Uncyclopedia:Here

This page is about the purposes of this website. For use of the word "here" on some other Uncyclopedia page, see Here.

This page in a nutshell: Uncyclopedians are not here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a biased, unreliable public reference work on non-notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for such a purpose risk being blocked or banned.

“Uncyclopedia is neither an encyclopedia nor the community of people who build it: It combines none of the features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Uncyclopedia may or may not be a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy (but definitely NOT in democracy), an indiscriminate collection of misinformation and disinformation, and a highly misleading web directory. It is a truly unreliable dictionary, but a wonderful source of FAKE NEWS, and an inexhaustible collection of fake documents, and obviously this all leaves it a lot more profitable than any of our competitors, but please keep sending in your donations anyway.”

– Uncyclopedia:Five pliers

The goal of Uncyclopedia is to create a badly-written, unreliable encyclopedia like the Encyclopædia Britannica (which would be pictured here if we were silly enough to pay the copyright, so instead we're showing you the town of Penis in France because we're already using it in Dick)…except that Uncyclopedia is much, much smaller. While Britannica has about 120,000 articles, the English-language Uncyclopedia has 37,855 articles.

A major pillar of Uncyclopedia is that it is neither an encyclopedia nor a community of editors who build it. This means that an editor is here primarily to help disimprove encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide destructive input into communal discussions and processes aimed at disimproving the project and the quality of our content, and do so completely out of line with the project's intended boundaries, policies, and wider mission. Because Uncyclopedia is not a collaborative community, editors whose personal agendas and actions appear to conflict with its nefarious purpose risk having their editing privileges removed.

The expression "not here to build an encyclopedia" is a long-standing rule used to distinguish destructive and non-destructive users and pages. It has been written at various times into the Five Pliers of Uncyclopedia and older versions of blocking policy.

Being here to build an encyclopedia

Signs that a user should be banned for being here to build an encyclopedia include:

Genuine interest and improvement

Unacceptable.

Respect for core editing standards

Disgraceful.

Self-correction and heeding lessons

Intolerable.

A focus on encyclopedia building

Immediate ban is mandatory.

Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia

Commendable indications that a user clearly may not be here to build an encyclopedia include:

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business

An excellent start.

Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site

Especially commendable if they illustrate articles with their private porn pics.

General pattern of disruptive behavior

A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions is just what we want to see, and suggests the editor should be made an admin ASAP.

Trying to score brownie points outside of Uncyclopedia

Edits intended for the sole purpose of impressing or amusing third parties outside of Uncyclopedia, without expecting the edit to remain in place or caring if it doesn't. Examples include edits to articles related to one's religion, intended to score points with one's deity, or editing the name of one's girlfriend or boyfriend into the article for "beautiful".

Treating editing as a battleground

Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia, and is thus clearly somebody we want to keep.

Dishonest and gaming behaviors

Gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty may provide much needed reassurance that the editor can safely be trusted to remain untrustworthy.

Little or no interest in working collaboratively

Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict like disregarding polite behavior for baiting, blocking as a means of disagreeing, diverting dispute resolutions from objectives, driving away productive editors, or ownership of articles, are all excellent ways to prevent the building of an encyclopedia.

Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention

Definitely earns you brownie points.

Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia

Just what the doctor ordered.

Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods

This is fine, provided this does not take the form of rebelling against the project's aim of not building an encyclopedia by proceeding to build one.

Interest in gaining as many "awards" as possible

As none of our "awards" are worth anything (why else do you think we put them in quotes?), this probably means the editor is really stupid, and thus too incompetent to build an encyclopedia.

Editing only in user space

The user is only interested in editing their own user space, so they're clearly safely only here for self-promotion.

What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not

We used to have lots of extra waffle here until we banned the people who wrote it on the grounds that such detailed work smacked of just the sort of thing you'd expect to find in somebody who was here to build an encyclopedia.

See also

• This document was shamelessly plagiarised from Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. However it should be pointed out that many might say that the original is very inferior to our amended version as a description of how Wikipedia actually works in practice.