Protected page

Forum:Decisions Time Folks - Let's Be Organized for a Change

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Decisions Time Folks - Let's Be Organized for a Change (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3688 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Baby crying closeup.jpg
Baby crying closeup.jpg
Any and all comments about ads may be removed for being completely off-topic, because certain people can't get it through their thick skulls that this is about the domain name. Please. Get it through your thick skulls.
Recommended prior reading, maybe?: Forum:Uncyclopedia domain name, Forum:Uncyclopedia: An Essay On Uncyclopedia by RAHB, Forum:An open letter to the Cabal, Forum:Count to a million & Archive of some kind

Following the chaos of the last few days, I think our biggest problem as a community is that we almost never make conscious decisions. We tend to spiral down into Drama lane pretty quick and in the end of the day we end up with what we had in the last week. And this last week, in my view, didn't really get us anywhere.

The way it looks to me at the moment, for the first time really, we are about to lose the place. No humor for you. Come back, two years.

So for once, just once, let's not try to discuss things properly, make a decision and go along with our lives. Either way, we can't remain in our current position of a semi-striking pouting community. This doesn't help.

The way I see it we have these options:

  1. Form a group to do serious negotiations with Wikia, via phone via meetings via whatever - not via posts through the dump. No more than 3-4 people who can represent us. If that option is going down we can do a quick vote to decide who these will be. What do we want out of these negotiations? First - no ads. Second - the wikipedia look alike will remain as a given, no reskin and such. Third - in the future changes will be discussed with us before implementing them, not dropped on our heads. I hope that in the end of the day wikia will understand that without a community there will be no Uncyclopedia and perhaps be more willing to cooperate if we actually try to talk with them face to face.
  2. Accept the fact the URL thing is done and over with and we can get on with our lives. If and when wikia place ads on the site we will check our options again.
  3. Seriously start looking for a new hosting partner. Again, we'll need to discuss this with Wikia to allow us a migration of the database and perhaps our URL. But we need to understand that this will involve costs. Are people here willing to contribute money? That needs to be checked. Will also need someone to run this project, with some technical abilities. Possibly Olipro (when he's not busy molesting someone) or Spang (when he's not busy running around in his kilt) or whoever deemed right for this. On a personal note, I'd advise against moving under CarlB, since we'll just moving ourselves again into a position of someone controlling the domain without us having a say in it. And CarlB hasn't really been a member of this site for over two years now.

Whatever we decide we cannot continue with the current route we're taking. This has been my home for over two and a half years now, I've got some genuine friends from it, in real life as well, and at the moment we're burning it down with our own hands.

Let's make a decision for once - but for god's sakes - NO DRAMA!!!!

Also, RAHB, you don't need to discuss your penis, just this once.

I'm placing my options for vote - if anyone has any other ideas, please put them as well.

Thanks. ~Jewriken.GIF 10:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RAHB's penis aside, the way I see it we have three choices:
  1. Put up with the current situation, put up with the exodus of active members of the community and see what happens.
  2. Form a group to deal with Wikia and negotiate a move to seperate hosting. For this we need to know exactly the costs involved (enough people are happy to pay them so that isn't an issue)
  3. Find out a costing from Wikia for the hosting and pay it (that way Wikia make something from the website and we can return control to the community, including having our domain back.
There may be other options, but we need to know what it valid and let the people decide their own future. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
A few observations: First, Wikia did talk to us, through Sannse, for several days before they implemented the domain name change. It was not negotiation per se, but they did try to speak to our concerns and they did address our suggestions. Second, as far as I know Wikia has NOT advocated a reskin or the placement of their ads on Uncyc. As far as I know -- and I may be missing something -- these are hypothetical threats. Hasty action is therefore not called for. Considered, logical evaluation is appropriate. But lets not shout fire when we only guess that there is a possibility of smoke at some future time. ----OEJ 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put this at the top of the forum inside eight big tags and a "blink" template, but I'll settle for centered bold down here:

This is about a domain name, not ads.

Previous archived discussion posted here, for further details please read this before posting thanks.--Sycamore (Talk) 11:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Brief Update

I'd just like to take the time to inform the wider community that we are working on several options which we will post within the Forum once all the i's are dotted and t's crossed. I'd like to thank everyone who is contibuting behind the scenes to give this site and its community choices on the direction it will take in the future, but ultimately it is down to YOU. As our friends at ?pedia have already shown a site isn't its hosting or who owns the domain name, it is about the people who put the time, effort and talent into making something greater than the sum of its parts. With my dealings with members of the Uncyclopedia community over the last few weeks I have seen very clearly what a special group of people that we have here. The desire to find a secure and stable long term solution for Uncyclopedia is key to what we are hoping to achieve and once again I'd like to thank everyone who is helping in this aim. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

