Uncyclopedia:Your injoke is not funny and neither are you
|This is an essay. It is not an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia, so you should ignore it even more and disregard the mad ramblings of its writer. Or you could submit it as an Uncycloversity assignment in lieu of actually doing any work.|
Here at Uncyclopedia we have a long
and proud history of creating inside joke after inside joke after inside joke. Many seem to engage in such bullshit in a cult like fashion, engaging in pissing contests with anybody who dares question the comedic value of their literary masturbation, nominating their 30 second article on VFH and accusing any administrator that deletes their abortion of an article of being involved in "zomg super secret admin illuminati".
Nothing could be further from the truth, the undeniable fact of the situation is that the injoke is not funny and nor is anybody who defends it.
Typical timeline of any Uncyclopedia injoke
- Something in the range of semi-amusing to quite amusing is stated by somebody somewhere. Typically on VFD, VFH, a forum, some random nonsense created by an IP/noob or via IRC.
- The somewhat funny quote or content is taken completely out of context and slapped onto an article. Everybody "in the loop" has a good giggle and everybody "out of the loop" may proceed to be extremely confused.
- The creator of the injoke allows the popularity of their creation go to their head, it gets sent to VFH. It will either be rightfully panned and thrown out or if the article creater can whore enough, it passes VFH.
- Now we enter the stage where the injoke begins to die, usually it gets rehashed again and again and again and again and again into even less funny shit until it finally gets sent to VFD.
- Article survives VFD when its cult following defends the article with the predictable rationale of "established injoke". The presence of actual jokes not being a requirement.
- Article gathers dust in mainspace, slowly but surely every user involved in its creation leaves the site. Now, the "injoke" has nobody who was around at its creation for the "in" to be applicable, nor does it hold many "jokes". But we hold onto it regardless, because it's a piece of "Uncyclopedia history hurr durr."
The writer of this essay has created injokes, never forget
Yes, I have in fact been responsible for two highly infamous in-jokes (and other lesser known ones I think): Template:Boner and Matt Smith giving Mr-ex777 buttsex. They have both gone through the process mentioned above (minus VFD nomination or account of the fact they actually passed VFH somehow) and I'm very embarressed I created them. Rehashes of them can be seen here, here, here, here, here and here, which all serve to make it even more embarressing and irritating.
Mr-ex777 has quit the site at the time of this writing, when the other users involved in these injokes are gone they will be funny to nobody and should be deleted. But they won't, why? Because they will be "history of Uncyclopedia hurr durr." DISREGARD THAT I AM BACK NOW!!!
B...B...But injokes hurt nobody!!!1!
Actually they hurt the site in several ways, here's a few:
- It distracts us from the site mission, we are a satirical Wikipedia parody. Not saying it all needs to be impossibly high quality stuff but when ED saying "Uncyclopedia and its ilk exist to parody themselves, and to take up a lot of space doing essentially nothing." rings true because of the amount of time spent parodying our own injokes, you know something is up.
- It encourages noobs to follow the lead. They see all this unfunny out of context shit and they think that at Uncyclopedia, all content should be random, incoherent nonsense. There's a separate wiki for that. See also: Listcruft.
- Even worse, noobs are less likely to stay when they see all this crap. In the words of Banzaikitten on an injoke VFH; "When I first came to the site I almost left because I thought if articles like this are the best then it must really suck".
- It encourages lazy writing. Why bother spending a few days or even longer writing a well thought out piece of satire or parody when you can spend 5 minutes mashing two injokes together? Compare Romartus and Zarbag's History of Great Britain, a piece of writing that took years of collaborative work against my shitty old injokes that took collectively 5 minutes tops. Both got featured. Nobody on earth could argue these two articles are equal in value.
- It encourages actually competant writers to leave because they can no longer be arsed writing grown up, intelligent jokes for people that decide a one sentence page is their sites best content. See also: User talk:Famine for a more ellaborated version of this point.
- Writing actual content makes you feel better and last longer in bed. Scientifically proven!