Forum:United Uncyclopedia Wish

Forums: Index > Village Dump > United Uncyclopedia Wish

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3890 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Hi All! I discovered Uncy in 2006 or so, and because its layout is same an Wikipedia, but without all the lame citation rules, so I tried to write Uncy articles as well, such as “Voidism” which was my first FA. I learned the hard way. And the competition was a lot higher and greater than now. Lots of active admins and users, at least 30-50 active people. A Pee Review was required to even self-nom. It took 20 votes to get an FA. It was a lot harder united and BETTER.

Then came the Fork that I am still not in favor of. “United we thrive, divided we fall”, is my motto. Since the split both sides have very much decreased. The Wikia version I stuck with because I really like Jimbo Wales (who owns Uncyclopedia and Wikipedia), and because the Wikiea version of Uncy shows up beast in every search engine. Wikia is not the evil NWO, Wikia is the Alt Media.

The previously debated Wikia rules are now relaxed and it is totally FREE (even cheaper than the Fork). I never want to encourage a split. A reunification would make us all 10 times stronger. Like the good old days! United we stand!!! IMHO--Funny bony 20:04, Feb 28

In your dreams and mine. And Aleister's. But not in reality, never. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:20, 28 Feb 2014

Really? The rules are gone? I never would have guessed. —

(talk) (contributions) 22:54:55 2014/02/28 UTC

The wikia rules aren't the only problem by any stretch of the imagination, even if they are 'gone' (which I doubt).

The mediawiki isn't up to date. Well, ours isn't up to date either, but it's a lot closer. They're on 1.19 because that's what wikia's on, and we're on 1.21. Furthermore, blocked users can edit their own talk pages while logged in, which gives them not one but two ways of appealing their block, while on wikia it is actually impossible unless you whine to Simsie on irc or the fork. Or Romartus, but he doesn't come on irc.
We got the irc channel. Some would argue that it's not that important, but others think it's important for community synergy and such, and others still just think it's fun to hang out there and waste time they don't have. It's also an avenue to appeal a block, as well as editing your talk page, and what's more, it actually works if the block was on the fork. Finally, you can make edit requests, block requests, whatever you like there and the response time is faster. Usually. Sometimes.
We have more active admins, 9 to their 4. That means things get done faster and you don't get one person doing what seems like all the work and then getting all stressed and mad.
We don't have Spike. Look at all the hate directed at him. Look at how many people have directed hate at him, and left wikia because of him. Think they're all wrong?
We don't have a rule that you can't blank your talk page. This essay does a pretty good job of explaining what's wrong with that sort of rule, and I don't remember if it points out that removed comments can still be seen in the page history, making Spike's rationale for enforcing that rule rather leaky.

There, I think that about covers it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:37, 28 Feb 2014

I too dream of a day when all Uncyclopedians will be back editing peacefully on the same site. However, in my vision we are all editing on the far superior new site. The new site is entirely controlled by the community. We have many features here that Wikia will not allow on the old site, such as the ability to perform our own CheckUsers. Please join us here on the new site Funnybony. -- The Zombiebaron 00:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for the info. Does anyone know approx how many "active users" there are on the Fork and on the Wikia site? We know that Admins are 9 vs 4. And does the split come down to one person? I still remember this Unnews piece. Also, does Jimbo Wales own the right to "Uncyclopedia"? Cheers!!!--Funny bony

09:57, Mar 2

Llwy, yes, Wikia has only 4 admins and the fork has 9. But the point of reuniting is to get together. And how much is 9+4? I don't think that with thirteen people working together, there will still be "one person doing what it seems like all the work and then getting all stressed and mad".
Same about the IRC. If the two Uncyclopedias reunite (and that's what, I think, Funnybony was talking about), the chat won't disappear. Of course, one forum is not enough to make such an action possible, but maybe consider it as the first step? Anton (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Funnybony, Special:Statistics page tells us there are 91 active users (those who made at least an edit in the past 30 days) and the Wikia Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Statistics) - 221. Surprising, isn't it? The are of course spammers and vandals amongst those. Anton (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Wikia site will continue as long as they want to host it. It remains an active site as Anton's stats show. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Anton, I'm not saying those will be issues in the extremely hypothetical event that the two uncycs' communities join up, I'm saying they're reasons to stay here instead of there as both sites currently stand. Also, the statistics can be explained away by google ranks, they probably have nothing to do with how active each site would be if they had equal chances to get traffic. And there are for the most part not spammers among our active users thanks to an overenthusiastic abuse filter.

