Forum:Public Invitations to Satiropendium
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Public Invitations to Satiropendium
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5899 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
We invite you to Satiropendium
Yes, public invitations to Satiropendium, the beta test of the comedic compendium, are now open.
Satiropendium requires good writers willing to collaborate articles with others, tough critics to review the articles to see if they're worthy, and stewards to verify the articles as being the best they are. More details can be seen in the link. If you are not the best writer, you might be great as a tough critic or steward.
We're a different kind of Web 2.0 project. Satiropendium is meant to create only the finest humor on the internet. You won't see Chuck Norris jokes and internet memes here...or IPs for that matter having content accepted...
But in order to do this, we need good writers and even better critics to judge the articles. Do you feel you're good enough to be on the Satiropendium team? Sign up here, on the table.
~ 
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
29/08/2007 @ 02:45
Sign Up!
Jobs applyable for: Writer (Compendiac), Writer (Proofreader), Critic, and Steward. If you need more information on the jobs chosen, you can click on the link above. We need more Writers and Critics than Stewards.
Please, do not fill the Accepted Column with anything other than no. A steward will approve you. Do not sign up other people.
| Username | Pen Name | Requested Job | Why should we accept you? | Accepted? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Example | Geoffrey Chaucer | Writer (Poet) | Because I'm Motherfucking Geoffrey Chaucer - I made the Canterbury Tales. | Yes |
| Cainad | The Acceptable Cainad | Writer (Proofreader) | I have a sense of humor so dry, it turns wetlands into salt flats. Seriously. | Yes |
| Savethemooses | Savethemooses | Writer (Compendiac) | I don't think I have to spell it out for you. | Yes |
| pieface | pieface | Writer (Compendiac) | Because you are probably getting desperate by now | Yes |
Comments
- I'd be happy to help, if you're looking for another janitor. MadMax 04:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tagging and the managing deletion queue are a part of the whole thing. I guess that you can do this if you wish, but for now it is not needed as those facilities are nonexistent - Uncyclopedia deletion policy and Satiropendium deletion policy are one and the same. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
29/08/2007 @ 04:29
- Just out of curiosity, did you get the "Geoffrey Chaucer" idea from "A Knight's Tale"? It was on the other day. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:20, Aug 29, 2007
- No. I don't really watch a lot of TV. I just got the idea because he's the father of English literature, and who better would be a good example without doing a Shakespeare cliche? ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
29/08/2007 @ 04:29
- One question: how on earth is this supposed to work if it's contained within Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia anyone can edit? -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Authorization for now (all edits by non-project members are reverted). Until 4 articles are made to prove the system and enough interest in this project, then it will attempt secession. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 15:59- Secession? I don't like the sound of that. This is iffy (a wiki in a wiki), but that (a wiki in a wiki that leaves the wiki which it was in after it feeds of that wiki, grows off that wiki and, oh I don't know, steals that wiki's laundry). This sounds both insidious and a complementary word that makes insidious look not so insidious. I'm voting Against. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- What? Vote? Against as well. I don't really see a need for this wiki. Citizendium is understandable; Wikipedia is so huge and moves so quickly that it's hard to focus on quality. Uncyclopedia isn't. There are in-jokes, stupid articles, etc, but there's also nothing preventing collaboration or extended Pee(r) Reviews. You can make an article and spend days, weeks, even months perfecting it if you really want to, and unlike Wikipedia, people here pretty much leave others' articles be. I dunno. This is just my opinion. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:30 Aug 30, 2007
- Secession? I don't like the sound of that. This is iffy (a wiki in a wiki), but that (a wiki in a wiki that leaves the wiki which it was in after it feeds of that wiki, grows off that wiki and, oh I don't know, steals that wiki's laundry). This sounds both insidious and a complementary word that makes insidious look not so insidious. I'm voting Against. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no poll, only people that wish to join the effort. You're just not participating in the whole project. Only users that are interested join it, mostly those that want to make a wiki that itself is meant to promote high-quality over high-quantity, with authorizations and denial of IP edits to reduce cruft down to not even 10%, so such ideas as VFD and VFH are obsolete, and QVFD is reformed into a category. That and admin accounts for the first few Stewards and Critics apparently might have lured a few people in. Satiropendium is an absolute reform on the system to make everything on the wiki the highest possible quality it can be when everything is complete policy-wise. Uncyclopedia is too open - meager content is preserved on such things as VFD because people hope to improve it, only for it to not be improved, or to be only improved slightly. That doesn't happen on Satiropendium - it's put on queue for ASAP for deletion, then deleted if it doesn't fit into policy (if a starting article is too young and too short or if somebody made a mainspace or untagged article). In short, Satiropendium is the elitist private school accross the street with high standards or GTFO attitude and Uncyclopedia is the humble public one that lets their users get away with average marks. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 17:36
