Forum:Return of Colonizations?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Return of Colonizations?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6445 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well, I must say that I am somewhat surprised by the fanbase Afghanistan has as a model for collaboration, and while some have commented it perhaps wouldnt be featured if it were made today due to increasing overall quality, I still think it is above par as far as articles go, and its certainly a better article than the one pre-collaboration. But the fatal flaws of the colonization system we had was that it wasnt focused enough. Having something for biographys, geography, history, science, etc seemed like a good idea at the time, but I think it diverted too many people in too many directions for such a young project. If we bring it back, we should limit it to one per week (or longer?) and just set the criteria for the weekly pick that it be a real life, well known person place or thing that a large quantity of people would be able to contribute to. No more Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and more Afghanistan's. Also, the "This article has been colonized." never really helped and just kind of gets in the way, so we should probably remove it from articles. Just putting it in a category is good enough after its done. So what say everyone? ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Just in case I didn't make it clear below, I support this. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• We can give it another try. I think if we do as Rangeley suggest it may work. Even if it only works for some time and gets shot down later as the previous, it's worhtwhile.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 23:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yep. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• I did a little for the Philadelphia one before the thing went belly up. I think it's a good idea and deserves another go. Working with others can be quite frustrating trying fun. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Singing the Canadian National Anthem. Any chance a Canadian gets to colonize something, he takes it. --The Zombiebaron 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• this is a good idea: (i) uncyc. has more people than before and this will only go up with time, (ii) there are contributors here who are genuinely interested in just blending in and remain faceless - it too is a thrill. to ellaborate, most will agree that what makes uncyc. different from writing anywhere else is that it is a wiki, which means that it is collaborative by definition. i'm sure many realize this. does wikipedia offer prizes et al to encourage people to contribute? i don't know but i'd doubt they need goading or incentives there to increase participation, (iii) some sort of time limit (like one a week) is good, (iv) the quality of "basic" articles (that are perhaps stubs or missing) must go up and i think collaboration *is* the way to go here. -- mowgli 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• I dunno, it just seems to me like it's been all but proven by now that awards and contests are the way to motivate most writers here to do anything, and to some extent that even seems to be true of motivating them in a particular direction, such as towards writing about real (and preferably historical) persons/places/events. Relatively few users here are in the User:Rangeley or User:Claudius Prime mold, who genuinely want to improve our coverage of real subjects... I know there are already a lot of awards being voted on, possibly too many, but something like that seems likely to be more effective at this point. We'd have to stipulate that the award could be shared somehow among multiple collaborating users, of course.  c • > • cunwapquc? 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Anything that would improve the content on Uncyclopedia is fine by me. I know the awards side of things can be a good motivator, and the ego-enhancing feeling of having your work featured is pretty nice too, but, speaking for myself, I'm just as proud of the articles that I have had featured that were collaborations, as I am for the individual work. In some cases more so, as I find that collaborations often allow for that "little extra" that turns a good article into a great one. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That's the problem though, Mhaille... I think you've got to look at it more from the perspective of the new and/or occasional contributor. Well-established users like you, and (to a lesser extent) me, have very little left to prove at this point. If we're really looking to get n00bz and occasional users to choose subjects that we need better coverage on, instead of whatever they might naturally write about, it just seems to me that whatever enjoyment is obtained from collaborating with a coterie of anonymous user accounts isn't going to get the job done. I wish that weren't the case, but I've been hanging around here 9 months now and that's really what I've come to believe. To be brutally frank, a new colonization section would just take up space on the main page that could be better used for more awards.  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nine months.....tempus fugit. I'd like to think that something like Colonisation could provide guidance for n00b and n00bettes, showing them how we can all work together for the betterment of mankind Uncyclopedia. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

re: "for the betterment of mankind Uncyclopedia." I agree with sir mhaille! i think it's a good idea to provide newbies (n00bs! -- i know how to spell it the right way. i'm not queer -- but i seriously doubt if there are any n00bettes here - or anywhere) direction, 'cos, let's be frank, the site is majorly confusing to those who aren't familiar with wikis (that's about all of mankind i think). personally i find "most wanted pages," featured bang in the middle of the main page, a thrilling enough appeal to make me want to contribute to it. imagine the "free links" my article (written in collaboration with myself, of course) gets. it gives me direction that goes to improve the overall quality of uncyc. while making me very happy. excellent arrangement! win-win!

BTW, the "colonization" tag should be removed in "afghanistan." -- mowgli 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I would like to try something different, like Marree Men, and in fact, I am trying something different, and that's Marree Men.