Also I'm sure neither community would much mind being part of the other except for a very few extremist users who hate the other site and would probably like it to disappear, among those Spike and me; and that is why this will never happen, as well as the fact that we and wikia each insist on keeping our respective sites open. Not that I particularly dislike the community over there, I just don't like the technical annoyances and Spike's and wikia's way of running things. I too would love for there to be one community rather than two, but it's just not happening thanks to people like me and Spike who enter such discussions only to rain on them. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:28, 2 Mar 2014

We are acting like Uncyclopedia was a lost-&-found. It belongs to Jimbo Wales. He's the rightful owner. If you think we deserve to become the sole owners of Uncyclopedia then I have no objection, provided we ask Jimbo what is his price for the name, then raise the money and buy it from him fairly. Just like he bought it from John. Do we really expect anyone to hand over property and copyright purchased with cash for free? If any of us bought this URL for say, $5,000, cash, would we be willing to give that for FREE to some other users? If anyone want the site to be away from Wikia then they should buy it from Jim. We should not try to make some self-righteous reasoning to justify ripping him off! Purchase the site. Then they'll be only one Uncyclopedia. And hate-mongers like Spike and TKF can be removed from positions to "hound" people. I'm for whoever is the rightful owner. As far as most users go I like everyone--Funny bony

21:50, Mar 2

Do you see him coming over here and demanding Uncyclopedia back? I certainly don't. This Uncyclopedia belongs to the community, and the original content was licensed under creative commons anyway so we can snitch it all we like. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:28, 2 Mar 2014

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't remember Jimbo ever buying Uncyclopedia from anybody named John. Uncyclopedia is and has always been released into the public domain under a CC-BY-NC-SA license. Nobody can "own" Uncyclopedia, it is not something which can be bought or sold. In this spirit I have always believed that Uncyclopedia belongs to its community. -- The Zombiebaron 04:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who John is, but I've heard that Chronarion sold the domain uncyclopedia.org to Jimbo and that's what started the slippery slope. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 3 Mar 2014

Yeah, that's true. But owning the URL is not the same as owning a copyright, or owning the content. -- The Zombiebaron 05:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"so we can snitch it all we like". I seem to recall that RAHB specifically warned users here not to do that. As far as I know, that prohibition remains. Article authors can transfer between sites but I would equally not want to see people at Wikia doing that to here and would warn them accordingly. Call it the unofficial RAHB-Romartus Agreement. --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe llwy was joking. -- The Zombiebaron 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey gang! When I first came across Uncy back in 2007 or 2008 I looked it up on Wkipedia. I read that it was created by Jonathan Huang based on the Wikipedia format. Then it was sold to Jim Wales for, I believe it even mentioned a price of $5000 (enough to entice Huang sell it) and it was now owned by Wikia. So I thought, “Cool, its not only recognized by Wikipedia, it belongs to Wikipedia!" And with that in mind I try to contribute. But since then someone has watered down and sugar-coated the history to now read, "Uncyclopedia was launched on January 5, 2005 by Jonathan Huang, known online as "Chronarion,"[5] and a partner called "Stillwaters" or "Euniana".[1] It quickly outgrew its original webhost, and on July 10, 2006, Huang transferred ownership of the uncyclopedia.org domain name to Wikia,” It doesn’t say Huang donated it to users nor gave it to the public, it clearly says “transferred ownership.” So Uncyclopedia has an owner who paid cash back it 2006 - and, presumably, it still belongs to Wales. He probably owns the format, the Trademark and the Website. Perhaps Romy or someone could shed more light on the legal rights of Jim Wales. The fact that he hasn’t taken any action doesn’t mean that he can’t or he won’t. But if we users have rightful “ownership” of Uncyclopedia then why don’t we demand Wikia to stop using our domain? I’m just trying to understand the legal implications. Anyone?--Funny bony

13:00, Mar 3

Funnybony! Good points, and forum. I seem to remember reading but may be wrong that when the transfer was made there were some agreements about censorship, and that Wikia implementing censorship was one of the points where the site forked. And there have been other wikia sites which have forked, I remember Sannse (who seems to have been dethroned and replaced as caretaker of wikia uncy, but there I may be wrong too) talking about them, which means they have had this occur before and so precedent is present (but I may be wrong) Aleister, ? may be wrong 13:05 3-3-14

I meant that we can snitch it with the history intact. If we don't take the history it doesn't comply with whatever licence it is, but if we do it does.

Funnybony, you're thinking of the domain name, not the content, I believe, so just because wikia owns the uncyclopedia.org domain does not mean we can't copy the content. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 15:47, 3 Mar 2014

Mate, are you sure that Wikia does NOT also own the trademark too? If there was ever a law suit over this then who would win? If Fork wanted to shut down Wikia's Uncyclopedia and Wikia wanted to shut down the Fork's Uncyclopedia, then who would win legally? And would it be 'Wikia vs the Fork'? Who is legally responsible for this Fork? Don't imagine that no one is responsible for this Fork. Because if there was a legal case against the Fork (from any quarter) then some person(s) would be held accountable. And who would pay Fork's legal fees? Who is the Fork?--Funny bony

