User:Coffi/Under/ICU Doctoral Program
Every day hundreds of articles are created on Uncyclopedia. Many of these are vandalism, utter nonsense, one or two sentences, or someone's coming out message; these are deleted shot burninated huffed on sight. A few are high quality articles that make this place great, but most of them fall somewhere in the middle. They might have some notable qualities to them, like a good concept or a funny joke or two, but they just don't have enough work put into them to really conform to the standards we try to keep around here. This is what is chiefly known in Uncyclopedia as having No Redeeming Value (NRV); however, despite this derogatory name, they do have some redeeming values, which is why they are given a chance.
Those articles that are incredibly horrendous, yet still are given a chance to be expanded, are tagged as Intensive Care Unit (ICU). ICU essentially means that either (1) people have to keep working on them, or (2) they will get deleted. To help our administrators find and process these pages, our users mark these pages with {{ICU}}, which also helps explain to the article's creator where exactly did they fail at meeting Uncyclopedia's standards.
There are plenty of articles that have a lot of potential, but have been put in the ICU, and the user who created them has no idea how to fix them, so they just sit there limply and get huffed in 7 days. However, a new agency has been created to handle these articles and find out if they truly DO have NRV, and attempt to validate, review, and fix them. Any User can join the program. This is how it works:
- Articles are tagged for review and fixation by users who want to help
- Article is fixed
- Final edit is reviewed by the ICU Doctoral Review board
- Article is tagged with a Fixed notice
The Rules of the Program[edit | edit source]
How the Program Works[edit | edit source]
The ICU Doctoral Program operates on a principle of collaborative rescue and rehabilitation of articles teetering on the brink of deletion. Upon joining, a user is recognized as a Doctoral Candidate. These Candidates form the backbone of the program, actively engaging with articles languishing in the ICU.
Their primary responsibility is to identify articles tagged with the {{ICU}} template and assess their potential for salvage. Candidates then undertake the crucial work of improvement. This involves a multifaceted approach, which may include:
- Humor Infusion: Injecting wit, satire, and absurdity where it is lacking or weak. This requires a keen understanding of Uncyclopedia's comedic sensibilities.
- Content Enhancement: Expanding on existing ideas, adding relevant (and irrelevant) details, and ensuring the article has sufficient substance to warrant its existence.
- Structural Refinement: Organizing the article logically (or illogically, if that's the comedic intent), using appropriate headings and subheadings, and ensuring a smooth (or deliberately jarring) flow.
- Formatting Finesse: Applying proper wiki markup for readability and visual appeal, including the strategic use of bolding, italics, lists, and images (where appropriate and humorous).
- Grammar and Spelling Rectification: Eliminating those pesky errors that detract from the comedic impact and overall quality. While intentional misspellings can be funny, accidental ones usually aren't.
- Concept Validation: Ensuring the core idea of the article has comedic potential and isn't just random gibberish. Sometimes, even a funny premise needs to be executed well.
Candidates are encouraged to be bold in their edits but also to be mindful of the original author's intent (if discernible). Collaboration with other Candidates on particularly challenging articles is highly encouraged. Two (or more) heads are often funnier (and more effective) than one.
Review and Approval[edit | edit source]
Once a Doctoral Candidate believes an article has been sufficiently resurrected and now meets (or hilariously subverts) Uncyclopedia's standards, they initiate the review process. This involves clearly indicating their belief that the article is ready for evaluation, perhaps by leaving a note on the article's talk page or within a designated program forum (if established).
The ICU Doctoral Review Board then convenes (virtually, of course) to scrutinize the revised article. This board comprises seasoned Uncyclopedians with a proven track record of understanding and upholding the site's peculiar standards. The Review Board's assessment focuses on whether the Candidate has successfully addressed the issues that led to the initial ICU tagging and whether the article now possesses sufficient comedic merit and overall quality.
If the Review Board deems the article worthy of survival, it is bestowed with the {{Fixed}} notice. This tag serves as a badge of honor, signifying that the article has undergone rigorous review and has been deemed fit for Uncyclopedic consumption.
It is crucial to remember that the "Fixed" tag is a recommendation, not a guarantee of eternal life. The Evil Administrators retain their ultimate authority and may still choose to delete an article for reasons known only to them (or perhaps due to a sudden craving for digital immolation). However, a "Fixed" tag significantly increases an article's chances of survival and serves as a testament to the Candidate's hard work.
Expectations of Candidates[edit | edit source]
The success of the ICU Doctoral Program hinges on the active participation and dedication of its Doctoral Candidates. To ensure the program functions effectively, the following expectations are placed upon its members:
- Active Engagement: Candidates are expected to regularly browse the list of ICU-tagged articles and actively select those they believe they can improve. Lurking is acceptable for a while, but eventually, action is required.
- Diligent Effort: When undertaking the revision of an article, Candidates should commit to putting in the necessary work to bring it up to standard. Half-hearted attempts are unlikely to yield positive results.
- Constructive Collaboration: Engaging with other Candidates, offering feedback on their work, and being receptive to critique of one's own edits are vital for the program's collaborative spirit. Sharing ideas and strategies can lead to better outcomes.
- Understanding of Uncyclopedia's Ethos: A strong grasp of Uncyclopedia's unique brand of humor, satire, and encyclopedic absurdity is paramount. Candidates should strive to understand what makes an article funny and worthy of inclusion. Familiarity with established Uncyclopedia conventions and tropes is also beneficial.
- Commitment to Learning: Uncyclopedia is a constantly evolving entity. Candidates should be open to learning new techniques, adapting to changing standards (if any exist), and continuously refining their editing skills. Asking questions and seeking guidance from experienced members is encouraged.
- Respectful Conduct: While humor is the lifeblood of Uncyclopedia, interactions within the program should remain respectful and constructive. Personal attacks or belittling of others' efforts will not be tolerated. We're here to save articles, not start flamewars.
- Realistic Expectations: Not every article can be saved. Candidates should be prepared to recognize when an article truly has no redeeming value, despite their best efforts. Knowing when to let go is a valuable skill.
- Patience (Mostly): The review process may take some time, as the Review Board members are also volunteers with their own lives and questionable internet habits. While promptness is appreciated, patience is often necessary. However, if an article languishes in review for an unreasonable amount of time, polite follow-up is acceptable.
New members are warmly welcomed and strongly encouraged to ask questions, seek advice, and learn from the more experienced members of the program. The ICU Doctoral Program is intended to be a supportive and educational environment where all participants can hone their Uncyclopedic skills and contribute to the preservation (and perversion) of knowledge.
