Forum:Issues with VFH

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Issues with VFH

Note: This topic has been unedited for 1381 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Here is the reasons why I believe VFH is off.

1. It is a vote, not by consensus. Therefore, when people vote for or against, sometimes commentry is not followed. It is just a raw number, which feels wrong.
2. It does not require a PeeReview, which means articles are not reviewed by another editor before going into VFH. ~60% of our VFH submissions would be cut down.
3. Too many concurrent VFHs to allow an editor to thoroughly read. I propose a limit of 5 nominations at once.
4. It is not a community review process, like on Wikipedia, which means we aren't working together to improve the article.

Due to the shear amount of iffy VFH's, I think this can allow some order to take hold of what should go to VFH. Thank you, Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 16:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Gale5050, I don't feel that there is any problem with our current VFH process.

1. I feel like a broken record. Please stop posting Wikipedia's policies here. This is not Wikipedia. Yes, there are times when we do things similarly to Wikipedia, usually for the sake of creating more accurate parodies. But we do not have to do what they do. IMO, the raw number (i.e. democracy) is much fairer than some admin/committee reading through everything and then subjectively making a declaration.
2. Articles are not necessarily reviewed by anyone before going into VFH, so? They are reviewed by the editors who vote on them.
3. This is by far the worst part of your overall proposal. A limit on VFH nominations would undoubtedly discourage writing and participation on Uncyclopedia. Furthermore, what would we do when several editors want to nominate an article but can't? Should we have some kind of waiting queue? Or do we have to check our phones every 10 minutes when a nomination is close to passing/failing in hopes that we can get ours in? There are not too many concurrent VFHs to allow an editor to thoroughly read the articles. Are there too many to read in one sitting? Probably, but that's okay. The more VFH-worthy content we have, the better.
4. This is a community review process. The community reviews the articles and votes on them. In many instances, other editors bring up suggestions, and then we do work together to improve articles. MrX blow me 05:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's sort of true. But because not everyone is able to vote on it. And because sometimes they literally don't explain why, there is no persuasion. That is a bad thing, and on top of that, it appears people just don't care about minor issues that would be pointed out in a PeeReview.

Another issue is a lack of WikiProjects. Basically, we all vote on the same articles without some people voting on one and some voting on the other. Gale5050 complain about me! [[wp: Special: Contributions/Gale5050|And see my Wikipedia contributions!] 12:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Gale, what do you mean by 'not everyone is able to vote on it'? If you want to vote, you can. Not everybody needs to give a detailed review. VFH is about choosing good articles, not reviewing them meticulously. That's what Pee Review is for. Also, if you really care about minor issues in nominated articles, just fix it yourself. We're a wiki after all.

FYI, there are different projects on Uncyclopedia: e.g. UnNews, HowTo, and Why?. It's just that they're more closely linked to mainspace than in Wikipedia. ~ Hipponias^CUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  13:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hipponias, I can't, unless it's in a narrow subject. Because this is technically a forum vote, I can participate in this. Plus, Zombiebaron said "start a forum vote". We actually used to have a requirement to PeeReview and it got removed. Should be re-added. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 13:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, Zombie updated your sanction on 27 December, so you can now access any voting page. Having a Pee Review before voting might have been a good idea, but reviewing takes time and I believe VFH had too many nominations to review properly, so they changed the policy. ~ Hipponias^CUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  13:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense. However, it also allows people to nominate bad articles for VFH. The biggest issue is the prose. It appears no one even cares about it, despite it making or breaking your experience. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 13:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Gale5050, once again, you haven't exactly addressed Hipponias's question about not everyone being able to vote, and you've started to bring up things that aren't entirely relevant/correct. Look, there's nothing terribly wrong with bad articles being nominated for VFH. If they're too bad, they won't get featured, it's that simple. Most articles, especially those nominated for VFH, don't need a pee review. You seem to think that a pee review is a magic wand that will always make any article significantly better. It's not. It's one editor (or perhaps multiple editors have collaborated on pee reviews in the past) using a helpful blueprint we have to review an article and make suggestions. Often times, there are no significant changes that need to be made after a pee review. Let me just sum up my views to let you know how I will vote if there are any specific votes proposed: I am opposed to any changes to our current VFH process, I am strongly opposed to any requirements such as pee review before an article is allowed to be nominated, and I am Chuck Norrisly strongly opposed to a limit on the amount of VFH nominations at a given time. MrX blow me 19:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