17:04, Mar 3

BTW: Is this a real quote? "Uncyclopedia rocks, as it is. That's why I offered to buy it. What is our business plan for Uncyclopedia? To demonstrate to the active community here, and by extension other communities, that we know how to not fuck people. Our entire business model depends on showing the world that we are a serious alternative to Yahoo, Google, etc., etc. because we represent a totally different approach... a totally wiki approach... to website management."--Jimbo Wales 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: Who would represent this Fork if a meeting were to be held in person with Jimbo Wales to discuss ownership???--Funny bony

17:27, Mar 3

Big if. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:46, 3 Mar 2014

Funnybony have you read our license? Uncyclopedia's content is released into the public domain. If anybody ever tried to take somebody to court over this they would get laughed at pretty hard. -- The Zombiebaron 21:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Laughing pretty hard sounds like the purpose of Uncy. Cheers!!!--Funny bony

17:57, Mar 4

Funnybony - I'm not sure about that exact quote, but I recall a video interview with Jimbo where he said something along the same lines. Along with "I thought it was funny so I bought it." (Paraphrased). If you dig through the forums enough you'll be able to find that video - assuming youtube haven't taken it down, of course.

Everyone else - I second (or third) Funnybony's statement. Nominally Humane! 08:16 07 Mar

Puppy you still don't understand the licensing do you? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 7 Mar 2014

I believe he was referring to Funnybony's original statement about hoping for the two Uncyclopedias to be able to unite. Which, for the record, would make me nothing but happy. I would just prefer we unite without Wikia. -RA HB 08:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He begins talking about Uncyclopedia at the start of the video and he jokes "I thought it was so funny that I bought it" at 1m28s. Clearly a joke. -- The Zombiebaron 08:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

FU EDIT CONFLICT: I do. I know that the content isn't owned by Wikia. Or the community. The ownership remains with the original author. As a result of contributing though the author forgoes certain rights relating to publishing (or republishing) that content - this includes the right to relinquish the permissions once given (ie asking for content to be deleted). There are certain restrictions that relate to the republishing however, which include attribution, non-commercial use, and not claiming exclusive ownership of the works.

At the same time the name "Uncyclopedia" is not owned. It was not registered as a trademark, and due to it's usage it can't be registered (at least under international law). Trying to claim ownership of it now would be like trying to register "Tree" as a term for exclusive use.

Again, I'm over simplifying. There are some really good articles on CC at the CC website.

Uncyclopedia, as a wiki, is unique in regards to (previously) Wikia hosted wikis, in that it has the NC (non-commercial) aspect to it.

What Jimbo purchased was the domain uncyclopedia.org. The content has never been the property of any corporation or community.

What I seconded was the concept of unifying the two different wikis. I don't expect it to happen, and I'm not naive enough to think that this forum will make any real difference. But Zombiebaron mentioned the community and it's role in the wiki earlier. Expressing the desire to unify - as a part of that community - is something that anyone who feels or thinks the same way can express, and in fairness to the communal whole should express. Deriding, dismissing, or penalising someone for being honest enough to say "this is what I want" is not the way to support or build that community. Unless the expressing of that amounts to badgering, or vandalism, which is not what has happened here. Nominally Humane! 08:55 07 Mar

Post script: Thanks for finding that video ZB - definitely a joke, especially if you're old enough to know the ad he is parodying. And RAHB - I need to hire you as a translator. Nominally Humane! 08:55 07 Mar

Couldn't find the Victor Kiam classic ad, so this will have to do. Nominally Humane! 09:06 07 Mar

Reuniting: yes or no

By Anton (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As many people noticed in this forum, reuniting would be something good, but at the same time - something very difficult. But you all mentioned only way of reuniting: being all on one site, and let's admit, this does not seem possible.

But there are other ways. Reuniting could mean working together and in that case it could be achieved. Of course, each site has its own motivations, but they are both Uncyclopedias. What would you say if we were to join a project the goal of which would be to make Uncyclopedia better? Not this site, and not that site, but Uncyclopedia - in general. I don't know what such a project could be: I have my own ideas, but I would not like to express them at that stage. Of course, you might say that everything here is very general, but I would just like to find out one thing:

Are you for or against collaborating with the editors from uncyclopedia.wikia.com to make the Uncyclopedia better?

