Wikipedia Discordianism's discussion page: A great read or the greatest read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discordianism
It's been discussed.
QuoteWere did the Proclimation of Pope Magniminimus Omnibus Short Bus XIII go ???
Who the heck would delete that? Maniminimus is exercising his power as pope for the creation of the chaos of doing something as absurd as giving stuff away! If you're going to delete that, then delete everything about osama bin laudin and terririsim etc.
Because this is a Wikipedia article, not a Discordian community, and because it did not make sense and was rather badly spelled. Much like everything after your first sentence. And "Maniminimus" didn't even care what Eris's name was. --Yar Kramer 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a sec - you're complaining that an article about Discordia fnord didn't make sense? How to make sense of the nonsensical? - Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackytar (talk • contribs) 02:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article is about Discordianism, I reccomend http://uncyclopedia.org/ if you are looking for tools of Discordia.
Kode 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:facepalm:
seriously, as annoying as it may be, THIS is why we should stick our nose up wikipedia's ass about Discordian lit. We know this stuff way better than a lot of the spags on there, and are (arguably) better at arguing and nitpicking.
unrelated: the whole drama trying to get wikipedia to acknowledge that Syn is made of Mittens and Win is totally hilarious. That's revidc who started that, yes?
I'm not sure - TBH, I've never delved too deeply into wikipedia editor lore. I think you'd need a direct quote from the author saying it's a Discordian Work, because otherwise you could really construe anything as Discordian - which I don't think would be good for the Discordian Works page.
I am finding that if I try to go further, I need to make a new username which isn't Cramulus... apparently that makes me BIASED. But isn't the point here that good wikipedia articles are written by experts? How can experts not be biased?
Sign up as Ann Coulter.
You guys are talking as if you expect Wikipedia to be an impartial source of information or something.
Knowledge doesn't matter. Expertise doesn't matter. The only thing that counts in Wiki-land is sucking up to Jimbo Wales and his cohort of SysOps.
what blows is that it's an important informational battleground. I bet more people are learning about Discordia from wikipedia than they are from our home page.
Well then, the trick is to create a Discordian entry that is free of Fnords and the internal debates of Discordians. That means that we'd need to frame many of the "published" Discordian works (aka PDF on websites) in a different manner than 'published works'.
By that, I mean that we might discuss two different things:
Published Discordian Works - PD ver 1-5 and Syn's version, Discordian's Guide to Moosemas, I3, Reality Is What You Can Get Away With
Discordian Writings - As a subsection which covers the phenomena of Discordian Self-Published materials, After all, we can point to things like the Zenarchist Cookbook etc as historical precedence... I think we could get past the censors if we mention that Discordians often write their own "holy books" often simply releasing them to the public via the web or guerrilla publishing (print it and hand it out). It would be nice if we had a subsite here that tried to keep track of ALL discordian writings which we could then link to as pertinent in the Wikiarticle.
From what I've been able to figure out, Wikipedia is about framing the article. What is "inappropriate", might be appropriate if approached from a different angle. I think most of the rest of the problems in the Discordian entry could be solved in a similar manner.
That's true.
But if we're going to use the battleground metaphor, what we are suggesting here is fighting Wikipedia, head on, on their home turf. We have hosting here. We have people here who write like nobodies business, and who can maniupulate various web based applications in our favour.
Would it not be a better idea to get our own game up (half of SEO is writing better content) and then sabotaging Wikipedia's efforts and credibility? If we're going to fight people as big and as entrenched as the Wikipedia lot, we're going to have to get our hands dirty, because there is no other way we can prevail on them to change the content.
Can't we use the BIP wiki as a source of Discordian work?
I suspect maybe there needs to be a section on "The Modern Discordian Movement" where we can talk about new literature. Also, we should probably consider putting something about Syn being made of mittens and win in the Etcetera Discordia, and otherwise be quite shameless about using new manuscripts to cite things we want Wikipedia to acknowledge.