VFD has a 20 article limit. I think a PeeReview is needed and, a requirement of a 35 or more to be nominated. Some articles I'd give a 30 or less in a PeeReview. Most articles in VFH do need it, as we don't nominate very many articles for VFH. For instance, the prose on many is bad. IMO, it's gonna cut down on articles that are 2 weeks old and need more work. Having a 35 will allow us to confirm it's funny, and if any improvements need to be made, they will. If no improvements need to be made, it would be in the 40s and thus VFHworthy. PeeReview generally allows improvements to be made-see Interstate 95 following a pee review. Turned out to only get a 25.5 Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I've been trying to tell you? If the prose is bad, fix it yourself. An admin will not ban you for sanction violation if you make a good-faith and non-disruptive edit to improve the formatting (just make sure you know what correct formatting is first). As MrX has said, Pee Review does not magically make articles better, it only provides the author with a second opinion and some advice on their article. If a bad article is nommed for VFH, it won't pass. Period. ~ Hipponias^CUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  21:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not fully true, I opposed many articles that still passed. Some I'd only give a 25-30 in PeeReview. Therefore, I disagree with "If a bad article is nommed for VFH, it won't pass. Period." because unfortionately that isn't true. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, on UnNews:Free Julian Assange campaign successful, EMC, an admin and bureaucrat, also voted oppose. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your elitism, rudeness, and pretentious have reached a new level. Just because you opposed an article for VFH does not mean that it was a bad article. MrX blow me 21:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, however, just because you support an articles doesn't make it a good article either. That's why we need a confirmation that it's good. There is no elitism going on here, I am saying exactly what it is on Wikipedia. We shouldn't formulate Wikipedia all the way, but we shouldn't not formulate to them at all. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 23:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gale5050: I never said that my support means an is article good. However, your preceding comment clearly means that you think that your oppose means an article is bad. MrX blow me 17:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Gale people are free to vote the way they like for whatever reason they want (as lone as there isn't meatpuppetry). Constructive criticism should be encouraged but it is not necessary and people can choose to comment if they wish or not and comment however they like (as long as it isn't abusive and preferably with good faith). There are very few nominated articles and we never had a problem in the past when there were dozens up for vote. We don't need to make it a community involved process, we don't have thousands of users like on wikipedia and some users aren't interested in collaborating. Those who are should be encouraged to do so, those who wish to do other things can still vote but not contribute. The system isn't broken it doesn't need fixing. ShabiDOO 00:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that is somewhat of a good point. However.....it shouldn't be encouraged, but required. When you vote support or oppose, you have to weigh it. This way, it isn't a raw number. Just saying "for" or saying for without strong reasoning won't count as much as an oppose with strong weight as to what needs to be improved.Going back to Uncyclopedia: VFH/Human rights]-I left constructive criticism and you never replied. 😐. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 01:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That literally took 3 minutes to save, 😐 . Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 01:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I came up with a solution. We have a descretionary range(+1 to +3), in that range, the closing admin chooses whether or not to nominate it based off of the weight of each support or oppose votes, after reading the comments. This will be more of an encouragement to have people participate. That's a comprimise to one of my solutions, however, it doesn't solve the max amount of VFH articles, or the PeeReview thing. @Shabidoo:, @Hipponias: and @MrX:, what do you think of my solution? Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 01:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, if you would actually read what we are trying to tell you, you'd know what I think of your "solution" to a non-existent problem. MrX blow me 17:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Erm, I can't. And this problem isn't "non existent"- this should not and would not have been featured if we were to require PeeReviews. This is a problem that is existent. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean you can't? Why can't you read what people are trying to tell you? And actually Social Credit System probably would've scored very high on a pee review, but then again, it all depends on who's doing the pee review. Please try to understand that humor comes in many forms. Just because some people don't understand certain jokes/articles/etc. doesn't mean that they aren't funny. MrX blow me 21:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You have the right to your opinoin which I respect, but I, while giving it a 9 or 10 in humour, I would have given it a 7 on concept, probably a 6 on images, and like a 2 on miscallenous(literally can't see it). Prose is also a 6, its ok. That's a 31 or 32, which isn't great. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 21:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gale5050: You are, once again, not answering the question: why can't you read what people are trying to tell you? And if you want to see Social Credit System, which would be a good idea before judging it, just click the buy now button a few times. MrX blow me 22:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ping didn't work, and it's not a few times. It would take a while to figure out what to click, and it's still 6 times. It's not funny; it's an annoyance. I would change my PeeReview significantly off that. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 01:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. I'm going to move this to your talk page where it might be easier to spell it out for you. And you don't find it funny, but most others do. MrX blow me 15:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Noooooo, then I can't even respond! In either case, featured articles should be what everyone(or at least 80% of people find funny), not contreversal articles in which ~60-70% find it funny. IMO, instead of being a number, it should be minimium support, which I would say should be 70-80%.