Score: 1

Comment. This idea of a third project where we could all work together sounds interesting, and I would be happy to work with the editors on wikia with the exception of one person whose identity you can guess who would most likely not be interested in participating in this project anyway, and who if he did would happily set about poisoning it for everyone who doesn't share his ideas of how things should work. But you are all tired of hearing about that aren't you? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:16, 7 Mar 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! Uncyclopedia Uncyclopedia Illogicopedia i:fr:Logimalpedie Paudurapedyja Frithchiclipeid Uncapaedia Absurdopedia Scotypedia
- The question is not about how others will react to it. It is whether you are interested or not. If many of you are, then I'll ask the editors at the Wikia the same question and we'll see what they say. Anton (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  - The question of whether I am interested or not depends on how others - meaning Spike - will react to it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 16:00, 8 Mar 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! Uncyclopedia Uncyclopedia Illogicopedia i:fr:Logimalpedie Paudurapedyja Frithchiclipeid Uncapaedia Absurdopedia Scotypedia
    - If Spike is against it, nobody will force him to take part in it. Anton (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      - Yes, but the case in which I would not support this is if he wants to take part in it. I expect he won't though. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:08, 8 Mar 2014
Comment. It's a very vague question. I already do throw my hat into things with editors on both sites, so in principle I would support a collaborative project. But the idea of doing a whatchamacallit isn't exactly a resounding battle cry. Nominally Humane! 12:20 08 Mar
- The idea is to collaborate. I just want to see who is interested. Anton (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
For - Because it was way better prior to the split. Then there were enough voters and better quality articles. There was Pee Review requirement. It was much like Wikipedia. Also, there was no need to ask for donations because it was paid and protected by Wikia. When I think of Uncyclopedia, I think of Jimbo Wales (a real person), but when I think of the fork, I have no idea. What I see is that the split messed up both sides. And this so-called FREE Uncyclopedia is not free.--Funny bony 17:43, Mar 8
You seem to think this is about moving back to Wikia. We're not moving back to Wikia, and we won't accept your reasoning as to why the fork sucks and we should move back no matter how many times you repeat it. Besides, I believe the Pee Review requirement was abolished long before the fork; and finally, you should not think of Jimbo when you think of Uncyclopedia, that's just, well, silly. You should think of the actual community members like Lyrithya and Zombiebaron who have done so much more for this site and who you do not appreciate the way they deserve. And no, 'Uncyclopedia' does not mean Uncyclowikia, it means the two sites, Uncyclowikia and Enuncyco. Restricting 'Uncyclopedia' to mean uncyclopedia.wikia.com is just plain wrong. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:08, 8 Mar 2014

WTF is "we"?--Funny bony

19:17, Mar 8

Us. You know. The people here. Try to be more careful about removing comments, please. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:31, 8 Mar 2014

Comment. To steal lines from the FOSS guys, Uncyclopedia is free as in speech, not free as in "free beer!". Unwankia is the opposite. Anyone from there is free to come here and enjoy freedom, which includes the freedom to not donate a penny. We're not "merging" with the Wikia site, unless Wikia shuts it down and they all decide to come here (Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.) And Funnybony is also currently free to post pointless forums which take everybody else's time away from writing. So it goes. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 19:58 (UTC)
Precisely; but you too have not responded to Anton's proposal. He thinks we should create a third place of some sort and collaborate there somehow - what do you think of that? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:01, 8 Mar 2014
Sure absolutely. We definitely need four or five English-language Uncyclopedias. Definitely. But why stop there? Let's have infinity English-language Uncyclopedias. Let's carpet the Earth with them. I propose applying for grants. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 20:03 (UTC)
Perhaps Anton should clarify what he has in mind. I doubt it is what you seem to think it is, but it could well be. Incidentally, there is already a third English Uncyclopedia, though it may not necessarily work for the intended purpose, seeing as it's a mirror of sorts. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:08, 8 Mar 2014
I thought the purpose of this very site was to "make Uncyclopedia better". Does Anton just not get that? Has the propaganda about this being an evil rebel poseur website really seeped into his brain? Wait, has it? Cuz if it has, that's awesome. We really are an evil rebel poseur website. If you peel back the poorly-applied Vector stickers, you'll find a print issue of Cracked magazine from 1989. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 20:24 (UTC)
Yes this is to make uncyclopedia better, but what Anton is saying is that it could be better still if we had everyone on board. Does that not make sense? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:38, 8 Mar 2014
I think anyone who wanted to be "on board" with a "better Uncyclopedia" came here. Making yet another project isn't gonna change anything. A special neutral forum for collaboration? Whut? Why not just come here and write shit? Duh. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 20:46 (UTC)
I think Anton is talking about a project within Uncyc that spans both here and the Wikia domain. I'm assuming something along the lines of IC. Working outside of an "Us and Them" mentality, where the merits of the different domains becomes secondary to working as part of a larger community. I don't think this involves creating any other domains, or trying to move all the editors from a to b, or even d. (Nobody cares about c any more.) Nominally Humane! 08:59 08 Mar
And once again Puppy steps in to provide a clear-headed, neutral view of the situation. But I don't know what you mean about c versus d. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:15, 8 Mar 2014
That was the wooly headed aspect of my clear headed view. Nominally Humane! 09:35 08 Mar
- Yes, Pup summarised it better than I did. It is exactly "working outside of an "Us and Them" mentality, where the merits of the different domains becomes secondary to working as part of a larger community". I am not being specific on purpose: if I were, you would be voting for or against the ideas I would put forth, and I am sure we will have plenty of ideas, if only we decided to work together. Anton (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  I think most of the people on the old site prefer to pretend this site doesn't exist. That's why they stayed. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 22:19 (UTC)
  - But we can ask them! Anton (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  You do that. I predict one of two things: a 1500-word pontification from SPIKE that boils down to "they are entitled children who are failing! I told you they would come crawling back!" or else a one-day ban for "unconstructive forum posts." Good luck. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 22:31 (UTC)
  Or some complaint about our supposed motives, how we're trying to fill wikia with poop filled condoms, stampede everyone to an impostor site or put bad ideas in their heads, maybe. However I think Spike and Funnybony are the only ones who really hate this site; everyone else I've run into seems accepting enough of it, if they've been given a chance to find out - which, you will recall, some users over there haven't. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:36, 8 Mar 2014
  Yeah, it's really an "us and them" situation, ain't it? Man, I hate those fuckers. Let's go kill them. And then light their lawns on fire and rape their dogs. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Mar 8 '14 23:21 (UTC)
  Let's see! Anton (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure.

-- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 20:01, Mar. 8, 2014

I don't know I haven't been around either of the uncyclopedia's for a bit, but if you wanted to know which "side" I picked, it would probably be this one. Mainly because of a proper Vector skin, no more bitching about the evil Wikia overlords and so forth. But even Funnybony's reunifiction proposal reeked of accusation, similar to something SPIKE has said in the past about us being like "pirates" or "poachers" running off with something that doesn't belong to us. I cannot and will not stand anybody who exhibits such self-righteousness, and not in the least because I think intellectual property laws are deeply flawed to begin with. Besides, it seems clear that some of us got sick of Wikia and wanted to separate, while others thought we had no business doing so. I don't think there's anyway we can live in peace, aside from the old "pretend the other site doesn't exist" technique. We've long crossed the point of no return. Lord Scofield Stark 12:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- But what about working together? It could be inter-site collaborations on articles. It could be making a brand new project. Does this necessarily mean choosing between the two sides for you? Anton (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  - I certainly fear it will morph into something like that. We all go into it thinking that we can work things out, but before you know it we're at each other's throats again. Lord Scofield Stark 13:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why not try? Anton (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  - Hey, I have no issue with trying. I just think things are going to get ugly between the communities if we do. For all I know, maybe that's a good thing that'll "heal" the rift we have. Lord Scofield Stark 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    - If we start writing together? Well, it depends on the way you see and take it. Anton (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doing an inter-site collaboration if it involves going back to wikia and editing there. Not only do I refuse to make that place better but Spike seems to hate me at this point and I'm sure he'd ascribe some weird motive to my actions if I were to come edit his wiki. If we're creating a third project, fine, but if any effort I put into this hypothetical thing will somehow be used to improve unwikia, I'm not going to participate. Though I suppose it would, since I can't think how else this would work out. So there you have it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 17:53, 9 Mar 2014

Question: Last January after we created this new site and mostly left Wikia new rules were created on UncycloWikia prohibiting any links to this site. Are those rules still in place? How can we collaborate with a community that has made linking to this site a bannable offense? I support collaboration in principle but logistically it will be hard if we can't attribute work properly by linking to this site. -- The Zombiebaron 19:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:23, 9 Mar 2014

Nah, many users have links redirecting to their Uncyclopedia.co user page. We've also had some articles being copied from here and pasted on the Wikia site by their original authors. --Mimo &maxus 20:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
So the rules that disallowed pretty much all mentions of this site have been overturned? -- The Zombiebaron 20:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The rules are much the same on both sites - not linking from side bar, banner, or anywhere that makes it look like an officially sanctioned link. No linking in signatures. No linking from content pages (including "Uncyclopedia" for this case). Linking from talk pages, or forums, is permissible, but don't add links purely to advertise this site, or in any other way that could be classed as dickishness. Given the multitude of edits made to my user space pages - in some cases changing things that weren't even links, and reverting when I restored them - I'd say the policies are on par. (Have you determined a way to bulk delete those pages yet?) Nominally Humane! 09:27 09 Mar
We got bots to change the external links which were in actual fact internal links. While a page on Wikia using an external link to link to something else on the Wikia site makes sense (e.g.: diff links), it doesn't make sense here. In our effort to keep these links internal we edited thousands of pages so it is likely some mistakes were made, but as these mistakes are easily revertible I'd say this is a case of no harm no foul. -- The Zombiebaron 21:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, most of the changes in my user space were done by a couple of users (I think Mad Max and Frosty, from memory). And when I reverted stuff back, it kept getting changed - including something that was js that was being kept there in storage, and wouldn't work on this site. Plus the numerous times the link from my user page itself being changed, and then my reverts being reverted. Besides, if I were to start peppering this site with links that looked internal, but directed to the Wikia site, what would the response be? Nominally Humane! 10:55 09 Mar
From what I remember we had a huge DPL list of pages with links to Wikia. If you reverted edits to your pages without ever contacting anybody then your page was automatically added back to the list. I'm not sure what sort of "links that look internal but link to the Wikia site" you mean, but I'm sure each case would be examined individually as there is no blanket policy on such matters. -- The Zombiebaron 23:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean if I were to change every link currently to Melbourne to Melbourne, for example. Nominally Humane! 10:52 10 Mar

Zombiebaron, if a project between the two wikis was to happen, relevant links would be allowed, I think. Anton (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to reunite, then reunite.

