Wikipedia had it coming...

[Zenpeanut]

Wikipedia Discordianism's discussion page: A great read or the greatest read?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discordianism

[hooplala]

It's been discussed.

[Cramulus]

Were 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)

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?

[Cramulus]

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?

[hooplala]

Sign up as Ann Coulter.

[Cain]

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.

[Cramulus]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[LMNO]

Can't we use the BIP wiki as a source of Discordian work?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[Cramulus]

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.

[LMNO]

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?

[hooplala]

I would be willing to bet money on it.

[AFK]

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.