What do you mean you can't respond? If you're referring to your sanctions, while they might not explicitly state that you can edit your talk page, I'm pretty sure that's okay, especially since you have, and it hasn't been a problem. As for your opinion about changing VFH, well, it doesn't look like many agree with you. MrX blow me 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No I am talking about Talk: Social Credit SystemGale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 17:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Re to Shabidoo's concerns.(1) VFH does include comments, just that they don't get weighted. (2) PeeReviews help insure any issues are fixed. Encouragement is unfortunately not enough. (3) That's reasonable and I'm somewhat ok with it. (4) It should be a community involved process. Absentions/all that stuff should be accounted for. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote

VFH votes should include comments

Score: -3

Against

1. We've never had this rule, don't see why we need it...things work fine the way it is. ShabiDOO 00:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Comments are great but should not be required. MrX blow me 17:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
3.  Against. per MrX. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominated articles should be pee reviewed

Score: -2

Against

1. This is overly cumbersome, I doubt we could get enough users to pee review everything. It should be encouraged but not mandatory. ShabiDOO 08:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Again, pee review is getting a second opinion and suggestions when the author wants them. There is no reason this should be required before VFH. MrX blow me 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There should be a limit to the number of nominated articles on VFH

Score: -2

Against

1. There was a time when there were potentially dozens of articles up for vote (as one was featured a day) and we all had time to read them. ShabiDOO 00:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
2. Absolutely not. This would discourage writing and create logistical issues. MrX blow me 17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

VFH should be a more community involved process

Score: -2

Against

1. The system isn't broken and doesn't need improvement. It is fine the way it is. Users should be encouraged to provide constructive criticism or seek pee reviews but it is not essential. ShabiDOO 00:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
2. You haven't actually proposed anything. Anyway, as I already said, this is a community involved process. The community reads, reviews, and votes. Often times, there are also suggestions and improvements made by the community as a whole. The process is fine, it works, and it's fun. Nobody else has a problem with it. MrX blow me 17:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Relating to MrX's vote

• • I've been trying to avoid directly posting under votes, but while it is sort of a community process, there are multiplr problems. (1) its solely a vote, meaning people's conflicts of interests get involved, people can vote for just because they like the subject or author. (2) Generally there is only 5 votes. Or 6. I want something like 15 votes at a minimum, I want the entire community to discuss. If there are 6 votes, but 9 people who oppose it can't reach it in time, then that is an issue. IMO, all VFH articles should be open for at least 30 days, zero exception, even if the outcome is obvious. Because it may not be. (3) The community often doesn't review. They often don't read it before voting. (4) It's voting, not a whole process with a developing consensus is one way. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 19:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Gale5050, you're the only one who feels that there is a problem with the process, and you're the only one who doesn't seem to understand that the community is involved. Also, who exactly are you accusing of voting without reading?? And finally, a minimum amount of time for a VFH to be open might actually be okay, but a 30-day minimum is a ridiculous proposal. I would oppose anything longer than 3 days. MrX blow me 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Answer to (1), that isn't fully true. We so far had 3 people comment, who all like that. Doesn't mean other users who have not found this forum are into it. We have to let this forum stay open. (2) No one in particular, but some people skim it. I sometimes do it, but now I do digest the info and mix it with prose. If prose is particularly awful, oppose without reading content. (3) Some people only check in on VFH once a month, so therefore keeping it open for a month would ensure anyone who wanted to vote on it, can vote on it. 3 days is way too little, as generally that only allows VFH regulars to participate and some people can only log in once every few days. Maybe 2 weeks? Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Who are the 3 people who "like that"? And who exactly are you accusing of just skimming articles before voting on them? MrX blow me 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Forget what I ever said about people not reading. It has been struck out. There is no "3 people who like that", I was seperating out my points, so that was my 3rd point. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 20:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
            • What? Gale5050 that's not what you said. "Answer to (1), that isn't fully true. We so far had 3 people comment, who all like that." That was the beginning of your message, not your 3rd point. If you're going to participate in discussions that could potentially shape Uncyclopedia policies (especially if you're going to be starting these kinds of forums), then you need to be able to communicate clearly and not make unsubstantiated claims (especially claims that accuse other editors of something negative). If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then you should stop participating in these discussions. MrX blow me 20:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Oh. That was the 3 editors involved in this discussion-you, Hipponias and Shabidoo. What I am saying is, is that we didn't have the whole community involved, and I would appreciate if other people gave insights as well. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
                • I said that you are the only one who feels that there is a problem with VFH, and that was your response. I'm now starting to doubt your honesty and am considering listing you at Ban Patrol. MrX blow me 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • What honesty? I am not definitely saying I am not the only one, sure I may be, I am just saying that 3 people discussing is not enough to get a gist of what everyone wants. I therefore suggest that we should invite more people into the discussion.
                  • And re your other point, it was not immediately clear what you're saying. It's not necessarily lying, it's IDHT at worst.
                  • Ok, even if I am the only one who doesn't like VFH, other people may like my suggestions better. Just that they don't mind VFH in it's current state. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 20:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gale5050: @MrX:, hey, since it's only you two discussing this (and others have already shown opposition to this proposal), can you bring the conversation to Gale5050's talk page? The discusssion's getting off-topic and becoming a little heated. It might be better to let the topic cool or moving it somewhere else. ~ Hipponias^CUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipponias, two things. First, pings don't work(at least for me),so notify me the way I just did, using [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. Second of all, I respectfully disagree, it should be on the same page for reference. At the very least, a permalink to the finished discussion on my TP. Gale5050 complain about me! And see my Wikipedia contributions! 22:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)