Forum:Yet more ideas for making Uncyclopedia grow even more

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Yet more ideas for making Uncyclopedia grow even more

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6384 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Well, I take a look at Uncyclopedia and say to myself: "How can I change things for the better?" Usually, I'll answer something along the lines of, "that wasn't proper grammar at all," which then degenerates into namecalling and giving myself the silent treatment for a while. But I digress. Here's my "Bradaphraser wish list" that I think community support could actually get done on our own.--<<>> 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently, a lot of n00bs are claiming they're being bitten

To help with this, I wrote Bite the N00b using Wikipedia's "Don't bite the n00bs" policy as a base. It's basically a list of things you shouldn't do, which I'm hoping actually gets extended to being a usable ignorable policy sometime. I know this is being bounced around already, and don't have my heart set on my version being what turns into the ignorable policy. I just think we need to start referencing people to a "be nice to N00bs" policy for stuff like what's been happening at VFP lately (among others).--<<>> 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts:

• First, lay out an unofficial code of conduct (code of Misconduct?) for people (admins, users, new users). It should be short and to the point: treat other people as you would have people treat you, don't be a dickhead, don't take yourself too seriously.

• Second, why not assume that users deserve respect, unless they give us good reason to act otherwise? Right off the bat, the term "noob" is derogatory and suggests that there's an ingroup of established users who won't respect you. Don't even joke about not treating users well. Remember the phrase, "much truth spoken in jest"? Likewise, a lot of our language is pretty frickin' aggressive. As people have noted, "No redeeming value" is a pretty harsh thing to have slapped on your work. Even a lot of awful articles have *some* redeeming value. It's hard enough getting your work marked for deletion without that added on- adding insult to injury, as they say.

• Third,chill out a bit on bannination and burnination. We need to get rid of the dickheads, sure. But it seems a warning shot across the bow for infractions, instead of an outright ban, might do the job in a lot of cases without alienating as many people. This place seems to be getting slightly control-freaky at times, which to me seems to be the exact opposite of why I like to write humor and what originally drew me to Uncyclopedia. Concerning our burn policies, it seems that there ought to be a grace period of at least a few days for new articles. Having something marked for deletion before you're even done writing is a bit over the top. InfiniteMonkey 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for that, I remember how i was really shakey writing my first piece (which was later huffed of course). We definetly need to be more Noob-friendly, and I think the NRVmini is a good step towards that. Add a serious FAQ page and we are getting somewhere....-- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is the difference between how we say we work and how we actually work. "Uncyclopedia:About" still says "Everything goes. If you have a question about it, it's probably okay unless you're destroying things. Try to think about whether Voltron in a drunken state would approve" which is directly in conflict with how the site currently works (I pointed this out months ago, but it hasn't been changed). A new user would tend to come in, (1) read that, figure, "hey, everything goes! I can do whatever I want and have fun!", (2) write something just for the hell of it, and (3) see their work almost instantly huffed. It would tend to piss me off if I came here, was told I could explore and have fun, and instantly saw my work destroyed. We say one thing and do another, which looks like hypocrisy. Again, part of the problem is that the page is locked, so it can't be updated. The admins either need to update the pages, or unlock the pages so users can update them. Take a cue from HTBFANJS: it got nommed (and got a lot of votes) for Featured Article because people could fix it up and make it better. The stuff that's locked down is just stagnating.InfiniteMonkey 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for... I'm putting Uncyclopedia:About under your care, Infinite Monkey. It is now free, as free as the grass grows on a well-manicured lawn. Any other specific requests?--<<>> 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to everyone who's concerned about new users being 'bitten.' Together I think we can treat new users better, and uncyclopedia will be a better place as a result. While disrespect for the powerful is funny, disrespect for the powerless tends to only be funny if its fictional, and then only in certain circumstances. Come on, everyone who edits here is a human being who is at least entitled to be accepted as such, rather than being used as a emotional punching bag. We wouldn't tolerate an abusive new user, we shouldn't tolerate an abusive veteran either. It's not so much about people not having thick enough skins, its about what works for uncyclopedia, and driving people away, thick skinned or thin skinned, is not good for uncyclopedia. --Hrodulf 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't the standards changed in the last year and a half? It seems to me that stuff that was acceptable as a minor article then is considered immediate VFD fodder now. The average fresh-faced Intarweb surfer does not automatically write strong prose. It's a learned skill. Dilemma: as Uncyc becomes better-written overall it become harder for an average high-school-level writer to produce an article that measures up to entry-level standards. Perhaps this creates an additional dynamic: a cadre of "old-time" users who have adapted to a (very relatively) high standard of writing and, as is natural for humans and chimpanzees, impose the now-existing community norms as if they had been in effect for all time and handed down by the Great Chimp Lucy the Language-Giver. There's not a clear resolution to this; Uncyc ain't going to get less well-written (unless it consigns itself to the garbage-heap) so we can only deal with changing standards as intelligently as possible, yes? But good discussion, Brad, and interesting thoughts, Hrodulf and others.----OEJ 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to ease up on the n00b-gressiveness, but we should still be able to joke about it. After all, everyone knows Uncyclopedia was really founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of past generations of nooblets, and people joke about slavery all the time. On a more serious note, I do think the Help and FAQ pages could be--how you say...--bitch-slapped into submission. They're actually pretty confusing, and the FAQ aren't the questions I'd have asked when I was a n00b (I still am, compared to a lot of long-time users). BTW, anyone know the page with the list of all the newest users? --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Noob impressions: I've been hanging around here annoying the crap out of all of you for ages, and I wouldn't say I've met with more incivility than I would expect from a humour site that is clearly not afraid to offend. I think it is natural for admins to get tougher on noobs, because as more and more flock here, the amount of crap increases. Unfortunately uncyc is a crap magnet for people (like me) who don't have the twisted ability to post lies on wikipedia. If noobs don't understand something, they should ask. and if they can't handle being offended, they should be shotprancing about in fields of daisies, not editing uncyc. -- Soul101 ~_MA^REPENT! 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pee review

