Forum:Wikimedia's response to our PowerPoint
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Below is the original e-mail that was sent, a reply, and the e-mail I sent back to them (for those of you who have no idea what is going on, see here).
Subject: Uncyclopedia & Wikimedia Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:23:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate XXXXXXXXX <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
My name is Nate XXXXXXXXX, and I am an editor of Uncyclopedia <http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page>. I contacted the Business Development office via the telephone machine some weeks ago raising a proposal that some of us at Uncyclopedia have come to. I spoke with a gentleman whose name I can't remember (probably because he didn't speak very charismatically), and he seemed enthusiastic at the ideas I spoon fed him.
Uncyclopedia (the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit; currently hosted by Wikia) is proposing a usurpation of Wikimedia. Let me tell you about our project: we have over 24,816 articles in English and have numerous other projects in different languages including Portugese, Spanish, Polish, German, Italian, Finnish, French, Japanese, and Gibberish. We attempted to create a Chinese Uncyclopedia but the Chinese government threatened to "squash [us] beneath a steel, clenched hand" (idioms are somewhat different in Chinese). Our aim is to present facts and serve as a secondary source for information. We believe we have some ideas that would help Wikimedia's projects become more neutral and entertaining, and that Uncyclopedia can be like the father to a hungry child like Wikipedia who just needs to know it's loved and that everything will be alright if it eats its broccoli. Uncyclopedia has also been voted #45 in the Triannual Supameme Meme Counter List Award Place nine years in a row, and we are quite proud of this feat. We're like Lance Armstrong if you really stop to think about it. I should also mention that a few people within Wikimedia have expressed support for this proposal (see this link http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Brand_name_consolidation#Let_Uncyclopedia_usurp>) and that the takeover will probably be painless and immediate.
Our expert design team has used lasers and stuff to create a very convincing PowerPoint presentation titled "Six-Point Plan for Great Successfulness". It is attached to this e-mail and is probably free of viruses. I was promised by the man I spoke with on the phone that if I send the attachment in an e-mail that somebody will take a look at it and get back to me with a response. We at Uncyclopedia hope it is favorable.
Sincerely, Nate XXXXXXXX Esq.
From: Philippe BeaudXXXX <pbeaudXXXX@wikimedia.org> Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Uncyclopedia & Wikimedia] To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 5:37 PM
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX,
Your email was forwarded to me by Kul for proper handling.
Your very strategic suggestions will receive all the attention that they, and you deserve. Your 3l33t presentation skills, however, are now legendary, and you will be enlisted the next time we need graphics for the Board of Trustees.
In short: you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Philippe BeaudXXXX Facilitator, Strategic Planning Wikimedia Foundation
[Donation link nonsense removed]
Dear Subservient to Kul,
We are excited to hear from you and are looking forward to doing business with Wikimedia. Once North Korea receives our money order we will be all ready to seize control of your organization. You have no chance to survive make your time.
We do have two questions though: [1.] Will we be able to inherit the pleasant business relationship Wikimedia has with the Mexican cartels (and if not what is their price?)? [2.] Do we get the Florida nightclubs you operate and their respective tax havens?
Also, thank you for viewing our PowerPoint. Our design team would be happy to know that the blood, toil, tears and sweat they spent creating it was well worth it, but I cannot inform them of this as they would gain a false sense of self-respect and demand silly things like new coffee filters or shoes. This is unacceptable.
Love, Nate XXXXXXXXX Esq.
- I think we'll have to take them by surprise when they least expect it. That's right. While they're on the toilet. It's tough to fight off a hostile takeover when one is halfway through number two. 02:24, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- I must say, that's a hell of a Powerpoint.-- 11:52, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
We integrated everything into one here
They say that integrating Wikiversity can damage reputations of end-users. How come we are able to integrate all of our UnProjects while Wikipedia keeps it all separate? |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill | 04:06, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia matters and Uncyclopedia doesn't. Wikimedia is so big that integrating things like Wiktionary and Wikiquotes etc. into a site (Wikipedia) that already has millions upon millions of articles would be excessive. Whereas here, because we're small, we can do that, because even with all namespaces combined we only have 25,000 articles. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:09, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Only 25,000 articles? That's eleventeen times more articles than the rest of the world has, combined! 14:26, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm pretty sure that the 25,000 articles doesn't even include UnNews, though I could be wrong about that. -
20:01, Sep 18
- Really? That would be odd. I was under the impression that the article count consisted of stuff from all namespaces, UnNews included, but now that Led's said that I'm not so sure. Does anyone know if Wikipedia's "In the News..." articles count towards their article count? (Not that any of this is overly important, or anything.) —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:07, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Only 25,000 main namespace articles. Including all namespaces, the count is 284,495. • Spang • • 18:54, 27 Sep 2009
One important note
what will we do when we take over wikipedia? I think we need to have bunch of voting to figure out stuff. --21:45, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Rule the world
- Obviously. Those Wikipedia guys are sucking at it. We can do a much better job! GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:03, 19 September 2009
- HEIL! World domination! World domination! Internet domination!-Almost Sir Random Crap
- For I like this plan. -- 22:06, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
- FOR I also like voting twice -- 03:11, Sep 21
Hell yeah. --02:09, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
So what now?
- No, they just ignore us. Like always. Unless they're trying to screw us over. • • • 16:45, Sep 22
- How is that different from what the Neocons do to us? I thought Wikipedia was all about the Encyclopedia anyone can edit and everyone is valued and is a Democracy that people can vote on it? Unless, gasp, they are leftist neocons? What did Glenn Beck call them Liberal Fascists? We really need an article on that some day. "We have altered our deal, pray we don't alter it further!" -Darth Wales to Uncyclopedia. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:18, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
What the Hell?
I disappear for a few months and come back to a possible takeover of Wikipedia...
...damn, that's sweet. - -Dial the Gate 05:22, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, man, where you been? You still ain't foolin' 'round wit' dat one chick, are you? 'Cause she was real bad for you, man. • • • 05:49, Sep 23
Further Comments on the taking over of Wikipedia by Uncyclopedia
At least the articles will becomes a damn slight more accurate on Wikipedia if we take them over... Sir Cabhán Please don't goose-step too close to me 22:17, September 27, 2009 (UTC)