- You realize, of course, that if this was a dumb teen movie, the jerks from the fascist Satiropendium Military Academy would buy the land under Uncyclopedia High with the intention of tearing it down and replacing it with an obstacle course, thus ruining the already mediocre lives of its affable band of malcontents. This act would unite the losers, who would win the Summer Highschool Olympics (through a combination of chicanery and subterfuge), save their school, and give those rich snots from Satiropendium a black eye. Also, they'd go on a panty raid and at least one of them would get laid. Go Uncyclopedia! Woo! /me shotguns a beer. Satiropedia sounds too authoritarian for me. It's unegalitarian and, frankly, unwiki to limit contributions and, by extension, contributors. There, I've said my piece. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with modus this sounds a little insidious. Imagine Citizendium creators had started the project within wikipeda, take as many wikipedia's best regarded contributors as they can and then leave. It doesn't sound right. This is worse, citizendium can get their "experts" from outside wikipedia too, but where else are you planning to find more people that have proved to be great humor writers and who are also willing to do it for free? Another thing, citizendium still has to prove the idea works. And if satirizendium is to uncy, what citizendium is to wikipedia, then satirizendium would be extremely tiny at its best. Belive me, even great elitist writers won't enjoy an empty place as they can enjoy it here, even if they have to stand those filthy mediocres.---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not taking any writers. They can contribute to both. I'm just letting them work in a different environment. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 19:11- How's it different? What's so distracting around these parts? A user can create an account and steer clear of idiots and morons fairly well if they choose to. And we have a peer review system already, and you can request experienced users to peer review if necessary. I just don't see a difference. All I see is a lot of useful contributors being offered a chance to go onto a much smaller site when they could be making us laugh just as well over here. And contributing to both sounds like a pain in the arse. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:15 Aug 30, 2007
- Furthermore, you'd be better off creating an entirely different site without MediaWiki software. MediaWiki is designed so anyone can edit, anything, at any time. You may as well dump it and try something different, use a system other than Wikia. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:21 Aug 30, 2007
- It's different because I'm not caging people up and forcing them to write chained to a typewriter - they're coming willingly to try something new and different. It's "serious" about it's contributions. Uncyclopedia is not. Satiropendium tries to be more sterile than Uncyclopedia with more humor that's more accessible to everyone that's required to be well formed - not 50 quotes from Oscar Wilde on top with absolutely nothing to do with the article, not a stale Chuck Norris joke copied Verbatim for Mr. T, not some vanity about some fat Mary Jane, not a page where we vote for articles of lesser quality to be deleted, and not an obscure set of scripts for a never-existing television show about the writers of Satiropendium presented in a humorous manner. It may be a smaller wiki, but if it's going to be anything, it's going to be a damned good one as a whole compared to Uncyclopedia. Sure, there are a few regulations, but if you notice, they're not any different from the process of making a good Uncyclopedia article with the exception of the last step - make it in your namespace, collaborate, get it reviewed (more verbose of course) twice (even better than many articles), then it's shipped off to the mainspace as approved. Heck, Satiropendium could be affiliated with the Uncyclomedia foundation. Mediawiki is meant for contributions by everyone - and everyone is welcome to contribute any time they want to the site. You just need to register, and check out what you're going to mainly do beforehand. Is it that hard to setup an account if you truly want to contribute to a site? No, not really. You did it yourself. I'm not trying to create Encarta for humor where we have the entire site locked from editing by anybody anytime and all little notes to all articles have to be verified. It's just stricter and more rigorous than Uncyclopedia in how it dispenses humor, so there are less (If not absolutely none) Snowmen and YTMND-style crap, and there's more things like Grass in the Mist or The Future of Tomorrow, Today. It's next step over Uncyclopedia, just as Illogicopedia is the step under Uncyclopedia. The step over Satiropendium would be Uncarta, which is what you would dislike. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 19:41