Here, here. I would like to thank the Chosen Ones for working on behalf of our community, keeping things above board, chin up - and all that. Its easy to point ones fingers at others and say, "here, you go fix this" and then standing around waiting for the perfect solution to our own needs to magically appear. Well, suffice it say, all this is taking a great deal of work. So guys, on behalf of Me, Myself and I, we thank you for the effort that you are spending on us. With hugs, hugs, and more hugs, Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Does it mean that we get free booze and cheap women as a show of gratitude? ~Jewriken.GIF 13:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, but we're working on getting some cheap booze and free women. And by "working on" I mean "desperately wishing for". -RAHB 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping that there would be a few good looking straight men thrown in for moi?? If not, choclate works too. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Straight chocolate men? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"It's raining straight chocolate men" sounds like a Karaoke song that the Stepbrothers would do like "Boats and Hoes" video where they crashed their Dad's $80,000 boat. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the update Mhaille. I think the general consensus is that the domain move was an inconvenience, not really a major thing, but a selection of the community feel very strongly about it. I personally think that W*kia's essential aims are noble but their vision is being clouded by money, leading to a bit of community alienation. I have a lot of respect for the guys at W*kia but I suppose I'm always going to have a chip on my shoulder about them based on my experience with Illogicopedia where there's a collective disgust.
With Uncyclopedia, I'd personally love for it to go independent again as it was when I first found it. Not up to me though, and I'm sure you guys are doing a brilliant job negotiating with Our Great Overlords.
Oh, and I think choccies are due all round. Save me a Kit Kat or something. -- Hindleyite Converse?pedia 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
One Kit Cat. Please assemble carefully according to instructions
Seems a strange request, but there you go... --UU - natter UU Manhole.gif 09:25, Nov 26


A little too much pushed off the page and into the archives - such as the cost data for putting the wiki back up under some other domain. Current status is that to host something comparable in size (for instance, the combined size of two largest non-English versions of Uncyclopedia) could run about $C400/mo and using about $C5000 worth of co-located hardware (two dedicated servers) - based on my current costs for the existing non-Wikia Uncyclopedia Babel hosts. These numbers are based on the assumption that the new server has to handle the full traffic level from day one, which would be desirable but (given the current situation in and, where Wikia staff are hard at work forking the projects to "get back" at the respective departing communities) there is no guarantee we'd get this traffic this quickly. The main concern is the domain name - servers are a commodity and easy enough to add as needed. --Carlb 08:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Carlb, if I wanted to read some lousy propaganda, I'd watch political broadcasts or move to China. /me walks off furious--Sycamore (Talk) 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Carl's right. Moving from Wikia would be serious business and, from what I can gather, not very practical because of Wikia's wishes. Uncyc would certainly need Wikia's full backing on this, otherwise we'd be in a situation where there are two Uncyclopedias: one at Wikia and one independent. In other words, there'd be a rebel wiki where all the regulars and oldies go and the 'old' Wikia wiki which newbies would find via Google search and outdated web links. My guess is that Wikia wouldn't let Uncyc go because it's too big a profit puller in these times of financial hardship. Then there's the cost of running an independent Uncyc...
IMO, best thing to do is lobby Wikia for the old domain name back. Uncyc has a cushy deal here at Wikia, with no intrusive adverts and no forced New Monaco. It's like those guys from prison movies - you know, the 'big shot' crime dudes who get spacious cells, bodyguards and televisions.
/me goes back to China to watch political broadcasts -- Hindleyite Converse?pedia 11:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Guys. We have yet to decide exactly what we are going to do. In the meanwhile, I personally appreciate Carlb keeping us up to date of any possibilities. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 12:46, Dec 7
I reckon it's worth taking all the time you can to make the right decision. However, I was just pointing out that Carl has a point about going independent without Wikia's say-so. I also agree that Carl's input on this matter is hugely valued, after all, he hosts/has hosted a number of the interlanguage pedias, so he knows what he's talking about. -- Hindleyite Converse?pedia 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
We are in an odd situation in that we are the only site I know of to have their main project on some "free" or advertising-sponsored server somewhere, controlled by outsiders, while a long list of major additional projects are on multiple dedicated servers or in co-location. Evidently, we have the proven ability to host a wiki like this; we just for various reasons haven't used it. To some degree, the current odd configuration was a historical accident. I'd ordered the first dedicated server on July 5, 2006 for deployment two weeks later (we kept outgrowing shared or virtual hosts on a couple of large wikis like Uncyclopedia Taiwan), Chron sold the .org domain in secret on July 12 - even though that domain would be needed if we ever wanted to create domains like Wikia didn't want Taiwan as they felt it overlapped China. I'd suspect that our situation in terms of ads, forced reskins, incompatible licenses and other problems on this wiki would have been much worse if we hadn't gone with co-located servers for the Babel project; as it stands, Wikia knows we have technical capability to operate this wiki from the same co-location if we need to, so maybe they'll think twice before utterly destroying it here. Given the situation with (GuildWiki et al.) the non-commercial license in itself isn't going to protect content from any number of for-profit misuses unless the authors have any law firms on retainer to explain the CC-NC concept to Wikia (and I doubt they do). GuildWiki has had to deal both with inappropriate ads (such as "buy gold" as a way to cheat at the very games being discussed on the wikis) and ever-larger ads being forced into the content area. If that were tried here, I'd suspect the wiki would be moved to or the same day and Wikia would be hosting a ghost town. --Carlb 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Even Briefer Update

The non existent cabal met last Saturday. Several options were discussed, and we are still collection all sorts of "important" "pieces" of "information". As soon as we finish "collecting" we'll post everything we gathered on the forum and let the community pick their favorite one.

On a different note, rumor has it that Olipro is, in fact, blond. ~ Mordillo where is my VAGINA? 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, cool! Will the "information" be posted here or in a different topic? Also, Olipro isn't blond. Not when I last saw him. Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:35, Dec 8
You "saw" Olipro. Ouch man. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 16:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The doctor says I should get my sight back in about six weeks... Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:04, Dec 8

We can literally try and receive a $100,000 bailout with Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a ripoff of Uncyclopedia, so maybe we can get a bailout from Wikia? We're trying to kill off Wikia but we couldn't, unless we have some money to buy us servers and become independent. GiratinaOriginForme.png |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill Don't be fooled. I'm an Aussie too. | 05:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you want Uncyc to become a part of the Wikimedia Foundation, say For.

