Forum:Does uncyclopedia work in the wiki format?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Does uncyclopedia work in the wiki format?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6043 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I'm a fan of uncyclopedia. There are some very funny articles, generally written by one or two individuals. But as a collaborative effort, it doesn't work so well as wikipedia. Any articles that reach a semi-decent state are encouraged to be left alone, unlike the wiki "be bold" policy. I know this is because idiots tend to write crap things in them, but surely the point of a wiki like this is that we can work together to improve things, and that no article is ever perfect. Just wondered what others thought, really. Step13 15:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you add something to an article that is funny and doesn't suck, it'll usually stay. It's just rare that something some random IP adds qualifies. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't work in wiki formatting at all. In fact, we tend to just type in random C++ and hope it works. Does that answer the question at the top of the page? -- The Zombiebaron 15:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

<p style="color:green;">I <div style="color:blue;">prefer <b>random</b> HTML.</div><br /></p> —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that any site which becomes SO POPULAR, it acquires a cute, four-letter 'cool' abbreviation is doomed to failure and ridicule. Such would be the same for celebrities with one one 'name'. You will never find Uncyclopedia stooping to such levels just to take the 'easy way out'. WE are quite content to slowly and methodically doom ourselves. There are NO shortcuts in the attainment of control of internet information. I predict that soon, very soon, 'wiki' (as the kids say) will start CHARGING for information retrieval. It is then that Uncyclopedia's MASTER PLAN (copyright pending) will take effect. WE will give away our information, and thus CONTROL THE WORLD. (insert maniacal laughter here)--Finnius 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And there's nothing that you can do to stop us, now that you've been told our entire flaw-ridden plan! Ha ha ha ha! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:15, 17 Oct 2007

Yes, but we've hidden the plan very craftily in a topic that has nothing to do with flaw-ridden plans! You'll never find it! Ha ha ha! -- The Zombiebaron 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sure beats the highfalutin unmentionables out of Everything2, that's for dang sure. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 02:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way, Step13: was the Mona Lisa painted by Michelangelo or by a Wiki collaboration? Was War and Piece written by Dostoevsky or by a Wiki? Was the Treaty of Utrecht signed by Jimbo Wales, or by a group of Wiki Admins? All of these questions are, in fact, deeply and importantly stupid. We do what we do, usually without wearing underwear, and the method and means -- whilst imperfect -- are the best available at this time. ----OEJ 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Especially the underwearless bit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia seems to work well as a collaborative affair. Uncyclopedia works well with users doing their own aricles. Just wondered if Uncyclopedia could improve itself with a greater emphasis on collaboration. I know neither are masterpieces - they both have a rather poor crap-to-good article ratios. But is uncyclopedia really using the best available means at this time? Step13 14:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It may not be 'optimized', but the wiki system seems to work pretty well. It allows users to jump in and make minor corrections to things like spelling, punctuation, and formatting. We can rewrite crap whenever we feel like it. If users want to collaborate, they can do it on the discussion pages or in the forum. Again, it may not be the best thing ever, but I can't think of anything better off the top or bottom of my head. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm shit at writing articles, so I don't really care how things are done. I just make random amusing comments on discussion pages, write text adventures, vote for crap to be huffed, and sometimes clean stuff up. —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ohh im using TADS3..are you?--Finnius 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... I don't understand. Fetch me my brain medicine, please. —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 16:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to look it up. "TADS 3 is a robust, modern adult diaper specially designed for creating Interactive Fiction Yuky Doodies." Or something like that. ----OEJ 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interactive Fiction Yuky Doodies? How are they different from regular Yuky Doodies? —Comrade Pongo (V2) GS Implementor (Talk | Contribs | Award) 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't type in exactly the right command in the correct sequence at a very early stage, you'll get dysentery. And everyone will think you're lame because it lacks graphics. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 19:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia is working great. If you ignore all the crap (and crap and crap and crap) that nobody finds funny, the rest are exactly what we need. Like Led pointed out in another one of your topics, humor is completely relative. While one reader might find UnScripts:Grass in the Mist to be comedy gold, another might rofl every time he reads I maed a yuky doody. As a whole, our articles manage to reflect everybody's sense of humor. You just have to find the one right for you. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

YEs.--Oh Nut. 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)