The best way I can see to "legitimize" our work (and I may be wrong)
1) Print it via lulu press & get an ISBN --- this proves that it exists in the real world and not just something we tossed on the web and are claiming is core lit
2) then get Discordian bloggers to talk about it --- this proves that it is a part of Discordian discourse
Intermittens may be a great medium for this.
This might be an odd thought, but has anyone considered that as far as the "modern Discordia movement" goes, we here at PD and POEE might be in the minority, and there are a far greater number of Pinealists out there, content and happy with the Fluffy Eris and ZOMG23?
I would be willing to bet money on it.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 11, 2008, 04:49:53 PM
The best way I can see to "legitimize" our work (and I may be wrong)
1) Print it via lulu press & get an ISBN --- this proves that it exists in the real world and not just something we tossed on the web and are claiming is core lit
2) then get Discordian bloggers to talk about it --- this proves that it is a part of Discordian discourse
Intermittens may be a great medium for this.
I think the BIP should eventually be published in some form. It probably isn't long enough at this point. Perhaps we could combine it with a couple of issues of Intermittens or something. A sort of Modern Discordia Compendium or some such thing.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 04:50:37 PM
This might be an odd thought, but has anyone considered that as far as the "modern Discordia movement" goes, we here at PD and POEE might be in the minority, and there are a far greater number of Pinealists out there, content and happy with the Fluffy Eris and ZOMG23?
I'm pretty sure you are correct.
Yeah, but if they don't print any literature or make any notable art they are the silent masses, and won't be credited in later years for helping to shape the direction of the movement. The many who follow never get any credit, it's the few who put their shit out there that do. We might be the minority, but we're a minority that is constantly adding to the Discordian body of work.
Speaking of publication, IF thinks do pick up in the New Year and I have a spare few hundred dollars, I am going to register my press name with the state and buy a block of ISBNs, at which point I can set up a lightningsource account. I will publish any substantial Discordian books anyone wants published. Lightningsource is distributed through Ingrams, so all bookstores will have the ability to order from my press.
... assuming the economy picks up and I have a few spare hundred dollars.
On another note, LOOK TEH FUCK AT THIS: http://www.amazon.com/Boyds-Moosemas-Basket-Ornament-25452/dp/B000JJLPDS/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1229014511&sr=8-5
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 04:50:37 PM
This might be an odd thought, but has anyone considered that as far as the "modern Discordia movement" goes, we here at PD and POEE might be in the minority, and there are a far greater number of Pinealists out there, content and happy with the Fluffy Eris and ZOMG23?
They're part of the "modern Discordia bowel movement," collecting all the old shit and crapping over everything. But I agree with you that we are, most likely, a small minority. I guess individuals always are.
Quote from: Nigel on December 11, 2008, 05:02:40 PM
Yeah, but if they don't print any literature or make any notable art they are the silent masses, and won't be credited in later years for helping to shape the direction of the movement. The many who follow never get any credit, it's the few who put their shit out there that do. We might be the minority, but we're a minority that is constantly adding to the Discordian body of work.
Speaking of publication, IF thinks do pick up in the New Year and I have a spare few hundred dollars, I am going to register my press name with the state and buy a block of ISBNs, at which point I can set up a lightningsource account. I will publish any substantial Discordian books anyone wants published. Lightningsource is distributed through Ingrams, so all bookstores will have the ability to order from my press.
... assuming the economy picks up and I have a few spare hundred dollars.
On another note, LOOK TEH FUCK AT THIS: http://www.amazon.com/Boyds-Moosemas-Basket-Ornament-25452/dp/B000JJLPDS/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1229014511&sr=8-5
I will give you infinity billion mittens if you are able to do that, Nigel. :)
Also, that Moosemas thing is awesome!