Becoming a part of a not for profit foundation would definately be major step forward. Uncyclopedia is a not for profit website that is "owned" by a for profit company, obviously with a very different agenda. I think as people within Wikia are no doubt beginning to see a business model based solely on advertising is not viable within the service area they have elected to work in. It makes perfect sense in something like Jimbo's previous pet project Bomis, but in community led websites, especially (though not restricted to) those of a "creative" nature Wikia really need to work on a Plan B, or at the very least an Option B. Alienating the very communities whose work they hope to benefit from is business suicide. Wikia may feel that they can ride out the storm, but now that the mainstream media have picked up what is going on it is far more likely to snowball and get worse for them.
I personally would like to find a way to work with Wikia on a solution that would be mutually beneficial. The current situation is unworkable, but there may be an Option B that would work for Uncyclopedia, and maybe benefit Wikia in providing them with something to prop up their failing business model. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
So I'm sitting quietly on the sidelines here, until the representatives are ready to contact Wikia. But I can't let that one pass without comment... it isn't failing, thankyouverymuchforasking. We are growing, the projected this-and-that is on schedule, and the financial types are still of the opinion that community, free content, and ads can live together in hope, harmony and fluffyness. -- sannse (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Just an aside, thats not the language used when the move over occurred it was not about advertisments, it was an "innocent" move. I sense wikia will keep turing the screw until the site is trashed and full of adverts. I urge serious thought goes into a more transparent (honest) and well thought out model - not the whole erosion stratagy, it makes me mad. I urge the firm you work for with all of its members not to try and bully the site about but work with us more.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As I just said on IRC... I was not talking of ads specifically on Uncyclopedia here, I was talking in general terms about our business model for Wikia as a whole. Nothing has changed about the reasons for the URL change -- sannse (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Would these be the same financial types responsible for the recent cull? Or the ones hoping to recoup the $14 Million investment they made? ;) Thing is I don't really care that much about Wikia, I care about Uncyclopedia and its future. I think it would be fair to say that no matter what the "financial types" think just about everyone who is active on Uncyclopedia doesn't share their vision on free content and ads. And therein lies the problem. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
You really ought to have linked to one of the articles that didn't give a completely false figure. -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess making people redundant is a different definition for "growing" than I'm used to but hea... It's tough times for everyone who is trying to make a profit I guess. Just as well Uncyc is a non-profit making wiki. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 21:31, Dec 11
You know how it is, this is the press ;) so they miss out the bit about us still hiring, ignore that every company makes staff changes at times, ignore that we are still small so "10%" ain't exactly a large group, and ignore that we are growing nicely in terms of wikis hosted and pageviews. *shrug* that's the media for you, some days Uncyclopedia is more accurate. -- sannse (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I know this might be difficult, but could we have a bit less of the cheerleading for Wikia and a bit more about the "community, free content, and ads can live together" comment. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Jes tryin' to counter some of the dooooooom that's coming from up North there ;) On the "can live together" bit, as I said above it was a general comment on the belief that it is possible to have all those things in the same system. It wasn't a direct comment on this specific wiki or it's future. -- sannse (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
So why mention it? Other than the cheerleading thing for Wikia. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Wikia's model is, and whether it will work on other websites that they host or not, what is important here is Uncyclopedia. With regards to ads, whilst you brought it up, Uncyclopedia is released under BY-NC-SA, a non-commercial license, its what we signed up for, what we are and what we will be. Non Profit. Just like that Wikipedia website that we are a parody of. How does this fit into the plans of those financial types? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
It matters because whether the ads are here or on other wikis, it's the ads that pay for your hosting. On the -nc license, Creative Commons has not yet said whether ads on a site hosting such content are OK or not. They are currently in the middle of a consultation process on this, and expect to have an answer some time next year. And, I've got to remind you again, that Uncyclopedia moved to Wikia with adverts in place and with the understanding that they would continue. Wikia removed the ads in exchange for adding the spotlights instead. I know this is repeating stuff I've already said, but (as we just said on IRC) better to state this stuff clearly. - sannse (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is pretty explicit. "Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.". I for one would not waive that condition on any of my work or contributions. With regards to the ads that were in place pre-Wikia maybe we should look into the legality of that. A few people also have issue with the domain name getting sold to Wikia (clearly a commercial transaction) on the strength of the popularity of the site following the individual contributions of the community. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
But this isn't quite so clear. We had Lawrence Lessig as a guest at our big staff meeting earlier this year (fantastic speaker btw), and this was one of the things talked about then. The specific question of ad-supported hosting, with profits for the host, is part of their study. Hopefully we should hear more from them soon -- sannse (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Do Creative Commons make the law? My understanding is that until something is proven in court no one really knows what the outcome will be. In terms of Uncyclopedia in particular it's a well know fact that Uncyc is a "non-profit" wiki. That (in my opinion) is something which is very important, and makes contributing to the site popular with the people who actually contribute here. It appears to be no coincidence that since the day of the URL change the number of people actually writing has dropped dramatically. Before the URL change we were featuring a new article every day and had been for years. Since that day we have been struggling to feature something new every 2 or 3 days. The URL change is clearly crippling the site. Wikia were aware that Uncyc was non-profit when they purchased and they must be able to see the negative effect that the URL change has had on the site. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 19:33, Dec 16
Actually I believe what they are saying is that a community may try to utilise things in a commercial sense (for example selling tshirts and mugs) but as a not for profit organisation ALL of that money must go back into the organisation itself, which in turn may be used to pay hosting costs. What Wikia appear to be hoping for is that they can put their advertising model into a not for profit site and make money through that for their for profit company. That is a completely different thing, and from my dealings with Creative Commons would be in breach of the license that the work is released under. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
I can't speak for everyone, but my problem isn't with ads, it's with ads in the content. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That, and ads in the url. Spang talk 04:20, 16 Dec 2008
Oh. Um. Mister N9000...I wanted to wait until close of business day tomorrow to tell you this...but...well...we have to let you go. I fought for you, I really did, but my hands are tied. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, hi Modus, uuummmmmmm, I'm gonna need you to come in and work on if you could just come in at the usual time...that'd be greeaaatt. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:20, Dec 12
Not right now Ledbergh, I'm kinda busy. You know what, in fact I'm gonna have to ask you to just go ahead and come back later, I've got a meeting with the Bobs in a couple minutes. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Elephant in the Living Room

