Forum:Fact or Fiction?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Fact or Fiction?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3596 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I was recently exploring the A desert known as Wikipedia when I happened to wander upon a talk page, seeing people discuss something about sources and what's a bad idea, or that stuff on the page were lies, when I thought of something. We here at Uncyclopedia, as you know, have a main goal of being funny, or at least making up some random crap. Wikipedias goal, however, is to put documented facts for the education of others. Of course, those things can be the same, but anyways, I wondered which was harder. To get a featured article in Wikipedia, you have to have a long, dull, and fully-sourced article, but here, you just have to be funny. Comedy is the hardest out of all genres, but research takes up plenty of time and work. What do you think is harder? --Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In poll form

Which is more difficult: writing a or writing an ?

The poll was created at 15:18 on October 13, 2007, and so far 38 people voted.

I'm bad at both... —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is easier, because others will fix things for you and even help out if it is something they are interested in. here you are on your own. 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say here is probably harder. There's not such a requirement to be creative when writing a factual article as there is when writing a funny one. RabbiTechno 13:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Learning about WWII is way easier than making it funny. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 13:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definately easier. For one, you can just copy out of other encyclopedias and what-not. As long as you format it correctly, cite everything, etc., it's eligable for feature. Meanwhile, you also have to do research on topics here and make them funny. Then comes the whoring on VFH. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 13:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of whoring...have you read whateveritwas that I wrote? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 13:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I never edit Wikipedia.. so.. how would I know. Besides, why would I waste my free time writing factual content--Sir Manforman CUN 13:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you might be surprised that a good deal of users here have wikipedia accounts, if only because it gives them some vandalism to revert when uncyc goes down. Plus, I use wikipedia for everything, I almost feel like I owe them. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:04, Oct 13
I don't use Wikipedia as a reference, simply as it isn't a reliable source - though I occasionally browse it to see different types of vandalisim--Sir Manforman CUN 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Usually they're pretty reliable. They tend to site all their sources and weed out non-facts. Often the only trouble I run into when I go there is that the wording is a bit complex. For example, I recently read a page there on Entropy and didn't understand it at all. Three days ago we happened to come to that topic in science, and the teacher was able to explain it much more clearly. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:17, Oct 13
I mean, just ask a history professor, they won't reccomend Wikipedia as a scholary source. While I'm sure some articles are accurate, a lot of them contain some sort of error, that will bring down the overall accuracy, just click the Random page function. While there good at reverting vandalism (in most cases, well, sometimes not), thousands of articles aren't on the ball and nothing is actually verified by an expert, and the sources they site aren't necessarily accurate --Sir Manforman CUN 14:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You make exactly the point that destroys your whole argument. Wikipedia is, by definition, NOT a source. It is a pointer and summary of sources. And if thousands of articles are not accurate....well that means that MILLIONS of them ARE accurate. And please don't ask historians about accuracy. Or facts. They are right in there with politicians on that score. Pieface 14:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Who do you think you are? John Seigenthaler Sr.? -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 14:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, that's why I said (in most cases). Vandalisim usually is reverted within a short period of time, but that still doesn't change the fact Wikipedia is inaccurate. NBC Nightly News did a report on Wikipedia (P.S. Lisa Daniels is a Rock Star)--Sir Manforman CUN 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, I think I've just started an argument... All I was saying is that I like wikipedia for stuff, mostly because they have info on everything. But, uncyclopedia is certainly harder, mostly because uncyc pages are written by one person without help. The ones that aren't tend to sound choppy and disjointed. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:29, Oct 13
I'm pretty sure Manforman didn't get my Seigenthaler joke. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I did--Sir Manforman CUN 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect every information source contains errors. This report ranks Wikipedia with the Encyclopedia Britannica on accuracy. But both contain errors. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire contains errors ("...subsequent research revealed minor factual errors about the early Empire"). Every source is flawed except my good dog, and he ain't talking. If you are doing research for an Uncyclopedia article then you can probably rely on Wikipedia to get the dates of Edward VI correct, and you're going to be lying your ass off about everything else anyway, right? But no matter. If something is important best to cross-reference it no matter what source you start with. ----OEJ 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that report was pretty flawed according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. And I'd trust Britannica a lot more than Wikipedia. Spang talk 16:41, 13 Oct 2007
Yes, Spang, I respect that. But of course the original report is from the science journal Nature, and the refutation is from the offices of Encyclopædia Britannica, Incorporated. Where is the self-interest located? But the only real point is that every reasonably comprehensive information source is flawed. That's all. ----OEJ 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
"Every source is flawed except my good dog, and he ain't talking." Excellent :D RabbiTechno 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I really hope I haven't started a pro-wikipedia vs. anti-wikipedia deathmatch, because what I was going for was a Battle Royale. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:25, Oct 13
Also, while I never actually used Britannica as a source, I'd certaintly trust it over wikipedia, and I have to agree OEJ. Wikipedia sucks--Sir Manforman CUN 22:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
See??? I've started an argument. Here is where a wikipedian user comes in to argue with M4M about wikipedia's accuracy. I'm so sorry, everyone. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:41, Oct 14
I think you have to know how to use Wikipedia to improve its accuracy. If you'll only look at the page that's there, then of course there's going to be vandalism and such, but as we all know there's a little page called "history" that tells you what's been added when. I reckon taking the history into account to check for recent vandalism would bring accuracy up a lot, but nobody ever mentions this when they're talking about the subject. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Also, there's info and then there's other infor: You aren't going to get me to say that Wickedpedia surpasses, say, Hitchcock and Cronquist on the nomenclature of plants of the Northwest USA. Or Bertrand Russell for a comprehensive overview of philosophical thought through the twentieth century. And I'll probably look to Symantec and MacAffee websites for malware information. All these sources probably surpass both Wickedpedia and Britannica, in their field of expertise. And I'll bet these sources, too, contain errors. If you want accuracy, cross-reference many sources. ----OEJ 12:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Accuracy"? "Sources"? You're talking some kind of crazy language! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 13:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[citation needed] Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 16:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia vs. Anti-Wikipedia Deathmatch

Choose one, dammit!

The poll was created at 15:46 on October 13, 2007, and so far 21 people voted.

I am so bad. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 15:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's all post useless polls that make no sense!!!


The poll was created at 18:10 on October 13, 2007, and so far 14 people voted.

Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry my good fellow/lady, but you're looking for Benson's House of Pancakes. Honest mistake. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 15:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That's Comrade to you. All forum posts need to be driven off topic eventually. It's an inevitable law of Uncyclopedia. —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean like a topic about how difficult it is to write an article going to the reliability of Wikipedia, or from a topic about articles to how topics always move off-topic, or how I felt like summarizing this entire topic for no apparent reason? Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools