Someone sent me this link and I thought I'd pass it along. I guess everyone by now knows the cool place to go for information online right? Good ol' Wikipedia!

Well- apparently someone decided to have some fun with that and do a little spoof- it's pretty funny. Here's their entry for MacGyver.

WARNING- It does contain some foul and offensive language!

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/MacGyver

maybe you should add a warning for the bad languge.

And that it's not funny.

Where's your sense of humour?

i'm with nymphy.... i just don't find it all that funny...

And where's yours?

And where's yours?

I have to agree with MacGyverGod on this one. The humour is crude, but relevant, very Simpsons-like. I think RDA would approve.

Mac

“I cannay change the Laws of Physics Captain! Hoots mon! Only MacGyver can dooooooo that”

Andrew Dean Richardson?

Sorry- I should have put in a warning about the bad language on the site.
Didn't think about it earlier

Other than that- I did find some of it funny- particularly the Scotty line!

That really is a Bio bomb.

In all honestly I can see both sides to the Funny not funny Argument.

Let's just say it's wrong in the worst way.... besides Jack O'Neill is smarter than he acts. But not nearly as smart as Mac. And I think Jack sleeps with his gun.


This post has been edited by Testgate on 29 March 2007 - 10:30 AM

I guess humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder… or listener… or reader… or what ever form the humor takes.

Yep. it sleeps on the pillow beside him... he gives it a goodnight kiss and tucks it in...

...No wait... thats Sledge Hammer

Yep. it sleeps on the pillow beside him... he gives it a goodnight kiss and tucks it in...

...No wait... thats Sledge Hammer

Rock, I was thinking under the pillow. Sam sleeps next to him on the pillow.

Now, whether Sam is Carter or a female Yellow Lab named for Carter, I don't know.

This post has been edited by Testgate on 29 March 2007 - 10:26 AM

Wikipedia is so chuck-full-of incorrect information that it's not even funny. It's quite distressing to see that people go there and accept what's posted in there at face value. Quite a lot of the entires that are posted out there are done by people that are no more experts than you or I and have no qualification outside the fact that they can type. But I think that's kind of a curse of this whole internet not just Wiki.

Ok, I am off my soapbox

Thyla it says UNCYCOPEDIA not Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Besides this is the REAL page form Wikipedia.
Real MacGyver

YEASH it was someone not only MOCKING Wikipedia but MacGyver... Hell for all we know it could have been Rick or Winkler. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

God next time your going to rant look at what you ranting over there 2 different sites.

*Sigh. Cimbs back on the soap box*

Actually, my post stands as is. I was ranting about Wiki being a lot of times incorrect. Yes, the original post was about a spoof (obviously ) done by this other site UNCYCOPEDIA which does not make the fact that Wiki is not a "real" encyclopedia less true (ie created and endorsed by experts with proper documentation and credits where credit is due). Personally, I prefer to draw my research from sources I know I can trust and that I can substantiate. Wiki - ain't it. But that's just me.

*Climbs down and retreats to the den watching McGyver reruns*

ERm... I liked the punchins scene

But it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have as accurate information as a “real” encyclopedia either.

When you go into the editing options they have a message which says “Encyclopedic content must be verifiable”. And if nothing else it’s always a good starting point. You can always find links to more specific websites about whatever you’re looking for.

My kids use it all the time for looking up homework information, and to be honest, I haven’t seen any articles which I would call really off base with its content.

*steals the soap box and runs away with it*

Oh oh oh...

I just found this Wikipedia entry, which had this plastered at teh top of it...

"This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details."

So you can see that they do encourage references etc and are tryign to create an accurate information base.

Well, it's his site...I guess he can do that!

*looks in the box*

Well I'll be damned! Its full of soap.

So you can clean out your mouth?

Mac
too mischievious for her own good

DUH! Why do you think its called a Soap Box? Because Soap Operas are done on them?

Sorry, just had to add that last part.

This post has been edited by Testgate on 29 March 2007 - 10:22 AM

now I've gotta find out why it's a "soap box" and why it's apparently associated with public speaking...

Oh I can answer that for you...

The word arises from olden times when speakers would literally stand on a box of soap or a similar item to gain height.

Those would be the same boxes that kids made carts out of for "soap box" races. Very useful boxes those.
Most boxes are cardboard rather then wooden crates these days. Cardboard does not make such a good racing cart...and not such good thing to stand on.

Well, yeah, I knew that much...but why a SOAP box? There must have been a reason for it's being used enough to have become a common term like that. It could have been any box...but it's not...it's a soap box. There's gotta be a "why" somewhere.

I guess becasue it was a common item.. and.. it was the right size to provide elevation and sturdy enough to stand on without falling off or having the box break.

Rocky's pretty much nailed it. They were in abundance and reused but hard for the merchant to store after being emptied (kinda like the pallets you see stacked up behind stores today) People would pinch them and use them however.

At the time standing on the street corner... or in the middle of the street ....spouting your agenda was the cheapiest and easiest way to spread the word. They were called "soap box orators" and were as common as the boxes themselves.

*Comes into the room. Looks around and scratches head.* Who stole my soap box? I am sure I left it in here somewhere... *Looks under the table, behind the door, peeks under the couch.*

According to the science journal Nature Wikipedia has recently been rated as having 3.86 errors per page vs. Britannica's 2.92. So it would seem that its a lot more accurate than you would think.

As I've said before, they also require encyclopedic information to be referenced, and add notes/warnings to the pages where information doesn't contain the required references, so all in all Wikipedia is a pretty good starting point for research.