While all of this is going on, and people on both sides of the argument are working on their cases and plans, I have to wonder: if we are doing this to save the community and the special thing that we have built, are we letting it wither while we stand on principle? I dunno, and call me a cynic, but it just feels like the energy isn't there like it once was; the "Rah!" has turned into a "Meh." Without the contributions from some folks who are on prolonged leave until the matter is settled, are we letting the patient die because we're too busy trying to save it? Just my thoughts off the top of my head - small and flakey. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've still got my pom-poms. And the cheerleader outfit. Woo! Go Uncyclopedia! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Crossdressing always has been your solution for everything. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 02:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Has it ever not worked? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it only works for Bugs Bunny and other cartoon characters, like in What's Opera Doc? aka the "Kill the Wabbit" cartoon where Bugs dresses up as Broomhilda the Valkyrie, that is, until one of his ears was showing. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Way to give away my secret identity. Jerk. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You may have just single-handedly explained a lifetime of sexual confusion. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:18, Dec 11
Psychologically some men feel they will be treated better by other men if they dress up as a woman instead of a man. This is the Bugs Bunny syndrome, in which Bugs Bunny avoids Elmer Fudd killing him by cross dressing up as a woman, and even some times giving Elmer a kiss before or after he is discovered as being that "Wabbit". Sadly it only works in a cartoon, because Elmer Fudd has tapioca for brains according to the script and will believe anything he sees; however, in real life the Adam's apple and other telltale signs tell men that another man is dressed up as a woman, and that makes them even more hostile than when that man was dressed up as a man. The Cartoons in question were created as "gag" filler reels to be played before the real movie was to be played and was only meant for adults, not children. Despite having adult content like cross dressing, those cartoons were played for children anyway after school hours or during Saturday mornings. Some children got the impression to imitate the cartoons and dropped pianos on schoolmates and wondered why they just didn't pop back up to normal size 15 seconds later like the cartoon character did, or why cross dressing like Bugs Bunny did as a woman had fooled nobody at all. Clearly the psycho dynamic psychologists and behavioral psychologists disagree on the theories here, but even Tom Cruise who does not believe in Psychology would say that life is trying to imitate art here. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say PP that you have articulated a fear of mine for some time. I have freely given 3 1/2 years of my life to Uncyclopedia, hopefully in that time I have made it a better place, I have made good friends and enjoyed good company. This community of people is what makes the site what it is and I do believe that even if we do decide to move we will go on to create more comedic magic together. The actions of Wikia in ignoring the wishes of one of the communities they claim to support and foster has really let me to a lot of soul searching as to what I'm doing here. I love the community, I love the creativity, but it is very difficult for me now to continue to edit the site in good faith as by their actions it seems that to Wikia our opinions are worthless. The only option I can control is to quit editing, to become John Galt in withdrawing my talents. In doing so I won't stop the motor of the world, but until we decide where WE will be taking OUR community I can see no way to demonstrate my grievance. Hopefully the patient won't die anytime soon due to my small actions (or lack thereof) but I hold principles very highly. Hopefully we will all be able to find our "Rah!" once again. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Again to back up what Mhaille is saying here, The real spark has to come from users, keep playing the wounded animal and we'll start getting treated like one. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And me without my elephant gun, I left it back in 4096, or is that forward in 4096? I am typing up an article called "What I did to save Uncyclopedia during winter break" because if I used the C Word it would upset the PC Police. But then I read "On Writing" or at least half of it by Stephen King and LOLed about the part were his brother David told him to wipe his ass with leaves like the Cowboys did, he accidentally picked Poison Ivy leaves and had to sit in a bathtub for a few weeks with his left hand looking like a Mickey Mouse hand. Then I was laughing too much and read some more and it took away my Uncyclopedia saving time. Then I was going to write "How Jesus can save Uncyclopedia" but then I remembered we have like a million articles that make fun of him and he might send us to Hell for that, unless he has a good sense of humor. Then I figured it would just upset people more. So I decided to write a funny version of computer history book and help myself get off disability and earn some money. If I get published, I can then donate some of the money to save Uncyclopedia. If not, expect to find the book at your nearest dollar store. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we have to be still stuck with Wikia? If we want to be independent, then we have to get plans. Currently, the negiotiations haven't gone far and all I got was death threats from Video Professor, Inc. GiratinaOriginForme.png |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill Don't be fooled. I'm an Aussie too. | 10:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I would feel better if we sent in two Jedi to negotiate with Wikia instead of what we have now. That way if it is a trap, OBI-WAN KENOBI and QUI- GON JINN should be able to handle it better than two Uncyclopedia admins. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Hypothetical) Legal Issues

