Forum:Uncyclopedia is NOT the worst

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Uncyclopedia is NOT the worst

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5108 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The first header for ease of editing

The way I see it, Uncyclopedia is approaching mediocrity at a steady pace - at least main page is; UnNews has, so far, saved it, and probably continues to do so. Why the raise? Fuck nose. There are two or three possible reasons. You count them, I'm not a fucking mathematician.

1. good, steady writers willing to take risks (someone like me, obviously, you got it) don't want to write here
2. said writers just write stuff and don't promote it because of etc. etc.
3. said writers don't want to nominate anybody else's shit for feature because (mostly) only mediocre stuff gets through (there are exceptions - but do get pissed off by what I said, nevertheless)
4. nobody else wants to nominate risky stuff for featuring for the same reason
5. if they do, it fails (duh)
6. you all suck (I no longer edit the site, I do what I promised - criticiZe it for my own pastime)
7. up-and-coming writers - who would normally like to take risks - are conforming because they don't want to antagonise anyone. They want their stuff featured so they see what gets featured and write accordingly.

All or some of these might be true. I bet all of it is, to some extent. Except you all sucking. I didn't mean that. I don't want to antagonise anyone. Don't be mad at me. Whatever the reasons, features have been otherwise good but totally ignorable as jokes lately. Nothing to give me a slap in the face. Don't be offended, writers: none of my own stuff is sidesplitting either. I guess I have to say this, too: this rant, as many of you will label it, is not about my own writing (give me a breaking fuck - of course it is about my own writing. I would love to write here but I suck too hard and I cannot face failing front page again and again).

Don't reply to this, this is an outside observation you can ignore. To those who don't know it: I'm a disgruntled former Uncyclopedian who wanted to steer the site into some crackpot direction. Ignore this.

-- Style  Guide 04:16, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Let's hear from you!

Well Multiliteralist, you do make some valid points, even if they are solely your own and you're likely to be brushed off as whatever. I've taken an indefinite haitus on writing on Uncyclopedia because the POV I'm accustomed to writing in (that of a total moron, making up blatant lies whereas others might just prefer a witty joke about the facts) is not always in favor on certain topics, but that's just my observation and what I choose to do about it, and most of my observations, admittedly, are wrong. That, and I'm just not funny. I agree with your last point more than any of the others, in that there is certainly a standard which is being directed, and quite frankly 90% of the content being approved of as "the best" is garbage in my opinion. First and second-person articles are okay (sometimes) if they're relevant, but the encyclopedic format we're parodying, and which I believe is the spirit of this site, is struggling to keep itself alive. The first and second-person articles are on the front page ad nauseum, and it's a POV which can be repeated to no end. It was experimental and somewhat of a novelty at first, but now it's just old and boring to me. I also imagine they're very confusing to readers who expect us to be a parody of Wikipedia, in the formatting style of Wikipedia, and come to find some article full of dialogue and memes. I think it's becoming a dumpsite for regurgitated material (which we're all guilty of writing, myself included), the stylings of which are becoming increasingly dominant and changing the overall house style of Uncyclopedia. UnNews, especially as it undergoes its improved formatting changes, is one of the few bright spots. I don't mean to sound like a naysayer or throw out generalizations about this beloved wiki (these opinions of mine are mostly based on my observations of the VFH which I think is the place to find out what the community consensus is on the desirability of the site's material quality and style-wise), but I've had discussions with Multiliteralist about the state of Uncyclopedia and I understand where he's coming from, even if we have slightly different reasons for agreeing on some of the same points. There's certainly something here for everyone, and there are few limitations on what you can create here, but I'm rather displeased with what the community (outside of my input) finds feature-worthy. But that's just me. What I think, solely, is not going to do shit about it, and I don't expect anyone to give a fuck about what I find hilarious or unfunny, or what I think Uncyclopedia should be (and if I decide to rant like some higher spirit offering guidance) because humor is subjective and I'm not the only editor to this site. I can only create what I find funny, perhaps with a purpose and some thoughts on what Uncyclopedia ought to be and contain, and hope that others enjoy it and agree with it. If they do, great, if they don't, I'll try something new or keep doing what I'm doing. I don't vote on the VFH anymore because a majority of my votes would be against, which would make me look like a dick with his thumb up his ass who refuses to get over how the content around here isn't how I'd want it to be. But I digress, because I really came here to talk about thumbs up asses. --EMC ^[TALK] 04:51 Mar 31 2010

