Ok, I know all you people are disgruntled and banned ex-Wikipedia lovers who are now living the politics of hate and reprisal .... good for you. I think wikipedia sucks, I dislike uncyclopedia's links to the wiki foundation and encyclopedia dramatica is not safe for school or work.

Join me at http://wiqipedia.org the home of Wikipedia haters. It's designed to break Wikipedia's back and make it humble and it does a much better job than Wikipediareview.com which is becoming totalitarian - I bet I will get hate reply's, accused of link spam and all the other accusations those hated Wikipedia SOBs would make. Infact the people on this baord moderate, censor and ban just like Wikipedia ! Maybe this is a fake forum run by Wikipedia !

Er no. Bad start.

I've got a WP record cleaner than Jimbo Wales. I just noticed that the place stinks. And understood that you can do more about here than on WP.

You're not going to get nearly the amount of "hate replies" as you think.

The day where Wikipedia Review goes completely totalitarian is the day I leave. That's way off. We're not a democracy but we're not totalitarian dictators either. "Do what we say"? Hardly.

As for linkspam (or not), I really don't care what links are posted here, so post away to your heart's content - especially if it mocks Wikipedia (why would we want to remove those kinds of links?). If you want to mock Wikipedia, go ahead and do it (I'll provide the neon sign). Why would we want to stop you?

Speaking for most of us, if anyone wanted to object to something - even a link - we would say so. Wikipedia is in the business of silencing people, not us. The worst we do around here is throw the opinion in the Tar Pits if it's especially objectionable (maybe warn people if things get really out of hand, and I mean really out of hand). In fact, I'd like to know exactly what led you to believe we do that kind of thing here.

So feel safe here. We won't chew you up and spit you out like WP.

I was expecting to be harrassed and banned. My bad!

I almost confused you with wipipedia. Are you the site that lets people post vandalized versions of wikipedia articles? I heard there was one but I can't tell what your site is.

http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges



Hmm

http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Josh_booth


But then http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Joaquin_phoenix is just a ramble


http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Centenary_High_School



I hit random article first time and got

http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Penis

*points to the "Wikipedia Review is not Wikipedia" sign*

Second random article I got

http://www.wiqipedia.org/w/index.php?title...hing&oldid=2695

It was just a period in it.


That is perfect!



Hmmm you need to update your software MediaWiki: 1.6.10 ? All the buttons I'm used to are missing.

http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges

You are right it was meant to be a site where people could post vandalized versions of wikipedia articles but it has been hijacked by teenagers who hate each other!

Attack site? Hmmm maybe.

It'll eventually get huge edit wars.

Wow. Not in a good way.

Ooh...this is just too good!

..."There is no page titled "truth""

Wow...Not in a good way.

I don't like the idea, Wikipedia already spread inaccurate informations on the web, stuff like Dramatica or your project further makes it worst making of the web a collection of more junk. We need a better alternative than Wikipedia not worst.

Its always good to have more options for people. I think it might be more useful than ED, and may provide a niche for people who want to make light of things but without grossly offensive shock images, pornography and nasty loads of hate. More kind of "The Onion" style, right?

I may contribute later on. I am becoming a bit frustrated with ED, as it seems to turn everything in to hate.

Each to their own, and it is good to have something for everyone.

"Totalitarian?" Oh, puh-leeze!

Enyclopedia Dramatica is one of the, if not the, worst wiki I have come across. Take the page about Phaedriel for example. It makes me sick just looking at it. If you want an attack site, go there, not here.

PS: this message does not count as an attack on ED. This is true!

I don't think you'll get much argument from anyone here. At last we agree on something.

I added my first 2 articles there:
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review
and
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Truth

I think I like the format. I am considering modifying some ED articles so that they are funnier but not as nasty.

Actually, that WR article is pretty well-written and is pretty funny.
This is what funny should be, not that crap that ED thinks is funny.

I tried to have the exact opposite of the truth, and to state as fact many of the most ridiculous things that Wikipedia have said about WR.

I might re-write truth. Its a bit harder to write it.

I did the same thing for Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth:
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Dramatica
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Wikitruth

Awwwwwwww now my above link to truth doesn't make any sense.

I know. I've just updated the article for the infinite loop joke I had originally planned. Much funnier.

http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Truth

I'm not a big fan of Phaedriel and I don't like that page, so that says something I think.

heh. That's a good idea.

Now you're famous!

nice contribs blissy

Well, it is meant to be a fake wiki, in which you saw completely the opposite of the truth on everything. So I did that. It lets you make underhanded attacks on people but without it looking like attacks. People are less likely to get offended that way. Kind of like a nice version of ED, or a more honest version of Uncyclopedia. That's the way that I am treating it. I am trying to make it amusing to those "in the know".

I noticed that Squeakbox contributed. Will others? It is up to them of course. I like the concept.

Congratulations, it looks like Wiqipedia is really starting to come along.

