated to 'uncyclopedia' so far.

Post by **KeenRush** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:08

With the total of $7.59.

Well, I'd rather donate to Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia any day! (Not that I will.)

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:52

Post by **KeenRush** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:09

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!

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:27

And yet you're working on Keenwiki. How hypocrite is that?

Post by **KeenRush** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:43

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.

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:55

KeenRush wrote:It's not. I can hate whatever I want to,

Of course you can, what do I care? I'm only pointing out to you that it is hypocrite.

And I didn't say I hate the concept of wikis. KeenWiki is about Keen and Keen only.

That concept was first used this way on Wikipedia. Taking that concept and than condemning the source is hypocrite.

Wikipedia is attempt to collect all the information in the world and trust people make it unbiased.

No Keenwiki is unbiased, we've seen that in the past...

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.

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.

Post by **KeenRush** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 13:46

Djaser wrote:That concept was first used this way on Wikipedia. Taking that concept and than condemning the source is hypocrite.

No. The concept was first used by WikiWikiWeb in 1995. Wikipedia was launched in 2001.

Djaser wrote:No Keenwiki is unbiased, we've seen that in the past...

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: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.

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.

Commander Spleen · Post by **Commander Spleen** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 13:53

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Djaser · Post by **Djaser** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 14:03

KeenRush wrote:
Djaser wrote:That concept was first used this way on Wikipedia. Taking that concept and than condemning the source is hypocrite.
No. The concept was first used by WikiWikiWeb in 1995. Wikipedia was launched in 2001.

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.

Djaser wrote:No Keenwiki is unbiased, we've seen that in the past...
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.

So we agree that both Wikipedia and Keenwiki are biased?

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.
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.

Ah the great conspiracy theory. Don't you think you exaggerate things that happen on a small scale there?

Those with admin priviledges or such can control more however they want to, and I doubt the system works that democratically there.

Democracy is something rare in internet communities, this place is no example.

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.

What's the big deal? You used to delete closed topics on the pckf.