On 7/25/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
:)
Garion
Now the question is how long before Uncyclopedia picks this up...
~maru
Amazingly, The Onion is more accurate than most news accounts about Wikipedia. ;)
On 7/25/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
:)
Garion _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is nothing amazing about it. The people who write for The Onion are more intelligent than those who write for most news media.
Rob wrote:
Amazingly, The Onion is more accurate than most news accounts about Wikipedia. ;)
On 7/25/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
:)
Garion _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/26/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
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
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/26/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
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?
You're not looking in the right place.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
On 7/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
You're not looking in the right place.
Heh! Now we're talking.
Steve
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/26/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
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?
Guettarda wrote:
On 7/26/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/26/06, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
Saw this on the administrators' noticeboard.
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?
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but to quote:
People will hate you for one of two reasons; either because they are stupid, or because they are envious.