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 04:50:37 PM
This might be an odd thought, but has anyone considered that as far as the "modern Discordia movement" goes, we here at PD and POEE might be in the minority, and there are a far greater number of Pinealists out there, content and happy with the Fluffy Eris and ZOMG23?
There are many active Discordians on this planet (I think). Some (but not all of them) hang out in online forums that like to talk about philosophy and BiP's etc. Some (but not all of them) apparently don't hang out much online... Many (but not all) of the ones that DO hang out online appear to be of the more pineal variety, or at least they use that model in their internet discussions a lot.
Perhaps the problem lies in occasionally considering ourselves as <i> the "modern Discordia movement"</i> rather than <i> one of many modern Discordian movements</i>. In most of my Internet travels I find many Pinealists that simply chatter Fnordstuff... or extremely thoughtful Discordians that still enjoy the Fnordstuff (see the Awesome Pirate Dan aka Cramulus, or the brilliant Telarus, or the witty Prof. Mu Chao, Dr. Jon, or the lovely St. Mae and the mostly crazy San Francisco Cabals that are still active). On LJ, there are Discordians that hang out in Convert Me, Philosophy and similar groups... often making extremely well reasoned arguments. In fact, Telarus, Gleef, myself and others have successfully converted people from both the religious and athiest sides of debate in Convert Me and overall the approach has generally made use of a lot of the more traditional memes and RAW ideas than new stuff. That being said, some of us also include the new ideas metaphors and memes discussed here where we think they'd be helpful.
I think the Discordian movement here is headed in a useful direction, and I hope that some of the ideas here will influence Discordian movements in the future. But, I think that, by far, BiPers are in the minority compared to Pinealists... it would be nice if both were in the minority, as the majority was happy to use whatever memes were most useful at the moment... but my model agnosticism is show again, eh? ;-)
I still say we declare war on Wikipedia.
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2008, 05:22:33 PM
I still say we declare war on Wikipedia.
I'll bring the ammo if you've got the K rations.
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2008, 05:22:33 PM
I still say we declare war on Wikipedia.
I'm in. :)
Will we make a wiki page about it afterwards?
NOTE: it took me too long to write this post, and Nigel and Ratatosk have already said all the stuff below :fnord:
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 04:50:37 PM
This might be an odd thought, but has anyone considered that as far as the "modern Discordia movement" goes, we here at PD and POEE might be in the minority, and there are a far greater number of Pinealists out there, content and happy with the Fluffy Eris and ZOMG23?
yes, but I think their contentment stems from a lack of stimulation. Also, because they are not part of a creative community, they are not prompted to be thinking forward and producing new iterations on the Discordian fractal.
there's a TON of art, poetry, literature, cinema, creative work etc etc which is highly influenced by the PD and "Discordian Thought"... but it's harder to identify that stuff as "Discordian" unless it does so overtly.
In my opinion, The Pinealist which we so often villify is akin to the christian bible thumper. It's someone who is repeating lines from the PD to a jaded forum, expecting it to have some positive effect. They are not being creative, they're just quoting something they think is cool. I do think they are a minority. Honestly, we don't see many pinealists around here these days.
To clarify: there are zillions of people who have resonated with the PD but aren't
focused on it.. Their behavior may be a bit more "Discordian", but you'd never know unless they identify themselves overtly. And they don't have a lot of source material to draw on to identify themselves to others - fnords, illuminati, pineal glands, etc... A lot of these people are hungry for more, but they haven't been exposed to anything new since Wilson. They're good cats, I just think they haven't been simulated or provoked in the right way.
but this may all be wasted breath,
Discordians are hard to point at or generalize about since it's not like they gather anywhere in particular.
I just think it's a shame that when people think of Discordia, most of them only think of the PD and RAW, when there's been so much more... fuck the "masses", we're the early innovators, we're the ones trying to iterate, why should we get ignored because we're new?
