Forum:We need to wake up from this coma

Forums: Index > Village Dump > We need to wake up from this coma

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3050 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

It's not the best title but it'll do...

Uncyclopedia along with YTMND, MySpace, The Million Dollar Homepage, Maddox.xmission.com, IRC, TV Tropes and maybe Facepunch Studios and/or Something Awful have made up the core of the internet for kids like myself growing up in the early 2000s. The type of humor these sites provided along with the culture that was there at the time was both a counterculture to the mainstream's usage of the internet at the time and a niche filled with the kind of people who would take pride and value over images depicting 9/11 and ORLY memes.

Those who were active during the early internet are creative legends in their own right.

However, we have entered an age where a lot of corporations have figured out how to use the internet and have as such, taken control in a way that undermines the original culture of the internet. Memes are now images created not for humor but for profit and can be created by corporations to influence public perception; anything designed on the internet can be sold as a shirt and promoted in a way that appeals to the mainstream; internet stars can be created easily without the effort that was once required and worst of all; we're all just perspective clients with data that they can use to make us believe anything and sell us products and ideals.

Sites like Something Awful now charge for you to sign up while sites like YTMND are going to be shut down with all the history lost. (http://gizmodo.com/who-killed-ytmnd-1785765611) Maddox (much like South Park) can't make a dent in today's internet and all the stuff we used to love is being replaced by Reddit and Discord with Forums becoming an exclusive club only available to a selected few.

The internet has become in a sense, a dog eat dog world where the traditions that have made it what it is have been thrown aside in pursuit of fame, profit, power and control. The internet powers every bit of our lives and our data has become valuable to anybody who seeks to control public perception; going as far as to elect a president who's throwing everything into disarray. Basically the Illuminati conspiracy world of a global order that you thought only existed in movies has become reality with Russian hackers leading the way.

This has lead to considerable declines in sites like Uncyclopedia which are seen now as "an archive of what the internet used to be"; both this site and it's Wikia counterpart have reached levels of activity that would make DeviantArt look like Facebook in comparison. We're basically a ghost town that somehow still has working power.

Everything has grinded to a virtual halt in all areas. VFH, VFD and others have gotten to the point where a template describing how many hours it's been since a nomination have been added; there have been no recent writing competitions, especially the once notable Poo Lit Surprise and worst of all, nobody has created any UnNews or mainspace articles for days now.

This can be attributed to one thing... Why write for Uncyclopedia when you can write for Cracked and get a larger audience? (http://www.cracked.com/write-for-cracked/)

Places like this work as incubators where potential comedians can refine their talent in writing, music, satire, comedic delivery, content, basically anything and get feedback along the way for it. I was once the worst writer of all time but thanks to Uncyclopedia, I'm making articles that are as sharp as they are witty. It's different than placing it on YouTube or any other publicly available site where they'll ridicule it and spread it across the net; because of the confined nature of these sites, you can make as many mistakes as you want and then go big time when you're ready.

I feel as if modern internet is killing off Uncyclopedia and I feel like something should be done.

My proposal is basically a couple of numbered points.

1. We have to split UnNews (and probably UnTunes) from the main site and make it look more like The Onion. While the WikiNews thing did work in the beginning, WikiNews itself has become niche catering to the Wikipedia userbase while the whole "open-source; write any news article you want" thing still has potential; not only that but we can branch out UnNews to tackle areas similar to what The Onion is doing with Clickhole. People love to read the news, people love to read satirical news and who wouldn't want to be a writer for The Onion one day? Not only that but UnNews still has a Facebook presence meaning that the public can be exposed to their articles and the writer can use that as a gauge to see whether he has a future.
2. We have to encourage people to write for this site under a different context. The Wikipedia parody used to work but it doesn't hold much weight thanks to the dominance of Wikipedia as an information source and the subsequent classification of "wiki culture" and "fan wikis" as niche. The whole thing used to make sense back in the day but there are a lot of subprojects that don't have much to offer nor awards that don't serve much of a purpose anymore... In addition we have a lot of content that suggests we're an "internet museum" than a humor writing site (Zork for example) and there isn't much incentive when a lot of corporate internet sites offer you fame and fortune. Therefore I suggest a updating of Uncyclopedia not just as a Wikipedia parody but as a writing incubator where people can get critique for their humor articles. Make it look less dated, present the articles that don't feel like an "internet museum" and give the impression that by finessing your writing craft on this site, you could one day create your own Netflix show.
3. Make it easier for people to understand how to create anything on this site. Wikipedia mainly works because of the amount of technical users it has but Uncyclopedia is hard due to it's heavy usage of templates, formatting and some basic CSS knowledge... (maybe even advanced) Most people want to write articles and to learn all this shit is hard and unnecessary if they're not going to use it in the future. Humor has become less technical and many humorists have moved on to sites where it is fucking easy to create content; I don't know how it's going to be conveyed but this has to be done.