- It's different because I'm not caging people up and forcing them to write chained to a typewriter - they're coming willingly to try something new and different. It's "serious" about it's contributions. Uncyclopedia is not. Satiropendium tries to be more sterile than Uncyclopedia with more humor that's more accessible to everyone that's required to be well formed - not 50 quotes from Oscar Wilde on top with absolutely nothing to do with the article, not a stale Chuck Norris joke copied Verbatim for Mr. T, not some vanity about some fat Mary Jane, not a page where we vote for articles of lesser quality to be deleted, and not an obscure set of scripts for a never-existing television show about the writers of Satiropendium presented in a humorous manner. It may be a smaller wiki, but if it's going to be anything, it's going to be a damned good one as a whole compared to Uncyclopedia. Sure, there are a few regulations, but if you notice, they're not any different from the process of making a good Uncyclopedia article with the exception of the last step - make it in your namespace, collaborate, get it reviewed (more verbose of course) twice (even better than many articles), then it's shipped off to the mainspace as approved. Heck, Satiropendium could be affiliated with the Uncyclomedia foundation. Mediawiki is meant for contributions by everyone - and everyone is welcome to contribute any time they want to the site. You just need to register, and check out what you're going to mainly do beforehand. Is it that hard to setup an account if you truly want to contribute to a site? No, not really. You did it yourself. I'm not trying to create Encarta for humor where we have the entire site locked from editing by anybody anytime and all little notes to all articles have to be verified. It's just stricter and more rigorous than Uncyclopedia in how it dispenses humor, so there are less (If not absolutely none) Snowmen and YTMND-style crap, and there's more things like Grass in the Mist or The Future of Tomorrow, Today. It's next step over Uncyclopedia, just as Illogicopedia is the step under Uncyclopedia. The step over Satiropendium would be Uncarta, which is what you would dislike. ~
- I'm not taking any writers. They can contribute to both. I'm just letting them work in a different environment. ~
- There's no poll, only people that wish to join the effort. You're just not participating in the whole project. Only users that are interested join it, mostly those that want to make a wiki that itself is meant to promote high-quality over high-quantity, with authorizations and denial of IP edits to reduce cruft down to not even 10%, so such ideas as VFD and VFH are obsolete, and QVFD is reformed into a category. That and admin accounts for the first few Stewards and Critics apparently might have lured a few people in. Satiropendium is an absolute reform on the system to make everything on the wiki the highest possible quality it can be when everything is complete policy-wise. Uncyclopedia is too open - meager content is preserved on such things as VFD because people hope to improve it, only for it to not be improved, or to be only improved slightly. That doesn't happen on Satiropendium - it's put on queue for ASAP for deletion, then deleted if it doesn't fit into policy (if a starting article is too young and too short or if somebody made a mainspace or untagged article). In short, Satiropendium is the elitist private school accross the street with high standards or GTFO attitude and Uncyclopedia is the humble public one that lets their users get away with average marks. ~
- A website containing more satirical articles and less random crap is what uncyclopedia is trying to be, and is on its way towards becoming. Sure, we have a LOT of horrible, humorless articles lying around, but most of them are really old, because now, when crappy articles are created, they are put on qvfd and huffed. The trouble is, uncyclopedia started out more like illogicopedia, where there was less humor and more stupidity. Much of the body of uncyclopedia is still made up that old crap, that isn't funny now and never was. But the solution to that is not to take most of uncyclopedia's best writers and devote a namespace to "good articles" that will ultimately be moved to another website. The solution is to hold some sort of "rewrite-a-thon", sort of like Forest Fire Week, but it would be Forest Regeneration Week instead, in which writers are encouraged to rewrite or fix up crappy articles. Perhaps with some sort of template or award for the person who does the most rewrites. Also, improving "how to be funny and not just stupid" would really help, because we still have quite a few noobs who think random crap is funny. But what you are basically saying is "uncyclopedia isn't funny enough, so I want to start a new wiki taking away uncyclopedia's funniest writers." Smells a little to me. --THE 21:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Namespace? It wouldn't be a namespace. All articles would be in the mainspace with the Satiropendium approval template, assuring the highest quality out of the article. On a side note, I'll be able to host the wiki myself soon, possibly...if it ever flies. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 22:23- "A website containing more satirical articles and less random crap is what uncyclopedia is trying to be, and is on its way towards becoming..." Well, yes, but, mostly no. Articles which are unprofessional, juvenile, gimmicky or just plain gimcrack, offensive, and downright stupid are accepted. Look at Ann Coulter. It's shit, and there are thousands of articles like it...and the Uncyc community consistently votes to retain them. (This is one function of Uncyc: to give shit a chance as well as experimental, silly, risque, and bigotted stuff a chance. So that's a valuable function.) Jocke Pirat has his own ideas for what Satiropendium would be, but I imagine it as a step toward a semi-professional, reasonably well-edited satire site like The Onion but with a Wiki authorship system and an encyclopedic format. That's a different function than Uncyc. I say give it a shot. There's a viable niche for it. ----OEJ 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Namespace? It wouldn't be a namespace. All articles would be in the mainspace with the Satiropendium approval template, assuring the highest quality out of the article. On a side note, I'll be able to host the wiki myself soon, possibly...if it ever flies. ~
- A website containing more satirical articles and less random crap is what uncyclopedia is trying to be, and is on its way towards becoming. Sure, we have a LOT of horrible, humorless articles lying around, but most of them are really old, because now, when crappy articles are created, they are put on qvfd and huffed. The trouble is, uncyclopedia started out more like illogicopedia, where there was less humor and more stupidity. Much of the body of uncyclopedia is still made up that old crap, that isn't funny now and never was. But the solution to that is not to take most of uncyclopedia's best writers and devote a namespace to "good articles" that will ultimately be moved to another website. The solution is to hold some sort of "rewrite-a-thon", sort of like Forest Fire Week, but it would be Forest Regeneration Week instead, in which writers are encouraged to rewrite or fix up crappy articles. Perhaps with some sort of template or award for the person who does the most rewrites. Also, improving "how to be funny and not just stupid" would really help, because we still have quite a few noobs who think random crap is funny. But what you are basically saying is "uncyclopedia isn't funny enough, so I want to start a new wiki taking away uncyclopedia's funniest writers." Smells a little to me. --THE 21:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking, and mentioned it on IRC, maybe satiropendium doesn't have to be its own wiki. Maybe it could just be a guild of a handful of the sites best writers that is all about collaborations and really high quality. Basically, everything that gets produced from satiropendium would be VFH'd immediately, and the main writers would get the award template. It would be different from typical uncyc because it is about collabs, and not individual writing. We could keep all of the job descriptions, and just leave it as an uncyc project, I guess like the photochopper's guild. Like, a writer's guild, devoted to working together to make the funniest pages possible. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:07, Aug 30, 2007
- Also, I really really support THE's "rewrite-a-thon" idea. Maybe, instead of FFW, it'd be Arbor Day Week? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:10, Aug 30, 2007
- It's called PLS ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 22:23- Rewrite-a-thon. Rewrite-a-thon. Maybe in combination with a FFW of sorts. Clear out the old stuff, salvage what can be salvaged and rewrite it in userspace. I like the idea. Much better than starting a whole new wiki, or a "guild" of the best writers — isn't that unfair to the rest of us who try so hard to write but don't have that many FA's? Really, we don't need "elite" writers. That's just disgusting. We already have numbers and awards that represent a user's writing skills. We don't need to draw boundaries. "I'm an Uncyclopedian, but also I edit at Satiropendium." "I'm in the Writer's Guild." Sure, let's take away all the, ahem, fun, and just work all the time. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:41 Aug 30, 2007
- A writers guild of some sort could be fun. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
30/08/2007 @ 23:27- I agree in that I don't think that it should be founded on principles of exclusion. My feeling is that it's founded on a principle of many writers working together to produce a funnier page than one that one writer individually could create. Instead of working alone on 2 pieces, a user could work with four other people on 6 pages, and do the same amount of writing to wind up with 6 pages that may be funnier than his regular 2. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:35, Aug 31, 2007
- That sounds really good in theory... I just wonder if we could get it to work in practice without a mess. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:15 Aug 31, 2007