Maybe we need more T&A.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 11, 2008, 05:31:29 PM
NOTE: it took me too long to write this post, and Nigel and Ratatosk have already said all the stuff below :fnord:
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 04:50:37 PM
This might be an odd thought, but has anyone considered that as far as the "modern Discordia movement" goes, we here at PD and POEE might be in the minority, and there are a far greater number of Pinealists out there, content and happy with the Fluffy Eris and ZOMG23?
yes, but I think their contentment stems from a lack of stimulation. Also, because they are not part of a creative community, they are not prompted to be thinking forward and producing new iterations on the Discordian fractal.
there's a TON of art, poetry, literature, cinema, creative work etc etc which is highly influenced by the PD and "Discordian Thought"... but it's harder to identify that stuff as "Discordian" unless it does so overtly.
In my opinion, The Pinealist which we so often villify is akin to the christian bible thumper. It's someone who is repeating lines from the PD to a jaded forum, expecting it to have some positive effect. They are not being creative, they're just quoting something they think is cool. I do think they are a minority. Honestly, we don't see many pinealists around here these days.
To clarify: there are zillions of people who have resonated with the PD but aren't focused on it.. Their behavior may be a bit more "Discordian", but you'd never know unless they identify themselves overtly. And they don't have a lot of source material to draw on to identify themselves to others - fnords, illuminati, pineal glands, etc... A lot of these people are hungry for more, but they haven't been exposed to anything new since Wilson. They're good cats, I just think they haven't been simulated or provoked in the right way.
but this may all be wasted breath,
Discordians are hard to point at or generalize about since it's not like they gather anywhere in particular.
I just think it's a shame that when people think of Discordia, most of them only think of the PD and RAW, when there's been so much more... fuck the "masses", we're the early innovators, we're the ones trying to
This is good stuff Cram. I disagree that Pineal people are Bible Thumpers, some seem to fit that, but some just seem to like the memes/jokes (the older 23ae crowd for example). I'd argue that Discordians of any memeplex could become Bible Thumpers... if they think that their interpretation and actions are The Right One. At any rate, I think the most important thing to consider is that
we are adding to the pool of resources that might inspire other Discordians, in some cases, it already has. That doesn't mean ALL Discordians will or even should be inspired by our stuff, nor does it mean that Discordians inspired by Fnords are somehow less Discordian, in my opinion.
I'm not sure Discordia would benefit from an Us vs Them mentality. Its bad enough when Discordians think they're so much more enlightened than the 'Cabbages'... to start having Discordians fight over which Discordian is most Discordian sounds like the sort of nonsense that Eris will enjoy, but not many other people ;-)
Well, at the very least, the Brazillians seem to like what we have to offer.
anyway, if the mission statement is to make better articles about Discordia on wikipedia, and make "our Discordia" part of the Discordian zeitgeist, I reccommend a threefold approach:
A) We need to figure out what exactly needs to be said. Discordapedia seems to be the "official" discordian wiki linked from the wikipedia article, so anything that we can't make an article for on wikipedia (like the BIP probably doesn't deserve its own article yet), we should make an article for on discordapedia. Then someone should mirror those articles on the s23 wiki.
B) Some of us should become wikipedia editors. Those people should learn the protocols, make some edits on non-Discordian articles, and participate in unrelated wiki-battles. In doing so they will establish credibility and therefore power within the editor community. Having some wikipedia editors in our pocket would be a very useful community resources. Note, I do not think this will take more than two or three weeks of doing one small thing a day. Volunteers?
C) Get some existing wikipedia editors on board. There are Discordian wikipedia editors, it may just be a matter of inviting them here and showing them what we're up to.
thoughts?
I feel icky even working with Wikipedia. They're not a reliable source, and the minute they feel they are being manipulated or that you do not kiss sufficient ass, they will undo months of work simply to spite you.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Portal:Wikipedia
Between the childish insults and hilarious, but sadly made up accusations, there are some insights into how Wikipedia works. I have some serious issues with trying to work with these sort of people. I would much rather we tried to displace them as a "trusted source", which in theory should not be too hard.
yeah, I agree, but the average shmuck who comes to learn about Discordia isn't even going to read the Principia, they're just going to read the wikipedia article. (citation: my little brother) So I think it's an important battleground. A lot of the wikipedia editors are tards, but they're primates, and we're pretty good at those reindeer games.