I've just written a bunch of stuff. Others could too. The thing is that a place like that is based on an idea. The idea is to have it as a fake wiki that is not what Wikipedia is, but pretends to be, and has fake, onion-style articles (e.g. the article on Iraq). Similar to Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the porn and shock images. Similar to Uncyclopedia, but without being so ridiculously pro-Wikipedia. I think that there is a niche there.

If people want to contribute to it then they can. But I keep on thinking of "the onion" to try to write things. Everything I've written so far has been false, but if you take that in to account, you can see what I mean behind it all.

Some of it may need cleaning up, and there is more to be said on other issues.

I actually think thats probably the best Wikipedia Review article anywhere lol.

Oh and the Virginia Slims bit was in reference to the bit that we found here somewhere about someone who was the most obvious "red herring" ever - that clearly wasn't SlimVirgin. It was quite hilarious though. It is also a bit of an inside joke because Wikipedia people like to pretend that the Linda Mack thing is a fake.

It's a waste of time, why would most in this forum who are ex-Wikipedians and interested writing accurate articles be interested to do just the opposit?

How would wiqipedia.org handle edit wars?

Sometimes you can say a lot of true things while saying the opposite (?) Take the onion, or similar types of comedies like The Daily Show or Stephen Colbert. They delight in speaking truth whilst lying. I think that there is a niche there.

Of course, you might not like it, thats your choice. I'll contribute there for the moment. Mind you, a few stupid messages were added recently, so I guess as with everything its always a test when you start out.

Personally, I'm still fairly happy with Uncyclopedia, other than my usual complaint that too many Wikipedians continue to use it as a revenge platform whenever someone prevents them from using Wikipedia itself as one.

On the other hand, Uncyclopedia is beginning to suffer some of the same symptoms as Wikipedia - it's getting too big, some of the longer-term users are burning out, and trust relationships are starting to break down. Too many good ideas have already been "taken," and while it's completely different from the way Wikipedia topic areas are already controlled by agenda-driven groups, the effect is almost the same...

It's still a lot better than Wikipedia, of course!

Anyhoo, parody, sarcasm, and satire are best used in ways that help people rather than hurt them, though I wouldn't deny that some people deserve to be targets for it.

I just did a test on Uncyclopedia.

I copied over some of my better articles from Wiqipedia:
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/SlimVirgin
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Jayjg
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Martin
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

See what happened to them on Uncyclopedia:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre remained
ALL THE OTHERS WERE DELETED

Oh, and on top of that, they also sent me notes:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blissyu2

And within 10 minutes of joining the site, they banned me:
http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Sp...e=User:Blissyu2

Ergo, they suck, I think.

Surely the articles I created aren't actually against policy, are they?

I guess that my PA entry was probably funnier, and truer (reading between the lines) than most of the other ones. But nonetheless I don't see why they had to delete the Port Arthur entry, as that was quite funny too, and a highly notable place (even before the massacre it was the number 1 tourist town), and I honestly don't see why they needed to delete the article on Wikipedia Review. I guess that they might say that SlimVirgin and Jayjg aren't notable, but I didn't write their real life identities, and it was quite nice really.

They were totally against policy - several different policies, in fact. Why would you think otherwise? Besides, only a small handful of Uncyclopedia types are Wikipedia loyalists.

You've got to stop doing these impulsive things, Blissy... I know the urge is sometimes overwhelming, but you've got to fight it! Will power, man! It'll be hard at first, but I've got tremendous confidence in you! I know you can beat this thing!

What policy? Why can't the Port Arthur article exist even? You're not making sense.

Anyway, if Uncyclopedia are such nutballs that they think that you should be banned for writing funny articles, and delete them all, then they clearly aren't worth going to.

Ergo, test over, Wiqipedia is far superior in every way to Uncyclopedia.

Unencyclopedia is for satire old chap. Satire, by its nature, is funny. With respect, you can't write funny articles, so far as I've seen. Neither can I: succesful comedy comes from knowing your strengths, and yours aren't in writing lulzy articles.

Well, if my writing is so sucky that it doesn't belong on Uncyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, then perhaps it belongs on Wiqipedia. Anyway I think its funny, and some others do too, so there . ED tells me its not shocking enough, and UN tells me its too personal, so perhaps WQ is that niche in the middle.

Anyway, it seems to me like they have different aims, and for some people at least it is worthwhile.

i didn't realize that uncyclopedia has a manual of funny.

i've read some funny uncyclopedia articles, but things like this, and the god damn oscar wilde quotes, turn me off a little bit. i guess the manual of funny has useful reminders if you are already funny, but overall i find it tremendously annoying. i sighed several times reading it.

Yes stupid and boring. Manuals only make the problem worse. The real funny people will just come in, drop an article, and leave.

Uncyclopedia is pretty funny, except things like Oscar Wilde quotes and their article on anarchy are just stupid and not funny.

I wasn't too impressed with this article:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/rape

It didn't seem to me to be too much more responsible than Encyclopedia Dramatica in terms of that kind of an article.