Why? talk:Uncyclopedia's Official Guide to Choosing a Web Browser
I realize that Uncyclopedia does not have an NPOV policy like that of Wikipedia, but I would like to complain about the point of view of this article simply on the basis of inconsistency. Specifically, the Mozilla Firefox article takes a moderately positive view of Firefox, implying that it is better than Opera, whereas this article says that Opera is significantly better. I have doubt as to whether this inconsistency is intentional, and I am also forced to wonder which article better represents the consensus of Uncyclopedians. What should be done about this? Admittedly, as a hard-line Firefox user I am somewhat biased (where do you think my bias is coming from?), but I feel I am just doing my responsibility here.
In the same vein, someone needs to clarify what real browser the "maximally 1337 browser" at the bottom of the article corresponds to (Lynx?), if indeed it is meant to represent a real browser. Pentium5dot1 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's Elinks. Of course the article, being an Uncyc article, is a twisted representation of the truth - SPOV, if you must. The same is true in the case of the Firefox article, or at least I hope so. They're differently twisted. If you believe this article, Elinks must be the best browser ever. The "1337-ness" score mostly represents how 1337 the average user of a browser feels, not whether it's actually better or worse than others. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say to not worry about it as long as they're both humourous. Consistency is not that big a deal. In fact, it'd be best if every article on browsers picked a different one as the best each time. • Spang • • 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Bump: Explain again why Firefox isn't 1337 enough, please? Firefox deserves all the support it can get... Pentium5dot1 06:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What, no netscape?
^title^ Doublez 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)