On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/06, Garion96 <garion96(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Good example of why I can't stand the Onion. Fact and fiction (or
satire, if you prefer) totally mixed together, with no way of knowing
which is which. Some of the satire is well targeted, like the crack
about LCD's influence on the drafting of the US constitution (we do
have that kind of problem), but some is nonsense, like the Chuck
Norris mention or the misspelling in "American Inderpendance". The
article could make some telling points about vandalism, and other
points about inaccuracies or hoaxes, but instead mixes them together
as if they were the same thing.
Why isn't there any good satire?
Steve
Interesting - the reason I like the Onion is that they mix fact and fiction
together so well that you can't tell for sure. But "American
Inderpendence"
makes me wonder if the person who wrote the article doesn't read AN/I and
WikiEn-L - that spelling makes me think of Geni's unspellchecked
contributions. As for the Chuck Norris comment and the ERIC IS A FAG -
suggests some familiarity with basic WP vandalism. But didn't the Onion
have a truly brilliam article about WP about a year or so ago?