PDA

View Full Version : MMORPGs



Nieninque
08-08-2006, 11:57 AM
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/MMORPG

Drayal
08-08-2006, 12:00 PM
<< It has been speculated that the population decline in Western countries is closely linked with the number of MMORPG subscriptions. >>
Pffft.

Sean of the Thread
08-08-2006, 12:16 PM
Wikipedia sucks.

Nieninque
08-08-2006, 12:29 PM
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/MMORPG

Emphasis added to make it clearer for Xyelin

CrystalTears
08-08-2006, 12:47 PM
Some people don't know a joke unless you slap them with it. :D

Sean of the Thread
08-08-2006, 01:02 PM
Emphasis added to make it clearer for Xyelin

I saw it. But it just reminded me of the story I just read in the paper about how shitty wikipedia is.

I laughed quite a bit at the "typical forum thread" section.. so true.

StrayRogue
08-08-2006, 01:06 PM
Why would anyone think Wikipedia is shit?

Sean of the Thread
08-08-2006, 01:13 PM
Why would anyone think Wikipedia is shit?

Actually it was the Wikipedia people themselves saying they suck. The founder is from here in Saint Petersburg and they were saying how it needs a revamp on many levels.. from accuracy to substance.

StrayRogue
08-08-2006, 01:14 PM
I've always found Wikipedia to be pretty accurate. But then I guess it all depends on what you're looking for.

Sean of the Thread
08-08-2006, 01:16 PM
Aug 4, 3:48 PM EDT

Wikipedia founder seeks more quality

By BRIAN BERGSTEIN
AP Technology Writer

Technology Video
Advertisement


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -- The founder of Wikipedia on Friday urged contributors to the free Internet encyclopedia to put more emphasis on quality instead of quantity.....Wikipedia would become even more valuable if entries were written less choppily, for example, or better identified their sources.....

Landrion
08-08-2006, 01:52 PM
Personally, Im a big fan of the wikipedia. However, I tend to use it for entertainment purposes. The thing is really good at giving trivia and its no great loss if you get some incorrect information on those subjects.

So why do some people hate the wikipedia?

Innaccuracies that dont bother me about trivia become really upset some people about real life things. If someone puts a wrong plot element on the Princess Bride page I just chuckle and keep going. But when someone throws a falsehood about Arafat or MLK, people get a little more upset about it. Most of the negatives Ive heard towards the thing are of this nature.

Also, plagiarism is another problem on the Wikipedia. If Britannica steals someone's work and starts selling it without citation - theres going to be a lawsuit. With the wikipedia the page gets modified back and the most likely punishment for the thief is nothing at all or being locked from the wiki for a month or two.

Lastly, what bothered one fellow whose page I read was the popularity of it. Its easily eclipsed "legitimate" sources on the search engines. Thats pretty disturbing to people who dont trust its accuracy as I discussed above. While a bright guy like Stray is going to double check important facts before basing an argument, much of the population is less dilligent.

Celephais
08-08-2006, 02:18 PM
Steven Colbert blasted wiki once too, it was awesome, he was talking about how all you needed was a handful of people to say something was true and then bam, there it is, I believe he sighted the rise in the population of elephants being a fact.

Drew
08-08-2006, 02:49 PM
Wikipedia is free, easy to access and has more info than any other encyclopedia. It's an excellent place to start your research. Also the scientific articles are generally very accurate (4 errors to every 3 in Britannica, not bad for being free).

Sean of the Thread
08-08-2006, 02:51 PM
Yes a good place to start is the internet ... then get your ass to the library.

Artha
08-08-2006, 03:36 PM
Steven Colbert blasted wiki once too, it was awesome, he was talking about how all you needed was a handful of people to say something was true and then bam, there it is, I believe he sighted the rise in the population of elephants being a fact.
What's funny is that moments after he said this, his biography and the page on elephants were locked down to prevent editing. And there were a ton of reverts on edits back and forth, citing the rise of the elephant population. I think it brought down the Wikipedia servers for a little while.

Celephais
08-08-2006, 03:50 PM
What's funny is that moments after he said this, his biography and the page on elephants were locked down to prevent editing. And there were a ton of reverts on edits back and forth, citing the rise of the elephant population. I think it brought down the Wikipedia servers for a little while.

There was some stupid slashdot thing saying they Pwned Colbert by locking it down, but the fact they had to lock it down and that they had to manually protect against it means he pwned them.

Artha
08-08-2006, 03:59 PM
The fact that they did it shows that he's wrong, though, and that you can't just go and change stuff on a whim and expect it to stay.

Celephais
08-08-2006, 04:47 PM
The fact that they did it shows that he's wrong, though, and that you can't just go and change stuff on a whim and expect it to stay.

They only did it because he said it on national TV. Wiki is literally based upon "the majority of people say it's true, so it is", which is exactly what he was saying. He wasn't trying to insult Wiki, it's just that Wiki personifies where the majority of Americans get their facts; Whatever they hear.

Artha
08-08-2006, 05:16 PM
But that's not how Wikipedia works. It's based on citations and aggregation of information, not a voting system as demonstrated by the Colbert Report. Enough people tried to change it that it seriously effected their servers, and that information is still not there.