Before we go any further (and believe me, we're going further), I'd like to take the time to publicly thank someone who has helped transform this website from fun side-project into a moderately successful business venture.
Wikipedia.
Let me take you through an average day for me here at This Website is Underrated (dot com).
Wake up.
Reset alarm to half hour later, "cause I've earned it".
Wake up again.
Reset alarm to ten minutes later, "because, what the hell"
Wake up again.
Open computer.
Check sports scores.
Go to This Website is Underrated (dot com).
Click "New Post".
Stare blankly at the screen until random person, place, thing, activity, or idea pops into my head.
Type two sentences.
Stop typing.
Realize I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.
Visit Wikipedia.
Learn about what ever I'm talking about.
Finish post.
Publish post.
Reap benefits.
Yep. Not a bad way to spend the morning, huh? I thought about continuing to go through my day, but after my fifth visit to ESPN.com things get a little boring.
But I digress. Wikipedia. Thank you so much. The wealth of information you put at my fingertips is truly unparalleled. Where else could I learn about Einstein's theory of relativity and the history of the Reuben sandwich? A library you say? Pish-posh. At Wikipedia the two are just a few keys and a left click away.
I know naysayers out there will say that many of the claims are unverified, and it often can be used as a vehicle to spread misinformation. My reply?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether or not Wikipedia published a few half-truths, or took a few liberties with it's female party guests. It did.
But you can't hold a whole website responsible for the behavior of a few sick, twisted, individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole online encyclopedia system? And if the whole encyclopedia system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of the world wide web in general? I put it to you, commentors, - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?
Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen.
(Hums National Anthem While Signing Off Computer)
VERDICT:
UNDERRATED
UNDERRATED

Niiiiiiiiiicely played Rizzo.
ReplyDeleteI was just about to knock you for picking the most obviously underrated tool of our era and commenting about it.
But you went ahead and salvaged it by perfectly quoting Otter of Animal House.
A +.
I can only assume you had a 'briefcase' with you as you made that rate.
Wikipedia GPA 1.2, congratultaions, you are at the head of the class whereas TomO is 0.0
ReplyDelete...Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life...
ReplyDeleteThat's how Colleen always ends conversations with me...
Ahem. Not to get between these two, but I want to agree with Rizzo. Ask any working librarian what's the first reference tool he or she uses at work or at home and that librarian will say, "I usually just guess," but their second choice will always be Wikipedia. Just a few minutes ago I used it to look up the movie Rushmore to confirm that Owen Wilson co-wrote that masterpiece. I could have used imdb, but Wikipedia is faster and more direct. It is especially useful as a librarian when you have no idea what the young(er) person mumbling in front of you is talking about.
ReplyDeleteEditors too Andrew.
ReplyDeleteMy former editors at the Indiana Daily Student would always verify crap I wrote by either:
A) Facebook
B) Google
C) Wikipedia.
(I'm sure they wouldn't want me revealing that information...but they can always just deny it.)