The Marree Men page is not just an effort coordination page. It's a clan page of the first Uncyc clan we have ever created. Unlike Imperial Colonizations, which yield nothing but once-off project teams, our Marree Men team, with their Dundee-endorsed expertise, will keep on improving other Australia-related articles even when it's done with the main Australia page (although I still haven't announced this on the Marree Men page). Of course, much work and more people are still needed before we can advance to that level, but the idea is there. -- The Colonel (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you make it an UnPortal?---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont really see this as a reason to oppose. Some people are out to help their egos, but others who come here might need a direction to be given to them before they start writing. And besides new people, this could give older members who have already proven their skill or given up trying something to do. I want to see good articles on Lebanon, Hezbollah, other pertinent stuff that we are really lacking in. Everyone knows a lot about them, so it would be perfect for such an effort. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people need more time than just one or two weeks to get along and find the right direction. We can't just put a time limit on stuff we want and kick out people simply out of our own impatience. We don't get paid for our work here, and we don't always have dedicated individual to write things that we so want to see. Face it - if there had been people who cared enough to write things on the topics you have mentioned, we would have seen the articles long time before. When determined individuals are not available, then we will have to go with those who are not so determined.

One good thing about clans is that people there are committed to groups, not articles, and this provides more flexibility in managing human resources, whereas in a project team, you have to go with whatever you are given, and should one of the members leaves or becomes slack for some reason, you get no subsititue. Even if you can get one, chances are that the person is not right for the team and you get yourself a handful. Anyway, my proposition is that we should try something new before we go back to our old classic.

-- The Colonel (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not a strict project, anyone who wants to play along can do so. With a lot of people working on a well known topic, little ideas can be strung together into something cohesive, like Afghanistan. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that why people lost interest in it before? I don't mean any disrespect here at all, but if there's no concrete objective, no tangible reward, and no definable endpoint, people are just going to lose interest in it, and pretty quickly at that. It's just human nature, if you ask me... And I just don't think collaboration, as an end in itself, is going to get it done. I honestly believe it would be much more effective, and a better use of main-page real estate, to create some sort of "Encyclopedic Content-Nazi of the Month" award and put the user on the main page instead, rather than a set of links to articles in progress. And I know this is just my opinion, but the reason we don't have good articles on Lebanon and Hizbollah is more likely to be because it's too hard to write anything funny about those subjects without offending people, and potentially making enemies of them. There are really very few people here who enjoy offending people enough to write articles like that...
With Afghanistan, we were lucky, because when you (Rangeley) set it up to be colonized, you had the foresight to add "Invasion by..." headings that sent it in a direction both liberals and conservatives (and possibly even Islamic Jihadists) could agree on. The invasions are objective fact, and the fact that every one gets botched is sort of funny to nearly everyone (except the people who are actually there, of course). But I'd say very few real subjects lend themselves to such a universally-agreeable approach (and in this case, very few countries have that kind of history). Anyway, I'll try to get off the soapbox now.  c • > • cunwapquc? 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If I had to point to things that were problems last time, it was that there were too many going at once, and the topics for which they had chosen were largely obscure. There is a limited supply of people who participate in these things, having one at a time will help to focus them in one place. With stricter rules about what can be picked, the topics can be sure to be notable enough so as to have a lot of knowledgeable people. Also, we have more people here today than we did in November and and December, so the chances of success can only be higher. Another problem was management, having to update every template, remove templates from pages, place them on the new article of choosing, and everything else took upwards of an hour. I didnt want to keep doing it every week. With one going at a time, this problem is also greatly lessened. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't Care, Just Like to Make Hilarious Comments

Chuck Norris OWNS you all lol! But actually, I think this could be a good idea, so long as good writers would collaborate, and not incredible retards. I know I'd try to help if we brought it back. Thats just my two cents. Maybe three. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We Care, But Just Not Enough to Add Anything Constructive

I enjoy the way the creator of this thread has attempted to co-opt the natural irreverent flow of a VD discussion with these headings, and I recommend he be voted to Featured Person status immediately. FreeMorpheme 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't actually create the thread, though...  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody cares

• --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused

i'm not exactly sure i understand what you're trying to say. however, from the little i have understood;

• i agree, "it (afghanistan) is above par as far as articles go." I have heard people say that it wouldn't be featured today because of it's quality but what do people know about quality.

• I never understood why the article was tagged with a banner that said it had been colonized. i never clicked on "colonized" because i thought i knew what it meant. i now know that i did not know what it meant, lol. i understand now that colonization = collaboration.

• being unfamiliar with uncyc. rhetoric i'm still unable to understand what you are trying to say. give me a day before closing votes.

• if you are saying that "afghanistan," despite it's "colonized" tag was never a product of joint effort and that you were a significant (or sole, or most participative) contributor to it, then perhaps you are right.

• but i am inclined to believe that tags like "colonized" (now that i know what it means) are to be encouraged. fundamental articles in uncyc. (like on nations, religions, ethnicities) should be made collaborative if they are found lacking in any respect: it's like a community service every significant contributor to uncyc. should be punished with to uplift the standrard of uncyc. for the greater good etc. these are the articles most frequently searched by visitors. a chinese will click on "china;" a jew will click on "hitler;" a homosexual will click on himself; an addict will click on "marijuana" and so on and so forth. the first impression ought to be the best impression (ever wondered why women use lipstick on their lips upstairs only?).

• gimme a day. lemme understand what's being discussed here. lemme vote and then you can all archive this pretty little folder without taking any action.

• god bless

• my signature (lest i forget it) -- mowgli 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to the growing Criticism

I have set up the Colonization of the week nomination process. Check it out Here. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)