This was not supposed to be a split. The only reason it was a split was because there were those who chose not to come with us, and who made it a split. In doing so they have undermined everything the rest of us have put into improving Uncyclopedia.

So I ask: While things at the time could have been handled better, does everything we have done, everything we have put into this, the hours, the money, the pain and sweat, does this mean nothing to you? All the hours spent on writing, on the pictures, the voting, the development and operations, on trying to coordinate with the other projects, on trying to do what is best for the project, does this really mean nothing? What we put into this, it wasn't because we were selfish and wanted Uncyclopedia for ourselves, it was because we wanted Uncyclopedia to be better, to do things Wikia could never support, because their direction simply wasn't ours. Their platform was no longer what we needed, and that's fine - they can do what they want. We wanted to use a supported skin and not have to reinvent the wheel just so we could have something that just looks like it and doesn't even fully work. We wanted to have the site work in IE, to have interlanguage links to the smaller projects and encourage growth there as well. We wanted to be able to write new features according to what we need, and collaborate upstream. We wanted to be able to determine for ourselves what is allowed and what isn't, and what our overall direction would be.

So we left Wikia.

And we're right here. If you want to reunite, then reunite. If not, then shame on you. -— Lyrithya ༆ 00:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That ^ – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 9 Mar 2014

Lyrithya, I think I understand what you feel about Uncyclopedia. I understand that everyone who worked here was making the site that partly belonged to him better. I understand that you spent an enormous amount of time and efforts to make Uncyclopedia look the way it does now. But the last thing we want would be to ruin yours and other Uncyclopedians' efforts.

But I think we all have to acknowledge the fact that both of the sites are now legitimate Uncyclopedias, and not simply the rest of one lareg project we used to be. And there is still a way for the two communities to be brought together, without leaving any website, and it is - for its editors - to work together. Would you like this to happen? Anton (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not if it involves working for both sides which is what I assume this is. I don't support both sides, see, so I can't do that. If I did, I could, but I don't. And you do, so it seems simple enough to you, but many of us have chosen a side, and while it is unfortunate that there are sides and I'm sure most of us would rather there not be, getting together in something that will most likely benefit both sides - as that would be fair and if it didn't benefit Uncyclopedia itself, why? - doesn't seem an option for those who do not support the existence of one side or the other.

Furthermore, the initial problem stated was that we don't have enough active community members to do stuff, like vote. How else would we solve this than having everyone who participated come and edit both sites to help them each be more active, or by creating a third place where we vote on stuff? Neither of those would work terribly well - many of us refuse to edit one site or the other, so the first would not work, and some of us refuse to even contribute to anything that would benefit one site or the other, which the third place thing would be, and besides, I don't understand how it would even work. Supposing it was for voting on stuff, some articles exist on one site and not the other, and we would have three sites where we voted on stuff which would probably not result in more activity than we have now, anywhere, but in less for all three. Supposing it was for collaborating on articles, many of us I believe would not do so if the resulting articles would be published on both sites. Reuniting in these ways sounds fine to someone who already participates in both communities, but not to someone who has chosen one at the expense of the other.

Perhaps you should tell us what your specific idea is, Anton, since the rest of us don't seem to be coming up with anything terribly useful. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:06, 9 Mar 2014

That doesn't work. You can have a community, and you can have another community, but if they are in different places, they will never be the same community. The only way to bring them together is to get them into a specific same place. -— Lyrithya ༆ 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So IRC and here are different communities? Nominally Humane! 01:22 12 Mar

Nobody said that. IRC and here are approximately the same community, IRC and wikia are different communities. I don't know how you got that IRC is a different community from here out of what Lyrithya said. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 12 Mar 2014

I don't think that at all. But the idea that a community is limited to a location is ridiculous. IRC as a location is where part of this community meet. From my perspective the community is not locked to a single URL. It hasn't been prior to the fork. Nominally Humane! 04:56 12 Mar

I...what? I don't get what you're trying to say. The two communities are the two groups of the original community that each chose a different url, so yes, of course in this case the communities are linked to locations. What... – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 12 Mar 2014

If you define a community as "a bunch of people belonging to a specific location", then yes. But using a real world example, if I said "Jewish community", that doesn't limit to just Israel, or Poland, or Mexico for that matter.