Suppose, just suppose, that Uncyc moved to dedicated servers and cut ties with Wikia. And suppose, just suppose, that a lawsuit-happy bastard decided to sue the shit out of the newly-independent Uncyc for defaming his character, his wife, and his feeding habits. We have some idea of what Wikia would do: they have a lawyer available to advise and to respond to such things. What would we do in such a case if we were on our own? In fact, I'm not sure but what the website could be destroyed by one such lawsuit. Since Uncyc in such a case would be a loosely-defined "website" without standing as a corporation or legal entity, the responsibility may devolve to individual writers. In other words, lacking an "overlord" like Wikia, might the legal hyenas demand user IPs and IDs and attempt to bring lawsuits against individual writers? (I hope someone with legal expertise will chime in...) But if that happened, Uncyc may become a very cold and dead environment: what struggling writer would want to contribute to a site where writers are targets of lawsuits? If we do decide to go independent it would be intelligent to have a plan in place for dealing with Video Professor-type legal challenges. ----OEJ 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (limited) is that whoever has the server could be prosecuted for defamation, only if however the pursuer could prosecute the defendent (The guy with the server: Spang's Mother) in the same country (for hosting/distribuiting it and with the same laws) however the guy hosting us could argue that he had no knowledge of the material - for the users it would be (I think) impossible to secure prosecutions - as your ISP does not mean that you wrote the material or activly solicited views. I think you'd have to be pretty rich to get extraditions etc and pretty dertermined. I rest my case your honour... — Sir Sycamore (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
At any wiki, including those hosted by Wikia each user is ultimately responsible for their own edits. If the situation got to the point where it was obvious that a court case (not sure in which country) would happen I'm sure the controversial content would be removed from the site. I doubt Wikia would actually pony up the cash required to pay for an expensive court case just to fight for the artistic principles of the sites users. If an individual user was the subject of a court case do you think that Wikia would be willing to pay the costs for that user? I see little difference in-terms of the protection offered to users regardless of who is hosting it. I'm not a lawyer though so would obviously appreciate anyone who can correct me, or inform us about this... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 21:37, Dec 27
Also, it was not a problem for chronarion when he hosted it. It's not a problem for Carlb and all the other Uncyc languages he hosts, and it's not a problem for any of the many other independently controlled wikis which already exist on the internet. If you want to talk about users leaving Uncyc, look at when the domain name was changed to include wikia, and what has happened to VFH as a result. It is a clear and obvious fact that the name change is causing significant damage to the site. Remember when we used to feature every day? When did we stop doing that... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 16:32, Dec 27
And yet, that doesn't disturb me as much as the fact there is NO NOTICABLE CHANGE in Wikia's stats as a result of their castrating us. I've politely asked Sannse on her talk page when Wikia plans on moving us back since there is no benefit for Wikai, and yet the move is obviously destroying us.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
~Me puts on my devil horns~ Wikia isn't destroying us - we are destroying ourselves. We (and I'm speaking in teh general sense) have impaled ourselves on the mighty spike of principle. Oh, dear, what do I mean. OK, before this dust up, Uncyclopedia functioned like a well-running, if not dysfunctial, engine; all the cylinders functioning and the result was consistently good output AND consistently good mentoring of fresh talent coming on board. Now with some folks standing off in the principle section, the engine's running, but not as smoothly as it could. Do I support the way things used to be? Hell yes. But what I don't support is this viewpoint that "its a terrible thing to watch the patient starve and die" all the while with holding the food we control. Wikia isn't harming us, why should they? We're doing a pretty good job of that ourselves for them, and they are winning as a result. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 20:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Prettiestpretty, I don't understand what you are saying. No one is suggesting that Wikia are deliberately trying to kill the site. People just don't want to edit here as much as they did before the name changed. Before the name was changed there was a huge outcry of disgust from the community who unanimously rejected changing the name. Wikia changed it anyway, so many people left. I think it is very clear from the various associated forums that users do not want to participate in a site which makes profit for someone, so they don't. Did I miss something? MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 20:52, Dec 27
Prettiestpretty, I appreciate the Devil's Advocate position, but let's put aside the admins/long time users who have left/are striking/whatever. Ignore that. There is also the fact that the new users we used to get aren't coming any more. Why not? Why, we are a ".com". There is nothing special about a ".com" site. No grant vision of free anything. ".com" says "this site is here to make a profit," so the users who were coming and spending effort creating something for free to distribute that generally didn't benefit anyone aren't coming anymore. That is MUCH more worrisome, methinks. That's what I mean when I say Wikia castrated us. And no, I don't think they did it maliciously, although they are making it VERY difficult to assume good faith, what with their stated reasons for the move all being easily disproven, and all.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Brad, look, we going to disagree on somethings and agree on others. My feelings are that "we", not them, have weakened the chain. Yes, what they did wasn't fair play. But they never imposed premptive restraint - we are restraining ourselves. I miss the old the days, the commraderie and all. But Wikia didn't end that aspect of the site. I'm done. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 23:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but I was never particularly enamored with any of you. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes you are. And we think your tits, too. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Shush, you! You'll ruin my reputation as a cantankerous old coot. If everyone finds out that within me burns the romantic soul of a poet, I'll be ruined. Ruined! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree on the principles issue, speaking personally it tears me apart not to be enjoying Uncyclopedia, the banter, speaking to new visitors, making subtle little improvements (hopefully) and doing my part in building this comedic monstrosity. I DO however put the blame for this squarely at the door of Wikia, who, in trying to turn something created with nothing more than the love of the thing into something to benefit their commercial needs. This makes it very hard for me to ignore my principles.
I don't deny that Wikia as a for profit organisation need to make money, however they knew when they "bought" Uncyclopedia that it was under a tightly defined not for profit licence. To turn around and say that Uncyclopedia now needs to "pay its way" is a direct contradiction to the comments made by a wiser man than I. To quote directly "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." The irony is that through the action of ignoring the active community here and just going ahead with the domain name change they have demonstrated far more. On a daily basis I am speaking to more and more people, not just on Uncyclopedia but on many other wikis hosted by Wikia who are becoming disenchanted with the sites on which they have worked hard, often for a very long time, because of Wikia's dealings with them. I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation would be appalled to hear how many people are walking away from Wikipedia too due to the clear links (perceived or otherwise) between the two organisations. The good will that Wikipedia has spent so long building up is slowly becoming eroded.