It doesn't surprise me that ED has brought out the worst in wikipedia's editors, but I don't think their experience is indicative of what kind of experience we'll have.
Edit: this may be somewhat moot because I'm willing to bet no one here has the drive to do all this anyway. :p
Quote from: Cramulus on December 11, 2008, 06:08:47 PM
yeah, I agree, but the average shmuck who comes to learn about Discordia isn't even going to read the Principia, they're just going to read the wikipedia article. (citation: my little brother) So I think it's an important battleground. A lot of the wikipedia editors are tards, but they're primates, and we're pretty good at those reindeer games.
It doesn't surprise me that ED has brought out the worst in wikipedia's editors, but I don't think their experience is indicative of what kind of experience we'll have.
IAWTC
I have a number of friends that talk about Discordianism and they send people to Wikipedia... I've told them to send people here... but apparently, at least some of them, find this place to be a shark pit which they don't want to send their friends to. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong about letting Wikipedia spread disinformation....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY)
Quote from: Cramulus on December 11, 2008, 06:08:47 PM
yeah, I agree, but the average shmuck who comes to learn about Discordia isn't even going to read the Principia, they're just going to read the wikipedia article. (citation: my little brother) So I think it's an important battleground. A lot of the wikipedia editors are tards, but they're primates, and we're pretty good at those reindeer games.
It doesn't surprise me that ED has brought out the worst in wikipedia's editors, but I don't think their experience is indicative of what kind of experience we'll have.
Edit: this may be somewhat moot because I'm willing to bet no one here has the drive to do all this anyway. :p
OK, but I want to get my objections out upfront. I really don't think the atmosphere at Wikipedia is conducive to sharing information or the truth, but if you really want to try it...
However, on the assumption of failure, I suggest we set up a "What is Discordianism" page here, a reading list, spam the hell out of the link and at the same time sabotage the Wiki entry in as many ways as possible.
I kind of think that Wikipedia will catch up in due time, and we should ignore it and keep working on the projects that make US happy.
One thing I would really like to see is a Golden Sphere of Possibility version of the BIP, to be published in the same volume. If authors would be willing, perhaps, to riff off their own pieces but make a "light and shiny" version, and then they could be published together back-to-back. I think it would beef the book up enough to justify a real ISBN-having version.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 06:25:50 PM
I would submit a GSP-type piece for a separate volume.
Philosophically, I disagree with having a BIP/GSP volume. Because it could seem to suggest that somehow the BIP itself was incomplete or lacking in some way.
It is.
I guess what I mean, it that it would seem to give in to that common complaint we've heard "It's too dark". Having a GSP right along with it would seem to, rightly or wrongly, validate that idea. Unless of course we somehow contsruct it so it is clear that it isn't validating that complaint.
OR
I'll just shut up now.
I actually felt like having a "shiny" companion volume that says essentially the same thing the BIP says would help understand people where the BIP is coming from, and reduce their knee-jerk "this is negative" action. But I'm willing to go with the flow. I don't want to edit the thing, just publish it, and it has to be big enough to be worth the expense.
It will probably cost me about $400 to get started, assuming ALL I am doing is acting as a gateway/financier to get the books published and available through Ingram. My original goal was to do it when all my debts were paid off, which would have been last month if Moxley had stuck around. At my current rate, they won't be paid off for six more months, but even so, that's not a terrible timeline, especially if we want to fatten up the BIP.
It would bring my heart much joy to see more Discordian works of literature by our little band of troublemakers published. So it would basically be a vanity press for Discordians... oh well! It would still be out there.
