Forum:Feature Requests

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Feature Requests
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6310 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What do you want improved in MediaWiki? What features do you think would improve your experience the most? --Chronarion

  • Number 1 on my wish list is the ability to ban IPs/IP ranges while still allowing users from the IP/range to post. The incident with Rich has really underlined it--not a week went by while he was blocked that I didn't get someone whining in IRC how they were blocked before even first appearing at Uncyc. So, yeah, that. —Hinoa talk.kun 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC) 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Two things: Reputation-based editing restrictions, and full, unconditional deletion-by-request for any living person who's the subject of an article with his/her name as the title (and who can prove that he/she is the same person making the request). Also, free pie would be nice.  c • > • cunwapquc?
As you may know, the second is possible with the current software. It's a matter of policies rather than a matter of software's features. That kind of articles are not allowed for non-notable people anyway, and I don't think George Bush will ask as to delete the entry on him.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And if he does, I refuse to do so. First Amendment FTW. ^_^ —Hinoa talk.kun 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I figured you'd point that out, actually! This may sound a little wacky to most of you, but what I'm proposing is a system whereby any living person, no matter how notable or non-notable they are, can request a special deletion-security code from a steward-level user, and then use the code to delete their own article — and have the server return a new security code as part of that same operation. Only someone who knew that security code could then recreate the article - at that point, even the steward couldn't recreate it, at least not within MediaWiki. (Nor could an administrator, needless to say.) Recreating such an article without the code would require someone with direct access to the MySQL database, using either a direct SQL command or a different front-end. That, to me, would be the only way to make the system completely trustworthy... I realize this view may be unpopular, but as you know, I have never courted popularity. (At least not deliberately.)  c • > • cunwapquc? 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Firm opposition on first amendment grounds. We are more than within our rights to have whatever we want for any public figure. Articles on non-public figures can be legally attacked on various counts but for public figures as long as we don't cause any actual damage to that person. Beyond that, I am also opposed to your idea in so far as I don't like any automated process allowing non-admins to delete anything. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke.gif 20:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Quexion: so if I created an article on someone I idolize -- Deepak Chopra, for instance -- and then deleted it, no one else could ever ever ever ever add an article making fun of the saintly and only slightly drool-stained Deepak Chopra? --and thus we would have a list of perma-banned topics? Or am I misunderstanding?----OEJ 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You might be misunderstanding me, but either way, let me just clarify this a little bit. The question was "What do you want improved in MediaWiki? What features do you think would improve your experience the most?" My suggestion of having some technical means of backing up what I feel should be a core policy of all wiki sites is, ultimately, just a software improvement. It doesn't mean we would have to implement it here, though of course I do think it should be implemented on Wikipedia as soon as possible. The admins here are far more trustworthy than the ones on Wikipedia - in fact I shouldn't even draw a comparison between the two groups, the difference is so enormous. Nevertheless, if Deepak Chopra were to visit Uncyclopedia and become so incensed by the article about him that he absolutely insisted on having it deleted, even after seeing rational arguments to the contrary from us, then I believe he should have the right to have it deleted — as long as he can prove that it's really him making the request, of course. (And the same goes for Wikipedia, only more so, because they don't even have the nice handy parody umbrella that we have.) Now, if that were to actually happen, we would still have the right to publicize Chopra's request if we felt it was appropriate to do so. Chopra would know that, and act (or more likely, not act) accordingly. We could also mention Chopra's name in other articles, as long as those articles weren't actually about Chopra (i.e., they aren't simply biographies under another title, to skirt the imposition of the rule in his particular case.) And as much as I respect gwax, in a way he's actually helped me to prove my point, simply by using the term "first amendment." This isn't the United States. This is the internet, and Uncyclopedia is available all over the globe, and some countries don't have the same free-speech rights as the USA has. In my opinion, Americans shouldn't insist on imposing their notion of free speech on the rest of the world any more than they should impose bombs, guns, and soldiers. But as I said earlier, I realize that I'm probably a minority of one, but it would be so hypocritical of me to back off of this stance now, even here, that I just can't do it. Not that I would even want to.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