Uncyclopedia is not the website - if it were that would suggest that the community remains those that edit using the original URL only - making both this and the Wikia site fakes. Uncyclopediais a collection of articles grouped together as an online encyclopedia that is a parody of Wikipedia. The Uncyclopedia community is the group of people who work on those articles - or screw around on forums and talk pages. Does that mean people who interact as part of IRC, or Facebook, or the now defunct Skype Uncyclopedians, are not part of that community? Of course not.

At the same time, you can have communities within communities. The Australian Jewish community are still part of the Jewish community - they just avoid the shrimp at the barbie. Same way there is the independant Uncyc community that edit on a privately owned website that is funded primarily by donations, and there is the Wikia Uncyc community that edit on a corporately owned website that is funded by commercial interests that indirectly advertise on the website.

That's why I said a community is not defined by a location. If I were to hold a different perspective, I would consider myself to be being exclusivist and divisive. I'm not saying my perspective is definitive, but it's my feeling. And why I fully support cooperation between the editors at Wikia and the editors here on a project that would be mutually beneficial.

I also support not hitting people with frying pans, just as an aside. Nominally Humane! 07:46 12 Mar

*Hits Lyrithya with a frying pan* --Mimo &maxus 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Llwy, nobody will force you to contribute to the site you don't like. If you decide to participate in the project, I personally, as the person who proposed it, will do the best job I can to make sure that you (and other Uncyclopedians who have similar principles) will able to do this without leaving this site. And what concerns benefit, everything is relative, and the edits you make here can often help the editors there without you wanting it. But if you won't allow something to be transferred from here to there, then it won't. And finally, is there really no possible way for you to try to be more tolerant towards the other site? I realise that it must be hard, but if you did, only this would help the two Uncyclopedias to have a better relationship! Anton (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lyrithya and all. I never had a problem with Wikia. Nor was I any part of the fork conspiracy. But now the site is split so both sides are diminished. In any case, I can't influence anyone but myself. So the best way for me to unite Uncyclopedia is just to contribute to both. I have no bad feelings towards any side. We are all the same members as before, plus some new ones. Cheers!--Funny bony

09:03, Mar 10

I don't have a problem with Wikia either. That doesn't make it a good fit for Uncyclopedia, however. And if you want a reunification, and truly think we are all parts of the same things, then please stop using such divisive language as calling this a conspiracy. -— Lyrithya ༆ 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to divisive language like shame on you - which is universally recognised as a statement of welcome. Nominally Humane! 01:22 12 Mar

In response to Lyrithya's questions: A cynical mind would suggest that the motives behind the creation of the fork are less altruistic and more selfish in nature. Which would mean the "sweat, money and blah blah" put into it doesn't mean nothing - it means effort put into a project that you have a vested interest in succeeding. So it wouldn't mean nothing to that mindset, but it wouldn't reflect altruism, or a community spirit. Not that I have such a mindset - just see the flaw in your argument. Of course, the same effort could be seen in those that remained at the Wikia site - keeping the home fires burning if you wish to return. So for those who are working against one site or the other - despite whichever site it may be - we could equally say shame on them. Nominally Humane! 11:01 10 Mar

Be cynical all you like, that doesn't change the facts. -— Lyrithya ༆ 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My own personal preference is for the Wikia site since I was never bothered about skins, check users or IRC channels. That was where the fundamental split was - between those who were bothered by that and those who weren't. The old pre-split Uncyclopedia wasn't a happy place either with the dramas and the bans. So all in all, a divorce was for the best but we are staying in contact for the sake of the children (i.e. the articles). --

RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But why was that a split? Why, if your only stance is a lack of care, would you make the point to stay behind? There would need to be more to it than just not caring - not caring would mean following the path of least resistance, as others who likewise did not care did. So what was it? Does it still stand? -— Lyrithya ༆ 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't. And why do we have to discuss which site is better, if we could have been writing good articles all together now! Yes, all together now! Pa--pa--pa--pam-pa--bam, sail the ship!

Pam-pa-bam, chop the tree!

Pam-pa-bam, skip the rope!

Pam-pa-bam, look at me!

All together now! Anton (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Let the dust fall over what still lies here

The voting and writing, the rules and the fear

Let it cover the good and the bad times alike

But most of all, let it cover the spike

The spike who pokes out when the dust tries to fall

The spike who brushes it off with a call

A call for the dusty ones that had been dead

To come back to life and rise out of bed

Dusty with truth were they when they heard

A call to a thing that should not have occurred

Holding up darkness, denying the light

Only to meet in their turn a black night

Those who remain keep the dead things alive

Brushing the dust off lets dark demons thrive

Let it cover the things that will never return

For in the grey fire they silently burn – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:05, 10 Mar 2014

Is this an elaborate poetic diss of SPIKE? Because if so, then LOL! Lord Scofield Stark 15:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:50, 11 Mar 2014

Lyrithya's last three comments above are right on and exactly what I was thinking. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:34, 11 Mar 2014

/me cries because Lyrithya responded to everyone's comments but mine --Mimo &maxus 12:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How does one respond to *Hits Lyrithya with a frying pan*? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:23, 12 Mar 2014

Unhelpful addition

I actually have only one reason I ended up on the .co site (to the extent that I'm anywhere at all):

Lyrithya let me have my username back, while Sannse refused.