When you say uncyclopedia is approaching mediocrity... is that a good or a bad thing? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:54, 31 Mar 2010

I would say its a good thing. If current trends continue, 50% of our articles should achieve mediocrity by 2030. --Mn-z 05:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS --EMC ^[TALK] 06:02 Mar 31 2010

Tell us something we don't know. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 06:12, Mar 31 2010

Really? Sorry you feel that way Multi. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 06:12, Mar 31 2010

Mediocrity is the worst. Uncyclopedia is the worst. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:26, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Mediocrity is (this may come as a surprise to you) MEDIOCRE!! Also, I'm not much of a fan of 1st- or 2nd-person narratives either (except where relevant, yes), but that's beside the point. I'm only advocating tolerance in regard to VFH, because it will make for a more interesting site. Interesting. A joke cannot be good or bad (in terms of literary quality elsewhere) - it either makes you laugh or it doesn't. That's how you evaluate it. This article is the latest perfect example of what I mean and what I meant before. Who the fuck cares if 10 uncyclopedians thought it sucked? It would still make a fucking great feature because it would draw attention to the site. OK? And although the idea is very clear from sentence one - what of that? It's not as if features have never been too long. Also - this type of humour is VERY obvious. What of that? Most humour I've seen on here has always been too obvious for me to laugh at. I don't imagine all of it has been boringly obvious to everyone else. Yet I don't go vote the articles down all the time. What's more important: what is obvious to us as humourists isn't necessarily obvious to those who hit the site by accident. -- Style  Guide 06:41, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

And so forth

Sorry Necropaxx - you're not a bad dude but I'll not pass this one. Here is another perfect example of what I'm against in Uncyclopedia. How in the fuck would it hurt you or anyone else if this article was featured? What else is wrong with it but the fact that it is short? Fuck that shit! Why not make up exact rules for feature while we're at it? How do you know there aren't hundreds of millions of people who think: "Look, that's a funny idea: feature something short and non-accessible LOLZ"? Some of those might become great contributors for the site. Not mediocre ones. And what's the worst thing that can happen? Someone with the patience of Homer Simpson may think: "Not my kind of humour, that. So this is Uncyclopedia? I'LL NOT HAVE A LOOK AT ANOTHER ARTICLE BECAUSE THIS SUCKS!! I'M OUT OF HERE FOREVA!!" -- Style  Guide 07:08, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Can you make your points without jumping off a rant board Multiliteralist? Is this how you are in real life?? Intemperate and ready to go for the throat of people who disagree with you??? I did once try to have a discussion with you but in the end you admitted that it was all for playing along. I don't mind disagreeing with anyone but I realised that a lot of what you say+do needs to be taken with a bowl of salt. After all, it was only a few months you stuck two fingers up to this site and made yourself at home at Illogicopedia. What went wrong there since from my observations, that site seems more suited to you than this one? Still - as I say, when you are here the place does liven up. If Uncyclopedia didn't have discussions about what is good,bad or indifferent, it would be a lifeless place. But this time..don't go off in a huff and take your ball home. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:35, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

That's a load of bollocks Romartus - I'm not intemperate. -- Style  Guide 07:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think that is one of your jokes because you certainly write like a Mr Angry! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:52, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Admit it, you replied mostly because my criticism hit you too. Also, I'm not ranting. I'm giving examples in a language I make interesting by using words like "fuck" to give it some staccato. I don't want it to look bland but interesting. The other reason for your reply was because my language struck your sensibilities. Interesting, correct? Oh yes - and nothing went wrong with Illogicopedia. I just wrote off editing wikis as a great waste of time, but a waste anyway. Why do I write on this forum then? Two reasons. 1) I think I might come back some day but first I'll want to see if it will be worth it and 2) because I love to criticixe stuff I see as wrong, or misthought. And, I have nothing else to do right now. -- Style  Guide 07:55, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