- If all it's gonna be is a way for people to write collabs, as well as a sort of advanced pee review system in which passed articles get a template or something, I'd be fine with that I suppose. All this "new wiki" talk is what alarmed me. A new wiki with the exam same purpose as uncyclopedia, written by the exact same writers, seems totally pointless to me. I created a forum about the rewrite-a-thon suggestion here. --THE 01:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Two things spring to mind: First, I hope the proposed Satiropendium does NOT NOTNOTNOT become a VFH-clone from Uncyclopedia's article base. We have a category for featured articles, and we used to have a "nominated but failed" category for VFH; it failed because anyone can nominate any idiotic thing they want -- "go eat shit fuckers" for instance. Similarly, VFH voters do not constitute an editorial board and the vote is essentially a vox populi. It turns out that the set of people who vote on VFH happens to overlap the set of people with good literary horse sense, but that's not a requirement but rather a happy semi-evolutionary development. Second, I feel Satiropendium would NOT have the exact same purpose as Uncyclopedia. Uncyc sometimes functions as a Wiki testbed for writing. Personally I have taken great advantage of the opportunity to write experimental, silly, self-indulgent, and offbeat articles on Uncyc. They don't get huffed even though most people don't think they're worth a deep-fried turnip. That's a valuable function, although a side consequence of this permissiveness is the volume of sanctioned shit I mentioned further up this thread. (One writer's experiment may be another reader's shit, of course.) My understanding is that specific function would be curtailed on Satiropendium. ----OEJ 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- If all it's gonna be is a way for people to write collabs, as well as a sort of advanced pee review system in which passed articles get a template or something, I'd be fine with that I suppose. All this "new wiki" talk is what alarmed me. A new wiki with the exam same purpose as uncyclopedia, written by the exact same writers, seems totally pointless to me. I created a forum about the rewrite-a-thon suggestion here. --THE 01:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds really good in theory... I just wonder if we could get it to work in practice without a mess. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:15 Aug 31, 2007
- I agree in that I don't think that it should be founded on principles of exclusion. My feeling is that it's founded on a principle of many writers working together to produce a funnier page than one that one writer individually could create. Instead of working alone on 2 pieces, a user could work with four other people on 6 pages, and do the same amount of writing to wind up with 6 pages that may be funnier than his regular 2. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
- A writers guild of some sort could be fun. ~
- Rewrite-a-thon. Rewrite-a-thon. Maybe in combination with a FFW of sorts. Clear out the old stuff, salvage what can be salvaged and rewrite it in userspace. I like the idea. Much better than starting a whole new wiki, or a "guild" of the best writers — isn't that unfair to the rest of us who try so hard to write but don't have that many FA's? Really, we don't need "elite" writers. That's just disgusting. We already have numbers and awards that represent a user's writing skills. We don't need to draw boundaries. "I'm an Uncyclopedian, but also I edit at Satiropendium." "I'm in the Writer's Guild." Sure, let's take away all the, ahem, fun, and just work all the time. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:41 Aug 30, 2007
- It's called PLS ~
- Also, I really really support THE's "rewrite-a-thon" idea. Maybe, instead of FFW, it'd be Arbor Day Week? P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
Deary deary deary. Jacques, you must have realised that this would look like an attempt to poach all our best writers? With the best will in the world, people are not going to copy every single article they write onto two websites, so you're going to get a split, and you'll end up with two much poorer sites in my opinion. One will have sacrificed the core of wikidom that we fight so hard to protect, and the other will be a Little League underneath it containing wannabes frustratedly banging their head against the satirical glass ceiling. If you don't like some aspects of the site, I suggest you ignore them - perhaps you'd like to restrict your viewing to the top half of the featured contents list, and click the stars at the top of each before any of that deadly new altered stuff assaults your eyeballs? No, I'm serious - you can do if you want to. But I think writing's less stale if it's not fixed, and that's why we stay popular even though we compete with actual books and other content by professional writers who, let's face it, are better at this lark than any of us. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strange, I disagree: one thing writers like Tim Cahill have is professional editorial oversight. (Another thing is technique, and a third thing is talent.) I would hope that Satiropendium might be an attempt to provide a Wiki-version of Tim's editor at Outside magazine: a solid reality-check and technical advice board. Pee Review is nice, and goodness knows we try, but compare it to even the single-page critique required of reviewers in most writing courses and it comes up way short. Poaching good writers is a strawman argument: no one is saying that a Satiro writer cannot be an Uncyc writer. I can well imagine writing mainstream parody on both Satiro and on Uncyc, and also contributing offbeat and experimental stuff to Uncyc. Similarly, I've written articles on Wikiality; they do not appear on Uncyc; their subject and style are more suited to the other site. I might advise Jocke, "If you don't like aspects of the site, create another one that controls those aspects better." And I think that is reasonable advice. ----OEJ 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (PS -- I respect your opinion, Strange. We disagree, but I hope we can still split a magnum of cheap champagne in spirit if not in practice.)