U.S imposing freedom of Speech? Go tell that to Mr. Allende. Dude, besides the porn, this is the beauty of the internet. You can say whatever you want, and you don't need the means to own a TV station, a radio or a newspaper to spread it. Wikis are even better (I'm writing a paper on the topic), they make the posibility to spread the idea/information/art work even easier for the average joe who now needs almost no computer knowldege to do it. The Internet has the potential to be a great tool for democracy, don't ruin it. And about countries which don't support freedom of speech, let them worry about the censorship. You don't want to impose them the freedom of speech, fine, but do you really want to easy up the censorship work for them?---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about articles that are about living people, Rataube. Everything else is fair game, as the Scientologists would say. If we can't manage to get the point across about liberty, democracy, and free pie for all without posting a lot of nasty material about living persons, many of whom nobody has even heard of, are we really worth all that much? And please, just ask yourself: If I wrote a nice, complimentary, positively-glowing article about you, the real person known as "Rataube," do you really want to have to check that article regularly for the rest of your life, just in case someone decides one day to insert malicious lies about you into it?  c • > • cunwapquc? 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia doesn't allow posts about people nobody ever heard of. Malicious lies? We publish humor, mostly fiction. And unless you are deep in love with Plato, I guess you would agree that fiction can't be a lie by its very definition, even if it is inspired by real people. But I guess you are thinking more of the parody site. Yes, I believe democracy does worth that much. And you allways have legal means against those who publish malicious lies (I know that in the states those means are weaker than in other democratic countries, but you still have them). Don't forget that if I were a notable figure and I were afraid of malicious lies, I would have to check far more than a single internet article. What's the alternative? Censoring every peace of published work about living people just in case someone publish malicious lies? Or making it mandatory only to publish nice stuff about them and never the "nasty material"? Those remedies are way worse than the illness. As Churchill (or some other dead faggot) once put it, democracy is the least worst of the political systems.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 10:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Rataube, if you're just going to resort to the classic all-or-nothing fallacy, then why are we even having this discussion? And please be realistic - nobody is going to sue us for the stuff we put up here, and we all know why. The "Opt-Out On Request" concept is simply an attempt to make wiki sites seem less pestilential to society in general, and to the people who choose to opt out in particular... Besides, the best humor always has a ring of truth to it — whereas the malicious use of outright lies purporting to be based on the truth, all done in the name of "humor," should be as unwelcome here as they are on Wikipedia, or for that matter, the Bill of Rights. (Unless we're talking about Ann Coulter, that is - she doesn't count, sorry.)  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone else is interested in this conversation and we have long quit actually answering Chron's request in this topic, so I'll just continue in your talk page.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I want hit-counts back. Or -- better yet -- a user approval bar at the bottom of every article (as Rataube suggested). Rationale: none of us knows Frank Sh*te about what most people think of our writing. So we very seldom have a chance to evaluate what works for readers and what doesn't. We wander in the dark, writhing horrible tripe just because WE think it is funny. At least that's what I do. A quick-n-easy vote of approval / non-approval would provide at least a smidge of feedback. ----OEJ 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • $1,000 (American) for every featured article A rating system has potential, but my worry would be that every article would get 5-stars or 1-star (to pick a random Amazon example).--Procopius 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Authomatic {{welcome}} tag for every new active user.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Create Unquotable: and Uncycloversity: namespaces.                Smiddle             
  • Secret Remote Viewing powers as per a recent conversation on IRC. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me

Excuse me, ahem, Sir, Lord, Master, Her Highness, Your Highness, Excellency Sir Chronorian, i'm (gush & die) absolutely delighted to be axing you a question. i mean, (more gush, more die and lotsa swoon), sir, your honour, milord, pardon me, but what the bloody hell, whoops -- pardon my lowly tongue excellency, is a mediawiki? is it a wikipedia thingy perchance? (edited out queerish rest) -- mowgli 18:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If I might be permitted to answer, MediaWiki is the system by which we monitor your bathroom and bedroom activities while your computer isn't running. It's also the software that the site runs on, i.e., it reads from and writes to the database, parses out the Wiki markup code, generates all the HTML, and bans you for asking silly questions that you could probably find the answers to using any major search engine. But that isn't as important a function as monitoring your "B&B," obviously.  c • > • cunwapquc? 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • lol! ok i think i now know what it means. i need a day to digest/explore this and suggest what improvements it could do with. -- mowgli 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice some video resolution on the bathroom footage if we could get higher resolution on the bedroom stuff. In fact, I wouldn't mind losing the bathroom footage altogether... After all, this isn't ED, you know! c • > • cunwapquc? 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)