"What else is wrong with it but the fact that it is short?" Well, it also didn't make me laugh at all, but I'm not very good at being diplomatic when saying that. Which is why I usually go for the other reasons. I'm not sure why you're complaining about a lack of variety either - I've seen loads of it. Go to Best of, and compare the amount of alt. namespace features in 2009 with the amount in 2008. 2009 had far more - a sign that we are broadening our humor horizons. We also had several features in the vein of why u should be christian - The fact that you don't want a poodle comes immediately to mind. Search for features with long titles in 2009, that's usually an indicator that they're zany. You may be right in noticing that there haven't been many of these types of features lately. So what? Right now we as a community are edging away from our zany style and working on our encyclopedic style. There is nothing wrong with that. In a few months, maybe a few weeks, we'll have moved back to non-encyclopedic articles. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 14:43, Mar 31 2010

So wait, you have a problem with people not taking risks with what they write? I just take articles on Conservapedia and twist their hatred and make it praise. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem either way. I just think it's a bad idea to encourage writers not to take risks on a comedy site. By this, I mean people should be a good bit more tolerant when they vote on VFH. I'll not let go of this idea any time soon. -- Style  Guide 08:18, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki. The only person who can help make this wiki better is you. That you think it's not better than it should be is your fault. I hope you're proud of yourself. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:37, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be proud of himself. I'll do that for him! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:40, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is already far better than it should be - I'm trying to make it worse. As I said, it's no longer the worst but on an uphill skid towards mediocrity. Defying the laws of thermofuckericks big time. -- Style  Guide 10:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

lul

Uncyclopedia is for cock-suckers and whatnot. 71.14.37.4 07:52, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

This guy is right. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 07:53, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about whatnot though. -- Style  Guide 08:02, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I am. —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 08:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you must be a whatnot then. How else could you be sure? -- Style  Guide 08:15, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia - the funny Conservapedia!

Wow man, I really do have some time dick on my hands today! Anyway. As long as many of you keep taking humour as another religion, the features will not be varied enough to be interesting. To make it clear: I am not after some certain type of humour. I am after greater variety. This will come about when - well, I'll have to guess - most of you ease up a bit and keep that Against-vote to yourselves when it's not absolutely necessary to vote against. You all know what I mean. -- Style  Guide 12:17, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the sage advice, I for one likey. And the fact that you care about the site enough to start a needed discussion, as well as to give the before-mentioned sage advice, makes me hope that you will stick around and play again on Uncy for awhile. Al de'chain 12:34 31 3 2MX

So, basically, you want to ensure more variety and openness by getting everybody else to vote the same way you'd vote? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:12, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

This is an environment of welcoming, and you should just get the hell out of here. Sir ColinAYB - CUN - VFH - Whoring - More Whoring - 16:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind? I'm trying to eat my vegetarian lasagna. My secret to making it so tasty is beef. (Also, fix your sig) Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:25, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence. That's how I make vegan lasagne too. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 16:35, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Better? - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at {{{1}}} - 16:37, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Much. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:48, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. But forget it. -- Style  Guide 16:30, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I can't. I just can't forget this delicious lasagna. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:48, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

You will forget in a few days, I'm sure. If you don't, let me have the recipe. -- Style  Guide 18:12, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Why?: Vote Against Articles

Actually, the hesitance to vote against articles is one reason why "bland" articles tend it to so well on VFH. Basically, everyone effectively rubber-stamps any non-offensive "normal" decent article. But the funny risky articles get against votes, and rarely get enough extra "for" votes to overcome the negatives. And people don't like to be the first person to vote against an article.

There is also the problem of a conservative (as in bland) "pseudo-consensus" emerging, from the hesitance to vote against weaker normal articles. Basically, the voter thinks "this is sorta funny, but everyone else likes it, and I don't want to be the only "against/abstain" so he votes for.

If people were even more hesitant to vote against, the "pseudo-consensus" will drift "rightward". As an example, The fact that you don't want a poodle received 8 against votes while the much less funny Ussher received 0 against votes. If everyone was hesitant to vote against, I could the system degenerating into, everyone thinking, "well, Ussher isn't that funny, but it looks well-written and correctly formatted, and the author has a high edit count, and I don't want to be the first person to vote against it." Whereas one as one could vote against The fact that you don't want a poodle since looks abnormal, and was written by a drunken sockpuppet [assuming the puppetmaster was still unknown].

