Duck (wikipedia article)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|Duck (Wikipedia Article)|
A duck according to Wikipedia. We know.
- This article is about the Wikipedia article about ducks, and not about ducks. If you wish to learn about ducks, I suggest looking elsewhere.
Duck (Wikipedia article), also known as [[Wikipedia:Duck]] is the common name for a Wikipedia article that appears to give random information on the grand and beautiful animals known as ducks. Along the left hand side of the page is branded the customary Wikipedia propaganda; to the right appears an insipid and unoriginal infobox, left by a new user eager to play with this exciting toy.
edit Article Introduction
As with most Wikipedia articles, the page begins with mostly useless information regarding the subject's gestation period and craving for cucumber sandwiches. This part of the article does, however, provide the useful definition of "a bird that is not a swan and not a goose," whilst warning against the common error of considering ducks to be a monophyletic group. You'll never make that mistake twice. There is, however, no more "useful" information in the rest of this section, as the rest is merely filler and an obligatory table of contents, as is on most Wikipedia articles.
edit Article Body
Once again breaking wikipedia's objectivity rules, the midriff, chest and upper torso of the duck article sports much supposed information about the "hilarity" of the subject animal and its name. The lines between Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia even begin to blur as misinformation is spread, claiming that "your mom suxx0rz" and apparently debunking the urban legend that a duck's quack will not echo. I, along with everyone else who has never heard a duck's quack echo, will surely note Wikipedia's error. Furthermore, the article blatantly discards any pretense of academic seriousness by directly citing an episode of the popular TV show MythBusters.
Despite Wikipedia's claim to thoroughness and accuracy, the information on how to hunt ducks is woefully inaccurate, consisting of a single paragraph, reproduced here with its original misspellings:
|“||To hunt dux u kerry a burd dogg into teh feeld n wate ntil u c a flok of dux cum ovar n u throw teh dogg at teh burds. U git u sum guud eetin taht way.||”|
Aside from the almost impenetrable spelling, grammar, and faux-regionalisms, this paragraph can be cited as a general indictment of Wikipedia's instructive worth, as throwing a dog at a flock of ducks is unlikely to produce the intended results—unless, of course, your intent was to give a dog a concussion, or kill ducks by entertaining them to death. (Incidentally, a 2008 study by the University of Nebraska concluded that it may be possible to kill ducks with a Wikipedia article—but only if it is printed onto the surface of a bullet, and fired into them.)
Additionally, there is almost no mention of how to serve duck, which is an especially egregious oversight, considering the complex deliciousness of such dishes as Canard à l'Orange, or duck under glass. As if to rub it in, Wikipedia does have an article dedicated to the serving of humans as food—an article of use to almost no one except German cannibals.
As this most particular section of the article draws to a close, the reader discovers the most disturbing sin of omission yet—where is it written that the duck is one of the only types of bird in which the male possesses a penis? Or that a duck's penis is corkscrew-shaped, and may reach 42.5 cm (17 inches) in length, when unfurled? This valuable information both edifies and educates, and yet it is left up to the reader to discover it at an alternate source of information. This scandalous failing (labeled Duckpenisgate by readers and talk page-based commentators everywhere) has led many[who?] to question the value of Wikipedia altogether.
edit Article Buttocks
The tail of the article, with its copious authoritative citations and external links, exists, of course, solely for the purpose of making the article appear legitimate and well-researched. However, when one examines the external links, the encyclopedic value of the article begins to unravel at the edges, like the hem of a garment being nibbled by rabid buffleheads. For example:
- The link to "Duckling", purportedly a link to a page from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, actually leads to a YouTube video of mallards fucking to jaunty Gershwin tunes.
- The next two links actually lead back to Wikipedia's main page.
- The final link is simply a disguised link to an archive of the front page of Duckse.cx
edit Article In Popular Culture
- A popular episode of Seinfeld revolved around the amount of time the Wikipedian duck article took to load on George's computer. This episode popularized the saying "If its an article on ducks, then it’s gonna be slow."
- An Antarctic Military Helicopter crashed on March 15 2001 after the pilot attempted to edit the article. How the helicopter crashed onto the mentioned date remains a mystery.
- J.R.R. Tolkien was accused of plagiarizing the article in his works The Lord of the Ducks. I wonder why.
- The obscure and unpopular 1970's progressive rock band Fuzzy Duck is reputed to have taken their name directly from the Wikipedia article on Ducks, as well as the Wikipedia article on Fuzz, itself being no more than an exhaustive list of things with the word "fuzz" in them. Wikipedia proceeded to fire back, titling its poorly-written Fuzzy Duck (band) article after the band.
- ↑ While theoretically accurate, the fact that she "suxx0rs" is questionably germane to the subject, even if your mother happens to be a duck.
- ↑ see here
- ↑ ABC (Australia) News in Science, "Found! The longest bird penis ever!!!"
- ↑ Especially when you realize the implications. For instance: Donald Duck is capable of dick-slapping his bitches. Put that in your pipe and gag on it.