So where does this leave Uncyclopedia? We still have the same two options, but added to that we are currently looking into the legalities of a 3rd option. We hope to be able to put an announcement of all the options with a forum to be discussed by members of the community. I know if may feel like things are taking a long time but we are talking about the long term future of Uncyclopedia, and I for one don't believe a rushed decision would be the right decision. I don't believe we will starve the patient by going John Galt. Some people may be standing off, but don't think that they have deserted the ship. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
First consult the FSF because we are an open sourced entity and they have lawyers to fight lawsuits like that. Second it is a parody protected as cited in Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler you cannot claim libel for parody. Unless the laws have changed since them, and that VP guy whatever is in the USA and under US laws he has no right to sue as long as it is satire and/or parody. Third Nobody Cares what we say about him, his business practices say all there is to say about his ethics and morals. He has ticked off a lot of n00b computer users who got sucked up into that "Free CD" promotion and gave him their credit card and ended up owing for more CDs later. Sort of like a book of the month club or that 11 music CDs for a penny promotions. Buyer beware. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all know that a lawyer for a lawsuit-happy goon can and will pursue a case until a judge or another lawyer cuts him off at the knees -- even if the case has little legal merit. Will he go after whoever owns the server? Sure, unless they hire legal protection. Will he go after whoever wrote the piece? Sure, unless they hire legal protection. They'll go after anybody, and if you don't have the resources to fight back they'll have your ass for lunch. *shrugs* As to the oft-heralded Decline of Uncyc, I don't think it has squat to do with the domain name change. People come; people go. I don't know that I would class myself as a "good writer" at Uncyc, but I am one of the ones who's bowed out temporarily -- not because of the Wikia thing but simply because I need to pursue some writing paths that aren't really suitable for Uncyc. A number people have done or will do the same at various times. ----OEJ 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Did you look at this?. I believe the domain name was changed on the 23rd of October. Look at the "Feature date" column and what happened after the 23rd until today. Prior to that we had been featuring a new article every day. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 05:56, Dec 28
Yeah, and the current featured article was on VFH for 50 days, and had health marginally between 20-30%. But is the real problem quality or participation? The recently featured articles are good! Andy Rooney is one of my favourite article on here. So what if +14 is the new +22: if you build it, they will come. Every-other day featuring is the thing that's really killing this site. Take away all the incentives to write and you get a dead internets. Also, ramble! Ramble. IronLung 07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason why the admins are not featuring every day is because they can't. There are not enough articles being written, and people voting on them to allow it. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 12:05, Dec 28
Scherer had no case and he knew it, he was just hoping we'd all pee our pants in fear of his official-sounding bullshit and cough up some settlement cash. He was wrong. As for the domain, I have a couple of issues. The profit/nonprofit thing that Brad mentioned upsets me, but there's a more basic thing. The .wikia, to me, seems like it alienates people who are unfamiliar or disillusioned with wikia, and we wind up appealing to a smaller crowd. What happened to Uncyclopedia links winding up all over people's blogs, facebooks, and myspaces; where are all the dig submissions and stumbleupons; where are the migrant wikipedians with senses of humor to spare? That's where all the traffic is. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 07:49, Dec 28
I have two suggestions as to why blogs are avoiding us now. 1)The anti-meme sentiment we have (yes, they are repetitive, but if you want traffic, there it is). 2)The domain thing I mentioned earlier. If we want tourists to come, we will eventually have to unlock some of the doors around here (I think that's what PP might have been getting at). We are still doomed without writers, though, and I think the point I made earlier about why we aren't getting new ones is still valid.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! But again, I still think that if we are going attract more particpation by others is by creating more particpation ourselves. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Writers bitching about writers not writing make my brain hurt. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite complaining about writers not writing. More complaining about writers not showing up and why not.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 22:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Its like me not complaining that my son is toilet trained, but wishing he would lift the seat before peeing. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia is a lot like life: You gotta try your best to make it perfect without actually expecting it to become perfect because of that. If everybody tries their best I'm sure things will improve. On a different note, it would also be advisable to get a life. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to say a majority of what I wrote was funny in 2005-2006 but once the rules of what was funny and what was not funny got changed most of them got VFDed in 2007-2008 or got a complete and total rewrite that wasn't as funny as the original but supports the American Liberals' point of view so it got kept. Most of what I wrote was from a neutral point of view that made fun of whatever I wrote about, if it was liberal it made fun of liberals if it was conservative it made fun of conservatives. The conservative making fun of stuff got kept but the liberal making fun of stuff got deleted or rewritten to an unfunnier version that made fun of conservatives instead of liberals. Now that Bush is soon out of a job, can we go back to making fun of Liberals again without getting our articles deleted? I mean Neocons are out of power and only the Liberals are left in the White House and most of Congress. Only thing left to make fun of Neocons is how they failed to get elected in 2008, and how out of touch with the average citizen and how out of touch with society they have become. If John McCain won, we'd have plenty of material on him. But Barack Obama won, and now how can we make fun of him without sounding racist? I guess we can but try. I like the UnNews story that he was sworn in as the new Santa Claus, and I suggest we write more like that. That is not racist in any way. I think if we make fun of Obama's policies, and people he associates with, and speeches he gives, and decisions he makes, we can avoid making fun of his race. But we can also make fun of him for being a liberal and claim he will be gun grabbing and tree hugging and releasing terrorist suspects from GITMO only to have them fly back to Iraq and Afghanistan where they leave the plane, walk 5 blocks to an Al-Qeda handler who hands them a machine gun and a backpack full of explosives so they can murder more US troops and Iraqi civilians and then call that change. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'd very much like to see some well-done satire of the left as well as the right--and I think you're right that we'll see a bit now that Bush is on his way out...although I still think Sarah Palin is really really funny. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:09, Dec 29
Humor is where you find it. Besides the nutty right will forever do something stupid - look at Newt Gingrich for Gods sake!. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