- I totally agree with SBU here. Creating a new wiki written by the same people as uncyclopedia, just with a tighter restriction on article creation, just doesn't make sense. Do you really want to abandon uncyclopedia and start from scratch just because of some old, crappy articles (some of which, at least, will hopefully be rewritten soon, and the occasional article written in an offbeat way? It's not worth it, I don't think. Perhaps if we established satiropendium as a sort of advanced pee review system within uncyclopedia, in which articles would be submitted for an extensive analysis? No special template for approved articles, no category, no secession from uncyclopedia. And if you're willing to do all the work of starting a new wiki from scratch, why not transfer that to uncyclopedia and start rewriting crappy articles on here instead? Jaque's philosophy of "uncyclopedia has a bunch of random, dumb articles, so let's abandon it and start from scratch" could easily be transferred over to "uncyclopedia has a bunch of random, dumb articles, so let's stop complaining about it and start rewriting them." The creation of a new wiki is unnecessary, but creating it within uncyclopedia, using uncyclopedia's best writers and taking away what would surely become funny articles that would fit in with the rest of uncyclopedia perfectly? Not likely to get much support. You certainly don't have my vote. --THE 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Till I see something that Satiropendium can accomplish that Uncyclopedia cannot, besides being much tougher to spell, I'm going to remain baffled as to why this was even proposed. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 15:23 Aug 31, 2007
- Who rewrites these articles? Few actually do, and even fewer make them worthwhile. The problems which uncyclopedia and making it as funny as possible has are deeply embedded within it and nothing is going to fix it except for making a new wiki. Satiropendium, at this stage, is an expiriment, and nothing else. It's to test a new concept of humor where people can write great articles on a wiki full of great articles. It fixes everything in a way which forces writers to write their best, and to make something everyone can be entertained with, not some niche of writers whether it be some Halo article, or Fisher price. Uncyclopedia is just like a Wikipedia of humor - albeit in a smaller scale - we get crap blown in by IPs and newbies, we get average articles being saved, and we get articles that don't fit policy being saved even though they're utter shit. The only way for this to work is if Satiropendium starts to do what it isn't doing right now with all this incessant bitching about the concept by members afraid to have people try out something new and different than Uncyclopedia in many ways when fully complete. If people want a wiki, I'll soon be able to give them a wiki without Wikia's interference albeit limited by whatever space I can still muster at FriHost. Right now the concept remains at a standstill because of all this whining that writers will be contributing to another wiki, or in this case a shell wiki willingly. For other reasons, I might not be participating in this discussion further for a little while. Otherwise, give it a chance, and if it fails, it fails, and you can laugh at my face if it doesn't get off the ground or it never gets more than 10 articles. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
31/08/2007 @ 18:50
- I totally agree with SBU here. Creating a new wiki written by the same people as uncyclopedia, just with a tighter restriction on article creation, just doesn't make sense. Do you really want to abandon uncyclopedia and start from scratch just because of some old, crappy articles (some of which, at least, will hopefully be rewritten soon, and the occasional article written in an offbeat way? It's not worth it, I don't think. Perhaps if we established satiropendium as a sort of advanced pee review system within uncyclopedia, in which articles would be submitted for an extensive analysis? No special template for approved articles, no category, no secession from uncyclopedia. And if you're willing to do all the work of starting a new wiki from scratch, why not transfer that to uncyclopedia and start rewriting crappy articles on here instead? Jaque's philosophy of "uncyclopedia has a bunch of random, dumb articles, so let's abandon it and start from scratch" could easily be transferred over to "uncyclopedia has a bunch of random, dumb articles, so let's stop complaining about it and start rewriting them." The creation of a new wiki is unnecessary, but creating it within uncyclopedia, using uncyclopedia's best writers and taking away what would surely become funny articles that would fit in with the rest of uncyclopedia perfectly? Not likely to get much support. You certainly don't have my vote. --THE 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what this is
But it asked for hilarious geniuses, and since I am one, I signed up. Is there a SparkNotes version of the above discussion? -- 
07:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is, Mooses. But I'd advise that signing up is not going to make you the most popular guy in the world, at least until this discussion is over. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it boils down to: Some people want to make a new Wiki with a better Peer Review system and better critiques and all this, whereas other people are saying "Why? Who's going to bother being so serious about being funny?" and still others are saying "What's the point of this?" and still others are saying "banana", although I'm not quite sure why about that last bit. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 14:09 Aug 31, 2007