On a related note, from the discussion on against votes, I don't remember if you answered this question or not, but, to be blunt:
How in holy hell is VFH supposed to work if nobody votes against? --Mn-z 17:07, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I did answer it then and I don't mind answering it now. I have nothing against people voting against. It's only the malicious, ignorant, and/or uncertain against I'm against. You know. Do be honest and admit those happen. Also, as I stated, I would just like more tolerance. Not towards utter shit but towards good mischief - no matter what it's aiming at. I'm not complaining, as I have said before, because I feel mistreated myself. I don't. My second most mischievous article got featured, after all. And I have self-nominated only two so I see no reason to feel sorry for myself.

Please understand this: I'm trying to make the place more rewarding for those who have divergent ideas by trying to make it easier for them to get features. I don't give a fuck which way they diverge. A lot of All the best humour in the world is divergent, one way or the other. That's my whole point. Interest. If any of you think I have any ulterior motives, we can discuss it the next time I write an article. If most of you think the front page is divergent enough as it is (has been), fine. Then I have no case. Then you can all just forget my rants, which you can do anyway, of course. -- Style  Guide 18:10, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that we lack a system to judge an articles as "good". We have the top 5% or as as features or quasi-features, and the bottom 10% with some sort of "fix this" tag. So the writer of an article really gets no more recognition for an article that barely passes QA than on at the 94th percentile. Unfortunately, I don't see any way around that issue. You could try showing off "ignored" good divergent articles at VFG, but that place is dead more often than not. --Mn-z 05:39, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say...

...as much as I appreciate the passion behind the comments here, I feel like I'm reading a conversation between the Walrus and the Carpenter. Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 21:08, Mar 31 2010 UTC

a melancholist stabs himself to relive his life --nldr 21:15, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

nachlader is incomprehensible upon a cursory observation • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Wednesday, 22:12, Mar 31 2010

I'm disappointed in all of you

No one has even touched this for 98 days now. I've seen no work or progress and quite frankly I'm a little disheartened about the whole project. Just because you have nine months until the next new year doesn't mean you can piss off and go yank yourselves. Fuck you and I hope you get some sick. I hate hate hat you all. Hugs and kisses-- the bad kind,  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  31 Mar 2010 ~ 22:19 (UTC)

P.S. My views for VFH haven't changed & I still think we huff a few too many things on VFD. That is all. Pffffpthp!!!

Time for me to tackle this whole thing.

Multi, while I agree with you sometimes about your voting thing, you can't just hate against votes. Personally, I think it's funny when something like Euroipods gets featured, but many obviously disagree. I think, as a wiki, we should all lighten up a little. Multi, you need to stop screaming. You may disagree with that, but when you type WORDS IN ALL CAPS and use nice words such as "fuck", we all think you're ranting. You shouldn't take it so personally.

Everyone else, I think we should all take ourselves less seriously. We are a humor wiki. So what if an in-joke gets featured, or anything else out of process happens? I love the wiki like all of you, but I think as soon as we start taking things too seriously, we lose all of the fun.

OK, I'm going back to not being serious now. You're all gay, especially Syndrome.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 23:06, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

While I understand your point, which you put so eloquently, I do have to say, with all due respect YOU CAN GO FUCK YOUR MOTHER ANALLY WITH A LEG OF LAMB! Thank you for your time. Nominally Humane! some time Wednesday, 23:20, Mar 31 2010 UTC

Well, I'm glad it makes an impression, HELP ME. That's all I want to do: cause some drama. -- Style  Guide 04:19, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Let's say I buy this thing and admit I have been ranting without a reason. There's no real problem, Uncyclopedia is just fine, there's no unnecessary bitching, there's enough variety on front page, everything's cool, Dillinger down. End of story. In other words: sorry everyone, forget about it. -- Style  Guide 10:40, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean bury. Nominally Humane! some time Thursday, 10:46, Apr 1 2010 UTC

Burial not needed. -- Style  Guide 10:48, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I got what you meant. No, I meant buy. From those who would have me know it's all cool. -- Style  Guide 13:42, April 1, 2010 (UTC)