First, pardon me for having deserted this community for such a long time. You know what - any lawyers worthy of their salt are not going to take up defamation cases of such nature any time sooner. Take as an example. There they have a long-standing tradition of brushing off all incoming legal threats and cease-and-desist notices via citing fictitious responses from a non-existent attorney "Leonard J.Crab". In fact, you are better off taking it out on onwer Richard Kyanka with bare fists (which seemed to have worked well for Uwe Boll, to say the least). The only things that really mattered in this scenario would be those pesky DMCA lawsuits, which could leave our dear little indie Uncyclopedia.whatever to the mercy of a pack of hungry copyright lobby hellhounds - not a good picture if you ask me. In such cases, the only options would be that:
  1. We would either relocate the server to a copyright equivalent of Cayman Islands, where rear-end-in-a-top-hat RIAA and suchlike had no influence (i.e a non-WTO member nation) , or
  2. We would insist in keeping our bases in the US or wherever we felt convenient and risk having our pants sued off for violating corporate vested interests and not paying enough "protection" fee (be that in the form of a viral advertising deal or a large sum of very delicious hush money).
Anyhow, my argument is that if anyone here is flirting with the idea of hosting this drat wiki, you should now start thinking about how to acquire all the needed assets for it. These include not only the hardware side of the things such as bandwidth and the loving server farm but also the HR side of the things such as the much-needed legal team and the magical fairies that help you sort out all those boring paperworks and mundane organisational matters. I don't care if you have a wild idea of hosting the website in the international waters and having a bunch of ex-special force guns-for-hire guarding your unregistered hunk of steel. If you don't have a proper plan to acquire and maintain those assets, you are better off snapping out of your fantasy right now.
Pardon me if I happen to have just bursted your bubble a little too impolitely. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize at all. We already know about the hardware stuff, naturally, but the lawyers issue is a really good point... although I'm not sure we'd necessarily need one. Does anyone know if we could get away with just writing everything off as parody, exempt from copyright? - T.L.B. Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 18:14, Dec 30
Again, in a quite obtuse manner, no. Youtube, for example, has a track record of copyright-related dramas involving what might have been a frame or so "proprietary" images flashing across the screen. One might as well argue that the employment of such images were well under the definition of "fair use", but, believe me, the copyright lobby would not simply let you go that easily. Ultimately, of course, what they really want is quite often not a lawsuit and a suitcase full of settlement money, but simply whatever goodies thay can get out of you or your pocket. As far as I know, even Wikia has quite a few viral advertising deals with other corporate entities (you may wish to ask Sannse or other Wikia staff/spies/double agents for some proper references on such matters, since I don't have any of these handy), and if these same nasty so-and-so's happen find you not having not enough bargaining chips on the table - be those in the form of a healthy legal support base, a proper cash flow (since lawsuits often cost quite a considerable amount of money) or even just a set of decent corporate strategies - they may as well choke you out of existence just to set a example for those they can actually reap benefits from.
Now, don't get me wrong here, kiddo. What I am trying to say here is not that you are better off not considering going indie at all but that if you ever wish to be such, then you must start working on your plan now and right now. Here's some Business Management 101 for you - when you embark on a venture - be that for-profit or otherwise - there are three sets of fundamental things you must consider: 1) your environment, 2) your available resources and 3) your given time. Ask yourself these questions:-
  1. Notwithstanding the fact that this wiki is pretty much for leisure and idle chatters like the ones we are engaging in here, if we ever cut ties with Wikia, then who is going to be the one ultimately responsible for the now-indie Uncyclopedia (i.e. who is going to be the legal owner/CEO/managing director of this new-found wiki enterprise)?
  2. A proper, legitimate entity invariably comes with a sizable amount of costs involving bookkeepping and other highly uninteresting documentational matters. Supposing that someone here actually cares enough to volunteer for these mundane paperworks, then there are still two things you must consider: 1) Is this person reliable enough to be entrusted with these? 2) And is this person going to have enough time to handle them on a daily basis? On the other hand, if no one volunteers, then you will simply have to hire someone or some people to do your bidding. Do you have the adequate capital to sign off those payrolls? And who is going to oversee these "invisible" members of the wiki enterprise on a daily basis (and probably without pay)?
  3. Threats are an unavoidable aspect of a corporate venture. Even if you decide to run your Uncyclopedia.whatever from the comfort of your mom's basement, threats will still invariably come up against you and your much-treasured comedy monstrosity both internally and externally. Now supposing that some copyright lobby bigwigs are threatening to sue you notwithstanding the commonly accepted notion of "fair use", then who is going to negotiate with them? Even if we find people here to represent the now-Uncyclopedia.whatever, will they have the adequate legal understanding to fend off laywers from the opposing side? And, again, who is going to look after the paperworks and the costs of all subsequent legal proceedings?
With all good intentions, you may argue that, "Hey, some of us will care enough to volunteer and pay for all those things!" But, let's be realistic with this, shall we? I, for a starter, have a life to run and am rather unwilling put myself out there to expend much of my available time and risk having my rear end kicked by some jerks with large sacks of money. Some of us here have children to raise, even. The idea of an Uncyclopedia.indie sounds fantastic to begin with, but is it going to be sustainable? That's a question left for you to think about. -- The Colonel (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the party, no matter how late. :) I agree completely that even organisations which are non profit must attain sustainability, currently we are looking at different ways to enable that and the necessary resources at hand and needed. All of these issues and many more are currently under discussion, and we are hoping to be able to put forward a number of options for the community to discuss. The long term sustainability of Uncyclopedia has to be key to any decisions made, its stability and the support from the community and any partners will be paramount. With regards to the legal aspects we are already looking into this too. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Well, first of all, if you wanted a CEO of the upcoming Uncyclomedia Foundation, Inc., then it has to be the founder of Uncyclopedia. The bad news is, it will have to be the other admins that will have to be the CEO because the founder is away. So, from my point of view, I think the person above (Mhaille) would be a perfect choice. Secondly, the legalk issues we face. Like in the previous comment, SueTube had been sued because of legal issues, but thankfully, they are all mitigated by the Suetube employees who are in charge of telling their users to delete copyrighted material. If we can use the admins a legal fighters in court, that way, we can try to mitigate situations such as a subpoena we had by Video Professor, Inc. and court issues done by Malaysia, etc. GiratinaOriginForme.png |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill Don't be fooled. I'm an Aussie too. | 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing and concluding the domain issue for the time being