$400, hmm?
Let me think about this.
LMNO
-Not a bag of money, but has been known to throw wads of cash at stupid ideas.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 07:11:15 PM
$400, hmm?
Let me think about this.
LMNO
-Not a bag of money, but has been known to throw wads of cash at stupid ideas.
IMO the best possible way anyone could help make this a reality is to volunteer time and writing and art to make the book actually happen, while I focus on building the business end... and then, help me recoup costs by actually buying the book afterwards. I don't ever expect to break even on it, and if I did any profit would go immediately into funding the next project. I want to keep entirely separate accounts for this project, so it's easy for me to see how much I'm spending on it. My reasoning is that if I take a bunch of monetary investments and then drop the ball, everyone will be rightfully pissed, but if I only put my own money in, and other people put work in, then even if I drop the ball they will still have the fruits of their labor and can just send it to Lulu.
From what I understand, Syn made money on his version of the PD. Of course, that's the PD. But, with some creative marketing and word of mouth, I bet you could at least break even if not make a little bit of scratch on it.
Quote from: revidc on December 11, 2008, 03:41:13 PM
Yup! Fuckers would not know mittens and/or win if it bit them on the nads.
Although, every time I try and change the main page to reflect a more accurate snapshot of discordia nowadays, they change it back to their old meanderings. Coz obviously they are realy realy real discordians, and well, I guess Syn just plain does not exist or something, I guess we are all just fiction in some strange meta novela.
Feckers. Now I've got an existential crisis on my hands. IF I EVEN HAVE HANDS!!!!
On the subject of discordian lit, what about stuff that is obviously discordian in nature, yet not acknowledged as such, like this book I just read called the telivisionary oracle. Had no mention of the words Eris, or Discordia in it, yet was all about reality tunneling and pineal glands. and menstruation. . . odd book.
What about spoken references to discordian catchphrases on TV, and in video games etc. I've got a few jotted down somewhere.
If you haven't read the book it can be found Here (http://www.freewillastrology.com/writings/oracle.html)
As far as adding him into discorida I'm pretty sure that Christianity has been able to decide which writings apply to their faith and added them into the bible. Hell look at the mormon church they have all kinds of writtings that aren't in a bible you would find at a catholics house. Put a announcment in the next intermittens that the folks at Peady have issued a statment that "the Televisionary oracle" is considered a part of every Discordians education whether they read it or not.
Can we yank the sucky bits and shove them into the Apocrypha/"Solitary Confinement"?
Quote from: username on December 11, 2008, 08:05:50 PM
Quote from: revidc on December 11, 2008, 03:41:13 PM
Yup! Fuckers would not know mittens and/or win if it bit them on the nads.
Although, every time I try and change the main page to reflect a more accurate snapshot of discordia nowadays, they change it back to their old meanderings. Coz obviously they are realy realy real discordians, and well, I guess Syn just plain does not exist or something, I guess we are all just fiction in some strange meta novela.
Feckers. Now I've got an existential crisis on my hands. IF I EVEN HAVE HANDS!!!!
On the subject of discordian lit, what about stuff that is obviously discordian in nature, yet not acknowledged as such, like this book I just read called the telivisionary oracle. Had no mention of the words Eris, or Discordia in it, yet was all about reality tunneling and pineal glands. and menstruation. . . odd book.
What about spoken references to discordian catchphrases on TV, and in video games etc. I've got a few jotted down somewhere.
If you haven't read the book it can be found Here (http://www.freewillastrology.com/writings/oracle.html)
As far as adding him into discorida I'm pretty sure that Christianity has been able to decide which writings apply to their faith and added them into the bible. Hell look at the mormon church they have all kinds of writtings that aren't in a bible you would find at a catholics house. Put a announcment in the next intermittens that the folks at Peady have issued a statment that "the Televisionary oracle" is considered a part of every Discordians education whether they read it or not.
