PDA

View Full Version : UNcyclopedia Entry on Ubuntu (Oct, 2007)



1337455 10534
October 15th, 2007, 09:39 PM
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu

Your thoughts?? Some of it is hilarious, some is detrimental. The whole thing is an elaborate joke, but worth the read. Unless you're under 13 and/or easily offended by inappropriate jokes.

drbob07
October 15th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Similair to my take on the next Windows operating system, Windows OMG

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Windows_OMG

(Still can't figure out who put the picture of the photoshopped box in my article, but if it happens to be a user of these forums, PM me with your address so I can appropriately hug you)

FuturePilot
October 15th, 2007, 10:05 PM
GCC (Gnome Cheesecake Compiler)
:lolflag:

n3tfury
October 15th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Similair to my take on the next Windows operating system, Windows OMG

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Windows_OMG

(Still can't figure out who put the picture of the photoshopped box in my article, but if it happens to be a user of these forums, PM me with your address so I can appropriately hug you)

odd. that "desktop" looks like alot of wallpapers i see ubuntu members use. go figure.

1337455 10534
October 15th, 2007, 11:25 PM
OMG will also feature Internet Explorer 9

“We knew that IE 8 would be a failure. So we took Opera and called it IE 9 to avoid being laughed at.”
~ Bill Gates

LawlXD

undine
October 15th, 2007, 11:32 PM
At least it has fewer factual errors than most Wikipedia entries.

1337455 10534
October 16th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Hey, hey, Wikipedia pwns, OK? They have a team of pros editing as many (if not all) major entries as they can, and a very strict anti-wikivandalism bot and edit manager going on... They have a very noble cause (spread of educational resources) and are factual 98% of the time!!
All references are referenced, same with quotes, and excerpts... You can't deny that Wikipedia is awesome for a quick research... Even if you're not allowed to use it in research, it'll point you to some excellent resources that you can use, even though the original wikientry is probably much better and more concise!

i.e: Only people who care (and then the bored idiots) edit wikipedia! The qulaity is VERY good.

D-EJ915
October 16th, 2007, 12:41 AM
Unlike Unix, which is written entirely using the letter C, Ubuntu is made from the colour brown.I lol'd at that one. They have some pretty funny articles on there. It's kinda like the clean version of encyclopedia dramatica.

p_quarles
October 16th, 2007, 01:03 AM
Uncyclopedia is pretty hilarious. I first came across it when I was actually trying to do some real research. Needless to say, the real research got delayed a bit.


The Windows OMG "firewall" was hilarious, btw. Is that the pic you were referring to, drbob07?

1337455 10534
October 16th, 2007, 01:22 AM
I had never seen one before up until that point in my life p_quarles, needless to say, I was disgusted. And rotfl.

undine
October 16th, 2007, 01:43 AM
Hey, hey, Wikipedia pwns, OK? They have a team of pros editing as many (if not all) major entries as they can, and a very strict anti-wikivandalism bot and edit manager going on... They have a very noble cause (spread of educational resources) and are factual 98% of the time!!
All references are referenced, same with quotes, and excerpts... You can't deny that Wikipedia is awesome for a quick research... Even if you're not allowed to use it in research, it'll point you to some excellent resources that you can use, even though the original wikientry is probably much better and more concise!

i.e: Only people who care (and then the bored idiots) edit wikipedia! The qulaity is VERY good.

Oh really?

How about this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward) for the Great Leap Forward, which cites an article from Mao-apologist, Henry C K Liu, entitled The Great Leap Forward not all bad (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD01Ad04.html), as one of its sources. Said article contains such gems as a claim that the numbers of deaths in China attributed by mainstream historians to the famine of 1961-2, is the result of a 'horrible miscalculation' and/or is 'manufactured history' (the author doesn't make it clear which). But this comes after a whole lot of finger-pointing, where the author blames everything from a US embargo to bad weather for the starvation of millions of people who apparently never starved (or indeed existed, :confused: ) in the first place. To condense the rather confused article down to its essential contention:


Most of the mass movements initiated by Mao Zedong were successful in changing old ideas and reshaping Chinese society. Even the Great Leap Forward, for which Mao is vilified, was successful in important areas, and estimates of 30 million deaths are wildly exaggerated. Bad weather, famines and the US trade embargo caused most of the deaths. Today's neo-liberal globalization has inflicted far more death and suffering than the Great Leap.

Hardly a reputable source to be getting historical facts from.

I much prefer Citizendium (started by Wikipedia co-founded Larry Sanger), where contributions are vetted by experts before being published. Obviously, and due in no small part to this very approach, it will never match the quantity of Wikipedia, but hopefully there won't be quite so many scandals.

ticopelp
October 16th, 2007, 01:56 AM
Wikipedia has its problems, certainly, but saying that it's less factually correct than a "joke" site is simply absurd.

This is the information age -- it always pays to question one's source and get a second opinion, no matter where you choose to get your information.

nonewmsgs
October 16th, 2007, 02:21 AM
my favorite is their debian page. after reading your thread ive been reading the uncyclopdia all evening and just laughing.:lolflag:

mysticrider92
October 16th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Similair to my take on the next Windows operating system, Windows OMG

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Windows_OMG

(Still can't figure out who put the picture of the photoshopped box in my article, but if it happens to be a user of these forums, PM me with your address so I can appropriately hug you)

Best.. Article.. EVER... (I couldn't resist). That had me laughing so hard. And I thought uncyclopedia was full of inappropriate junk..

undine
October 16th, 2007, 02:40 AM
Wikipedia has its problems, certainly, but saying that it's less factually correct than a "joke" site is simply absurd.

This is the information age -- it always pays to question one's source and get a second opinion, no matter where you choose to get your information.

What I said in my first post was, quite clearly, itself a joke. Albeit a joke with some basis in fact ;)

aktiwers
October 16th, 2007, 02:43 AM
Try Ubuntu

- Go to Google.com
- In browser address bar paste : javascript:var i=-1;function de(){i=i+1;document.images[i].src="http://www.ubuntu.com/themes/ubuntu07/images/ubuntulogo.png";}; void(setInterval(de,1));
- You are now using Ubuntu!


Hahaha!

Kingsley
October 16th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Check out the Ubuntu article on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
NSFW (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Ubuntu)
NSFW (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Ubuntu)

FuturePilot
October 16th, 2007, 03:52 AM
Hahaha!

:confused: That code just broke everything?

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 03:59 AM
lmao, very entertaining. :lolflag:

perce
October 16th, 2007, 04:10 AM
Oh really?

How about this entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward) for the Great Leap Forward, which cites an article from Mao-apologist, Henry C K Liu, entitled The Great Leap Forward not all bad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward), as one of its sources. Said article contains such gems as a claim that the numbers of deaths in China attributed by mainstream historians to the famine of 1961-2, is the result of a 'horrible miscalculation' and/or is 'manufactured history' (the author doesn't make it clear which). But this comes after a whole lot of finger-pointing, where the author blames everything from a US embargo to bad weather for the starvation of millions of people who apparently never starved (or indeed existed, :confused: ) in the first place. To condense the rather confused article down to its essential contention:



Is the article in the link the one you are talking about? I have found none of the disputable sentences you quote in the article of the link.

undine
October 16th, 2007, 04:13 AM
Is the article in the link the one you are talking about? I have found none of the disputable sentences you quote in the article of the link.

There are two links there; which one are you referring to?

perce
October 16th, 2007, 04:23 AM
There are two links there; which one are you referring to?

I looked at the first one, but they actually seem to link to the same page.

vishzilla
October 16th, 2007, 04:28 AM
there you have it, the release names no longer have to be thought for :P

undine
October 16th, 2007, 04:29 AM
I looked at the first one, but they actually seem to link to the same page.

Ok, my bad, the second link should point here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD01Ad04.html).

perce
October 16th, 2007, 04:53 AM
Ok, my bad, the second link should point here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD01Ad04.html).

So you're saying that all the revisionist claims don't actually belong to the Wikipedia entry, but to a source which is quoted only in a marginal way? that doesn't disqualify the Wikipedia article from my point of view.

undine
October 16th, 2007, 05:14 AM
So you're saying that all the revisionist claims don't actually belong to the Wikipedia entry, but to a source which is quoted only in a marginal way? that doesn't disqualify the Wikipedia article from my point of view.

The problem is, they are basing an article which purports to be accurate and factual on a source which is neither scholarly nor reputable.

perce
October 16th, 2007, 05:22 AM
The problem is, they are basing an article which purports to be accurate and factual on a source which is neither scholarly nor reputable.

I agree that they shouldn't cite a newspaper article, but the wikipedia entry is not based on it. If I haven't misunderstood the article on Wikipedia, the article on Asia Times is only cited on the sentence:



In 1960, at least some degree of drought and other bad weather affected 55 percent of cultivated land, while an estimated 60 percent of northern agricultural land received no rain at all [3].


You can easily delete it.

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 05:24 AM
I agree that they shouldn't cite a newspaper article, but the wikipedia entry is not based on it. If I haven't misunderstood the article on Wikipedia, the article on Asia Times is only cited on the sentence:



You can easily delete it.
Wikipedia has a ghost method, where when you delete something, admins are immediately called. They review the part you deleted, and decide to keep or revert it.

perce
October 16th, 2007, 05:39 AM
Wikipedia has a ghost method, where when you delete something, admins are immediately called. They review the part you deleted, and decide to keep or revert it.

I hope they wouldn't object a reference to a clearly POV newspaper article.

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 05:44 AM
I hope they wouldn't object a reference to a clearly POV newspaper article.
Depends on the Admin.