This is in place now, but there is almost no traffic on it at all. I think the #1 way to get traffic on it is to send self-nommers there (as they'll always be checking to see if anyone's improving their stuff). As such, I'd like to tweak the rule for self-noms at VFH so each self-nom must stay a week on Pee review before being VFH'd (instead of just waiting a week while it just sits there rotting, which is what we have there now). I think this'll improve the traffic at Pee review, and maybe even improve the quality of the stuff sent to VFH. If not, no harm done. If so, so much the better.--<<>> 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Forum posts asking for comments on an article actually get more attention than Pee Review. Adding Pee Review to the Forums Index miht help. Replace BENSON with it and you hit two birds with a single stone.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea- I think the main problem with pee review is that people can't be bothered to look at the ones which are lower down the list, despite the fact that these are the ones which have had the longest time since their last edit (which is often just the original message asking for advice). My only suggestion is to have articles removed from it as soon as the author's happy with them (using the "thanks" template) to stop it from clogging up, and possibly to have the order of the list reversed, with the most recently edited at the bottom... Perhaps even a specific indication for those that haven't had any messages put on them other than the original author's? I don't know how feasible that is, but it would be good... --Jamtrousers 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

++ - David Gerard 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Primary authors have taken responsibility for asking for help by posting their own articles on Pee Review. Perhaps instead when an experienced Uncyc user (Unpsycho?) finds a badly-wrighted ardickle he/she/it should post the piece to Pee Review, and then slap a message on the writer's talk page (this of course assumes that the article's author is registered and so has a talk page that is liable to be checked). Yeah, it exposes the new author to ego-damaging comments on his/her/its work, but it ain't nearly as ego-damaging as finding the ardickle being pounded like an abalone steak on VFD, right?----OEJ 19:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Further thought: the notification on the user's talk page should, in the interests of politeness, include a link to the individual Pee Review on the article in question. There could be a template made for this purpose, yes?----OEJ 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, but have no template-making skillz. Or maybe I'm just lazy... whatever.--<<>> 20:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing is, Pee Review only works for people that are inspired to do work on their articles and improve them. Many people aren't. The vast majority of crappy articles, if they were placed in Pee Review, would just go ignored. Pee Review is supposed to be quick suggestions to help the author make his article better, not a fancy place to put articles for other users to rewrite and improve. It could be that, but it shouldn't be that. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with that, ENeGMA. The question now raises itself (like Count Dracula from his new-age hyperbaric crystal-power coffin): If a new user is not willing to work on his article and improve it, is it upon our heads to convince him to do so? I would argue it isn't. Which implies that there may be a certain kind of new user that it's actually counterproductive to mollycoddle because they're too lazy or ignorant to pull their weight. Is that a fair statement or an unfair one?----OEJ 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Double Plus For As per David Gerard. --The Zombiebaron 22:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Elect me Official Scapegoat of Uncyclopedia

That way, if anything goes wrong, it'll automatically be my fault. This way, instead of wasting time blaming each other for stuff, we can actually get stuff done. Also, I'm sick of Famine being the unofficial scapegoat (what can I say? I'm jealous of his position). Thank you, that is all.--<<>> 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia's New Scapegoat

Please vote below. Results will be shown when you have voted.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.

Brad

Famine

There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 01:35, 13 January 2013.

poll-id C82B243031D70B101ED57CA701D07383

Obligatory Poll

• Yes--The One and Only Czar Yah 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Obligatory vote, followed by an obligatory comment and sig. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Blffffft! followed by an obligatory pun. --Cainad | Speak with The Eye 04:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Making UN:FAQ to actually answer the frequently asked questions

Seriously, how many times some veteran users bark to the noobs after being asked questions like how to upload a picture for the millionth time. Link the noob to a real FAQ and problem solved!---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The UN:FAQ is basically useless. But it's not just that- layout of the site's help and policies need some overhauling.Under the Big Five, "Flamewar Guidelines" seems completely irrelevant to how the site actually runs these days, so it should be replaced by something useful. Nor is the "Beginner's Guide" as useful as it could be, since it fails to describe important parts of how the site works, like VFD and VFA. Meanwhile, "HowTo:Get Started on Editing Uncyclopedia" does have a lot of very useful information, but users are unlikely to find it, because it's buried in "Community Portal" where it's almost impossible to find (it took me quite a while to relocate it). We've got good stuff, like HTBFANJS, but a lot of the rest needs work. Part of the problem, of course (as has come up in other contexts) is that a lot of this is locked down- true, it can't be vandalized, but now it can't be improved, either, and it ceases to be a wiki.InfiniteMonkey 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... upon further review, UN:FAQ is not only unprotected, but it has never been protected, according to the wiki-logs...--<<>> 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So why don't we have a descent FAQ page then? eh? It must be your fault Brad.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that the fact the UN:FAQ sucking is totally my fault, it is NOT true that there are no useful FAQ's at Uncyclopedia. I'm not telling you where, though, because I suck. (This might be a good place to start, though. And no, I don't know why this is in a user's namespace and not in the Uncyclopedia namespace. I guess Todd's popular enough that it doesn't matter, though ;) ).--<<>> 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i too agree with this. UN:FAQ is lame. wikis don't have a ready "search" feature and if the FAQ is unhelpful (it's the second most accessed feature for help on any site) then there is pretty much no help available here. the beginner's guide discusses more of policy issues, etiquette and HTBFANJS but tells you little about "wikifying" or basic wiki tricks or stuff like user space, templates and categories (crucial for getting started). and why should new users ask "how to upload pics" again and again and why should the welcoming committee be burdened with answering this again and again. the FAQ should take care of this. you know what, certain sections SHOULD have this banner.

Shhhhhh! This is a humour free zone.

we should decide what these sections ought to be. definitely UN:FAQ. -- mowgli 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

correction. there *is* editing & formatting help a click away here - Help:HowTo. this page is accessible from both, the beginner's guide and the editing window. this is about the ONLY useful page for beginners. it links to "wikipedia's monster page" which is very useful. still, new users need crucial information about templates, signatures, QVFD, categories, tagging articles with templates & uncyclopedia hierarchy (super admins, admins, quasi admins, pseudo admins etc.) which is nowhere available. -- mowgli 12:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about UnWelcome

Do you think it would be a good idea to have sort of a place just for noobs, maybe a namespace with looser deletion rules and more hands on help from users, sort of like the kid's play place at McDonalds. This way noobs can learn at their own pace, as it were. I'm not sure if this is feasible or even desirable, but it would be a way to encourage new users to write (as long as they made an effort to write an original, non-vanity article), with all the helpful rules there. We could create an entire section, like UnBooks, which would exist only to showcase and foster noobs, and it could be called UnWelcome (naturally). Again, I don't know if anyone likes this idea or if its even worth anything, but I just thought of it. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This has actually been suggested several times before, and was even tried with "Undictionary." It hasn't worked yet, sadly.  :(--<<>> 22:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In my entire time here I don't think I've ever ventured into UnDictionary. Maybe it needs to be clear that this is a noob-friendly zone, and that it needs to be placed so it will have at least reasonable traffic. But yeah, UnBooks is basically barren, as are a lot of the other namespaces. To get any real traffic it has to be predominantly placed on the front page, like UnNews, but that doesn't really fit with our goal of copying Wikipedia. Basically the noobs just need a chance to learn what's acceptable and what isn't in a friendlier environment. Maybe the new tags will help matters, but I don't know. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Undictionary is hit and miss - a lot of it is pretty funny, but some is just bad. Treating it as a n00b practice zone would surely decrease the overall quality. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For a very long time it was exactly that. Surprising it has any quality left. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose a Noob: namespace to move NRV stuff to. They'll be able to keep their crap articles, we won't see them in the mainspace. Win-win. --User:Nintendorulez 20:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Absofreggintootly. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah heck yah! I can't wait to see the Noob:Vanity Page type articles, I'd imagine that Noob:Goatse would end up there as well. Sorry Noob, you aren't funny enough for a real article, we have to move it to the Noob namespace. Your article now resides in Noob:George W. Bush because you tried to post something unfunny to the George W. Bush article. Well I guess it is better than the Sucks: namespace or the NiceTry: namespace or the UnFunny: namespace. Sort of like a Sandbox they can try stuff out on. Also if they get grammar incorrect, be sure to reference the Bad grammar article when telling them that. Maybe they will get a laugh out of it and see how really bad grammar can be funny. Anyone want to write an HowTo:Be a Noob article yet? --Lt. Orion Blastar (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone already did. -- Hindleyite