- Humor is work. I never poured anything more than my blood, sweat and tears to get the O'Finnertys featured. People already take writing seriously. I'm just making the wiki as serious as the writer. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
31/08/2007 @ 18:50
- Humor is work. I never poured anything more than my blood, sweat and tears to get the O'Finnertys featured. People already take writing seriously. I'm just making the wiki as serious as the writer. ~
- I had already signed up, and I'm concerned about people wanting to start a separate wiki. Fracturing the Uncyclopedia community like that would be really bad. Anyway, I thought this whole thing was meant (or should be) for collaborative peer review. -- Mitch
17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really fracturing the community rather than letting people spend time at two places rather than one. Once some writer moves completely to Satiropendium (which I doubt because Uncyclopedia will have a trump as being looser with a wider range of people contributing because they can get away with things they can't get away with elsewhere while not being Illogical) ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
31/08/2007 @ 18:50
- Oh, I think it is fracturing uncyclopedia to some extent. Somebody gets a funny idea...but which one should they write it in? Uncyclopedia or Satiropendium? They would be far too similar for it to be worthwhile to create a whole new wiki. --THE 19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Depending on their idea and how much effort they want to put into it and whether they want to collaborate or not, I think it would be slightly obvious based on the purposes - Uncyclopedia for That time I got raped by a yak during my sojurn to canada and Oscar Wilde (the new version) type articles (either lacking structure or being more focused-on-writer type writing), and UnScripts:The Young and the Uncyclopedians (collaborative), Slate Industry in Wales, and maybe a few other collaborative type articles which are of some sort of substantial quality for Satiropendium. There is a gray area which fits in both wikis, but generally Uncyclopedia is more of a one-person thing with some collaborations, and Satiropendium is full on collaboration with many members (a relationship between the writer, the critic, and the steward). ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
31/08/2007 @ 20:49
- Then why not just set up a special collaborative group in Uncyclopedia? This seems to be all about giving people a chance to create collaborations and better articles. I see no reason why this can't be done internally, instead of aiming to create a new wiki. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 20:50 Aug 31, 2007
- I still don't see much of a difference there--the articles would be similar, just produced differently. Is that really a difference big enough to make the creation of a whole new wiki worth it? Why not turn all that manpower towards improving uncyclopedia instead? You have to have a BIG reason for abandoning uncyclopedia and starting from scratch. To me, "we don't collab enough", "Our pee review system isn't good enough" and "we have too many articles that I don't like" isn't a justifiable reason, and it seems that I'm speaking for a number of uncyclopedians when I say that. --THE 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- See my other response. Also, you can't see much of a difference between Citizendium and Wikipedia if you remove the way of production, with the exception of how accounts are made, which I emulate. There are many administrative differences to Uncyclopedia and Satiropendium as well - crap is deleted ASAP, policies are followed to the morpheme, and quality is focused on more (at the end of the day it's about making a wiki full of high quality articles rather than a wiki with many kinds of quality). You simply can't fix the Uncyclopedia system to do this by making some group - you'd need a fresh start. I'll still support the rewrite-athon, however. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
31/08/2007 @ 23:35
- Depending on their idea and how much effort they want to put into it and whether they want to collaborate or not, I think it would be slightly obvious based on the purposes - Uncyclopedia for That time I got raped by a yak during my sojurn to canada and Oscar Wilde (the new version) type articles (either lacking structure or being more focused-on-writer type writing), and UnScripts:The Young and the Uncyclopedians (collaborative), Slate Industry in Wales, and maybe a few other collaborative type articles which are of some sort of substantial quality for Satiropendium. There is a gray area which fits in both wikis, but generally Uncyclopedia is more of a one-person thing with some collaborations, and Satiropendium is full on collaboration with many members (a relationship between the writer, the critic, and the steward). ~
- It's not really fracturing the community rather than letting people spend time at two places rather than one. Once some writer moves completely to Satiropendium (which I doubt because Uncyclopedia will have a trump as being looser with a wider range of people contributing because they can get away with things they can't get away with elsewhere while not being Illogical) ~
Savethemooses doesn't want to read all this blather
But I do sign up for anything involving me getting all/most of the glory. -- 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not reading the small letters of the contracts you sign can couse you problem, you know... you've just agreed to donate your liber.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- My liber? Do you mean I just donated Lillian Rosanoff Lieber?
Poll
I Satiropendium a good idea?
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.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.
There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 03:21, 13 January 2013.
poll-id 876CFDFB5ADC6D481E785D7A1EBEFD88