Rob Breszney . . . Brezny . . . Brez-
Forget it.
That dude is great. The Dayton Daily News gets his Horoscope column every Sunday. It's trippy, to say the least.
for organization's sake, I set up a thread in Think For Yourself Shmuck (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18828.0) for the BIPV3WTF stuff.
:pax:
I can split stuff off, if people want.
I think that would be cool, in case people want to comment on the wikipedia talk page and all that jazz
Done
One of the biggest problems with trying to get our edits to stick in Wikipedia are the "No Original Research" and "Verifiability" policies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
QuoteWikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
QuoteThe threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
The stuff we are wanting to add is original source material, which is strangely not enough for them. What we need to try to do is try to establish second-hand sources for our stuff. Nigel's plan would help take care of this. Failing that, i say we go after Discordipedia. They've got too much Uncle BadTouch BS there right now. Either we take up arms and start a massive edit war with them or we just undercut them and replace their link on the Wikipedia page with one to the BIP wiki.
I have no objections to boarding Discordipedia en masse and infecting it with our memes.
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2008, 09:42:12 PM
I have no objections to boarding Discordipedia en masse and infecting it with our memes.
Agreed.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 04:54:47 PM
I think the BIP should eventually be published in some form.
why not a deluxe Etcetera Discordia with the BIP as an appendix at the end maybe even upside down...
moar planning needs im sure,
starting small with ambush guriella editting,
i approve this as a GASM
maybe the nation could be requested as well
opening shot:
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6615/poeesafetywarningow9.png) (http://imageshack.us)
edit everything down to bare bears and add many footnotes.
:lulz:
I love you, you wonderful bastard
Quote from: revidc on December 14, 2008, 08:04:47 AM
So, basically, to get whatever we want taken as wikipedia LAW, we have to simply self print a .pdf to lulu.com and then get an isbn automatically generated to it, then that counts as citable proofs.
Right?
because if so . . . I intend to have a little fun.
QuoteI have no objections to boarding Discordipedia en masse and infecting it with our memes.
When? I'm in.
Not quite, an ISBN through lulu is $150.
When did you run it? Makes a diff... also, who the ISBN belongs to matters.
Dunno if you're up with the ISBN controversies as of late.
Oh interesting, Lulu is running a promotion that includes a free ISBN, but they retain ownership of the ISBN and become the legal publishers of your book. I'm a little disturbed by what that means for copyright, as they don't elucidate.
Yeah, basically, for a long time a block of ISBNs was not terribly expensive, and you could not buy them singly directly... you had to go through any number of price-raping vanity presses to get a single one, and they retained ownership. Then, Bowker decided to re-initiate their own price-raping scheme, and is selling them directly for an exorbitant price, and at the same time has jacked the prices on blocks of ISBNs by about 90%.
Some small publishers are happy about this, many are not.
<off topic> how difficult is it to sell lulu books on amazon, then?
and: do we know anyone with wikipedia skillz that could answer that question for us? Because soon there will be a print version of the Et Cetera Discordia, and if print & review really is a hallmark of legitimacy, that will "legitimize" a lot of our projects.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 15, 2008, 02:03:24 PM
... soon there will be a print version of the Et Cetera Discordia...
Do you have a publisher yet? Email me if not.
Quote from: drjon on December 19, 2008, 01:37:52 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 15, 2008, 02:03:24 PM
... soon there will be a print version of the Et Cetera Discordia...
Do you have a publisher yet? Email me if not.
Back off man, I wanna do it! :argh!:
Just kidding, I have no idea how soon I'll be able to... I have a six-month timeline that seems reasonable, but I can't guarantee anything, so if someone else wants to jump in and do it, hell of do it.
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Foreskin
Quote from: Knight of the Banana-shaped table on January 01, 2009, 11:10:38 AM
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Foreskin
Weird as fuck.
Why would anyone want the foreskin of the Son of God? o.O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ism_schism
:jihaad: