UnNews talk:Hope sucked out of Wikipedia, experts report

Is this really valid UnNews? It just seems like someone vaguely complaining about some Wikipedia project, which I imagine most people (including myself) have no clue about. --Composure1 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia!!!! Umm. Since when is there valid and not valid unnews? Have I been gone that long? Anyhow, Esperanza was a big shindig and the deletion discussion got about 600 edits from 200 wikipedia editors and thus it's probably notable of some sort. This "article" is comprised mostly of select quotes I garnered from the MfDs (including "obsessive nerds" etc), which are hilarious. It needs cleanup lawls but um. since when do we axe articles for complaining? --KATIE!! 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll axe any damned article I bloody well want... just not this one... and it's NOT because I fear Keitei (blatant lie). Can we get a pic and maybe a bit of a tidy up by someone who actually understands it? And don't start again about how stupid I am... I'm well aware of it, and I'm edumukating myself as best I can on a budget of a freelance hamster torturer. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Complaining" is not the reason for my, well, complaint, lol. I guess the reason I view it as "not valid" is because when I read it I found it 1) Not funny and 2) Not notable. Although perhaps I found it not funny only because I don't know the topic. But in my opinion I would consider anything related to internal wikipedia (or any other wiki) stuff not notable (i.e. the average reader would have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if "The Onion" suddenly ran an article about some staff dispute at the New York Times.) Anyway, as you can see I didn't slap an NRV tag or anything like that on this article -I am just expressing my opinion in this discussion section and trying to find out what others think. --Composure1 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Signpost!. This here wiki was founded to parody Wikipedia, don't see why we shouldn't every once in a while. Anyhow, I provided all of the context links a person could need, so the ones who will find it funny will, and the ones who won't can see why I think it's funny, but probably will be too lazy to do that. And how. --KATIE!! 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's goddamn hilarious to those of us who've suffered this particular idiocy in editing Wikipedia, and ties into Uncyclopedia's mission as a Wikipedia parody. Esperanza had bloody barnstar police going to user talk pages and informing people of the correct usage of high-fives awarded by people who weren't them. Fucksake! - David Gerard 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)