So it's 3 points but still, important points nonetheless...

In the past, everybody used to care about this site and how it influenced the internet but today, it seems like nobody cares about a site that could still hit hard on all the major issues. In a world where so much serious shit is happening, people need to laugh and sites like Cracked have taken over Uncyclopedia as the source for where people laugh leaving this and it's repository of good writing doomed to extinction.

We don't need pictures of boobs or anything else; we need some serious discussion/action otherwise I might as well be the only person creating it's content and that's no fun. This site works if you're not the only one creating the content. --RealLifeCartman (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the first few sentences I'm sure I agree with you but this is a long wall of text. I think a big part of the death of the utopian internet of our childhood is that many people have had their attention span eroded significantly over the past ten years. Please try to summarize this giant wall of text because I guarantee very few people will actually read it all. -- The Zombiebaron 18:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR: Uncyclopedia (formed in 2005) is increasingly becoming a relic at risk of dying. Nobody is interacting or creating anything for Uncyclopedia because of similar sites that offer more potential for the writer. Uncyclopedia needs to do something for it is one of a few sites where you can improve your comedic writing craft. Idea 1: Split off UnNews and make it look like The Onion. Idea 2: Modernize Uncyclopedia and provide a hook for the potential writer whether it's money or something else entirely. --RealLifeCartman (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about "increasingly". We are a relic, have been for years. If you've got some ideas to revitalize the site just start setting them in motion, if you're willing to do the work literally nobody is going to stop you. -- The Zombiebaron 18:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

We aren't a relic. A relic is something that's old and rare and valuable. We are fossilized dinosaur poop. – roza (talk ☭ ctbs ☭ log) 20:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The definition of relic that I like is "a survivor or remnant left after decay, disintegration, or disappearance". This site is a relic of the last decade of the internet, sadly. I'm totally in favor of modernization, whatever that means for us. We just need to make a plan. -- The Zombiebaron 21:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I CAN'T WAKE UP

– Kip > Talk • Works •• 20:38, Aug. 30, 2017

The stuff issue

I think there are not that many stuff to write about. We are a parody of encyclopedias, so if someone wants to create their own parody about Madonna, they can't do it because there's already a Madonna article. So people need to be REALLY creative to parody something someone already parodied before, without making another UnNews (which I think is great BTW). We need to encourage people to be creative when they are naming and materializing their articles, i.e Geography of Madonna. And we need to keep parodying WP until it's dead, and then continue parodying it. ~ Kakun · talk 18:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, and in the past it was the motivation behind me championing Forest Fire Week initiatives. I will always be in favor of controlled burns to revitalize the site. One thing we noted on IRC while discussing this a few days ago was that in the old days many people discovered our site through "news" stories, so maybe we could send out press releases about our proposed deletion spree. -- The Zombiebaron 01:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kip the Dip: That was the definition of 'relic', until 2015. @Zombiebaron: I feel like 'fake news' is no longer a novelty, given that now we can't even tell the difference thanks to Trump and others. @RealLifeCartman: All of a sudden I'm thinking 'JFK's 1961 conspiracy speech'. Should I make a video setting this to music? LDA MyOwnBadSelf, 'Does it look different enough for y'all?' (talk - stalk - block) 02:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Who said anything about fake news, this would be real news. -- The Zombiebaron 03:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly: I think Nerd42 touched on this at Illogicopedia. He said that these days, there's nothing to satirise, because the world has turned into a satire of itself. Secondly: the main problem with Forest Fire Week is about the people who put their hard work into writing the previous articles, only to be deleted. I feel like FFW should be for deleting low-quality, unfunny articles, as opposed to revitalising the site. Maybe we should revive IC? LDA MyOwnBadSelf, 'Does it look different enough for y'all?' (talk - stalk - block) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we make a section on the front page with important non-existant articles. Like "Requested articles" but more serious. Maybe we can call it "Today's bullfighting list", as a parody on Wikipedia's "From today's featured list". (a reference to the red cloth used by bullfighters). ~ Kakun · talk 11:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And we need a site message at the top of all pages, which links to a clear explanation why there are 2 different English Language-Uncyclopedias on Google, and why ours is the better and real one. ~ Kakun · talk 12:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The funniest joke is always the truth, its just a matter of how you present it, I think. We will never run out of new topics, but maybe we need to approach them in new ways. I'm in favor of showcasing potential new article titles on the front page, and for writing up some kind of explanation about our schism. -- The Zombiebaron 22:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I know little about the Wikia politics. About the first thing, This is how it would look like (right under today's featured image). ~ Kakun · talk 02:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Desciclopédia is facing the same problem, unfortunately Coyote (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)