The forking of the project truly did kill off the project. It's been dying since late 2009, and now it's all but gone. Want to see a pictoral representation? Here. [1] It looks almost as bad as Myspace. [2]

It's obvious the two sides won't reconcile. I've been keeping an eye on the edit wars on Wikipedia and they make it pretty clear just how much bad blood there is.

Any kind of success probably does mean editing the same wiki. And that's going to come to pass one of two ways: either 1) we won't be able to pay our bills at some point; or 2) Wikia will realize it's losing money on a comparatively high-liability wiki and drop the project. Hyperbole (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't unhelpful, it's informative.

I do have a couple small comments. Firstly, it's cool that Uncyclopedia seems to get more traffic than Myspace. Secondly, if either one of the wikis collapsed a good many of the users on that wiki would be unwilling to join the remaining one, so at least in the short term it won't result in success or the two sides joining. (Though this may only be true in the case of the fork collapsing; I can only think of Spike as far as people who refuse to edit the fork and would most likely refuse even were it the only remaining Uncyclopedia.) – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 11 Mar 2014

The graph doesn't say that Uncyclopedia gets more traffic than Myspace; it just points out that Uncyclopedia is a little bit less of a shadow of its former self than Myspace is. A little bit less.

pillow talk 23:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Still, it's something. I think. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 11 Mar 2014

Also, I'd say both of the sites have been dying since early 2007. It's weird how they peaked and fell at the same time, isn't it? I wonder why. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 11 Mar 2014

Well, the obvious answer would be Facebook. People got into the habit of socializing with their real friends on the Internet, and once they started wasting time that way, they stopped wasting time other ways.

pillow talk 00:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably. I heard somewhere that sites for long articles like this one have become less popular at the expense of shorter attention span social media sites. I can't seem to get that to come out right but whatever. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:41, 12 Mar 2014

You gyze aren't wrong. I made this same point two years ago. Here, check out the graph for Twitter. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Wed, Mar 12 '14 2:48 (UTC)

Hey look a puppy. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Wed, Mar 12 '14 2:59 (UTC)

A possible partial solution to this would be to promote Uncyclopedia on Twitter, or to create really quick funny things and publicise those as a sort of trailer to advertise the full articles. I think Leverage said something about that. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 12 Mar 2014

Also why are we most popular as a search term in Australia? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 12 Mar 2014

Frosty can't remember our URL. He was never the same after the accident. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Wed, Mar 12 '14 4:17 (UTC)

fuq u bizzee. Also relevant guys, 2011 was a big year for masturbation ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)

05:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey you're here. Cool. And that's...interesting? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 12 Mar 2014

June and October 2011. That's when I got the cast off of my left arm, and then my right one. ~ BB ~ (T)

~ Wed, Mar 12 '14 8:14 (UTC)

Boy, people from Papua New Guinea are really into porn! --Mimo &maxus 12:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe - someone on irc suggested that people who are looking for porn search for 'porn' rather than 'pornography' or something like that, and people searching for 'pornography' would really be looking for some kind of information about it, rather than the actual thing. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:24, 12 Mar 2014

Confirmed. -- The Zombiebaron 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting data point.

pillow talk 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wonder what that was about. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:22, 12 Mar 2014

Eli Manning.

pillow talk 19:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For those who wanted

I don't think any big project can be organised as long as most of the people feel that way (you'll understand what way, if you read everything that preceded this post)! However, I saw that some of you were not against anything of that kind at all! So I would like to tell you that the page for collaborations on uncyclowikia was restarted and even if there is only one article there, you can add any of yours, or wait till more appear and then, if you want, start a collaboration, and bring the article over here! If you want.

If you want, I can update Uncyclopedia:Collaboratory here! Cheers, as says Funnybony, and let the frying pan be with you, as Funnybony doesn't say. Thank you for making additions to this forum! Anton (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Forum:United Uncyclopedia Wish

Contents

Reuniting: yes or no

Are you for or against collaborating with the editors from uncyclopedia.wikia.com to make the Uncyclopedia better?

If you want to reunite, then reunite.

Unhelpful addition

For those who wanted

Navigation menu

Forum:United Uncyclopedia Wish

Reuniting: yes or no

Are you for or against collaborating with the editors from uncyclopedia.wikia.com to make the Uncyclopedia better?

If you want to reunite, then reunite.

Unhelpful addition

For those who wanted

Navigation menu

Search