Okay people, I get that the change of the domain name was far from pleasant and far from necessary, but it happened nonetheless. Let's agree that we must accept the current state of Uncyclopedia in as much as it cannot be helped. If we get the opportunity to change the domain name then we'll probably take it, but such an opportunity is as of yet as good as non-existent. As far as ads are concerned, if they were to be introduced in Uncyclopedia, though I generally object to that on principle, I would only find it bearable if it was located somewhere like where the wikia spotlight is currently located, somewhere where it doesn't disrupt the content of the article. Whatever may be the case, we must continue our Uncyclopedian quest, for great justice, in the name of Sophia and all that is humorous. Let's be organized! Let's be featurized! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to accept anything of the sort. If we'd followed that approach in the last century we'd all be speaking German now! With regards to the ads I re-submit the discussion above on the legalities surrounding the non-commercial licence which the content is released under. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
When I say "accept" I do not mean "be happy with the current situation and never want anything different", I also added "in as much as it cannot be helped" denoting that we must deal with the fact that our power is limited. Ofcourse we must remain unhappy/irritated/angry/furious/... about the change of the domain name. We must refuse to accept that Wikia's decision was a right one, which it obviously wasn't, but this doesn't mean that we can't accept the reality of this situation. All I'm saying is that even if some know-it-alls are interfering with Uncyclopedian business, we shouldn't let this have any further negative effect on Uncyclopedia than it's already having. Use the anger for a satirical purpose! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should be greatful that we have leadership that we have and that we stand for something better than the easiest common denominator. Ideally, this matter should have been settled with pistols at Weehawkan Heights. Since it takes more than that to settle a matter, time is evidently something employeed in settling differences in the future, just as guns were employed in the past. Personally, I think we should keep a stiff upper lip and carry on (and on). But if we just drop the matter, then we become flunkies, and eight years of slavery under King George the Bush, I say that defenestrate that ideal and work towards something better. So by prolonging the talks, we will be in the future sooner than if we ignore the matter until then. Am I making myself clear? Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are making yourself very clear. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot more clear then I was making myself clear earlier, apparently. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is very tempting to back down in some cases - sadly with bullys in life and on here, this will not work. I would agree that the negative effect is something that should be limited as far as we can, though giving up as you suggest is unthinkable to me. We have actually come to decision here - a group of our best and brightest have been sent to try and resolve this with Wikia - and they are doing waht they can. If they come back with fuck all then we'll need to re-think, not give up. The Bastard has spoken. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should completely give up. I'm saying that Uncyclopedia itself is of more importance than its domain name, so we should limit the negative effect. And with the previous sentence, I do not mean to say that Uncyclopedia's domain name doesn't matter at all. If we can convince Wikia to restore the previous domain name, then yes, let's try that. But let's not let this domain controversy have too much of a negative influence on Uncyclopedia itself. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Dude, you are totally missing the point. It's not a question of how we perceive the name change. It's not the perception of the administrators, or even that of the regular active users. It's the perception of outsiders to Uncyc which is important. The vast majority of traffic on this site comes from casual passing users. Some of whom decide to stay longer. Casual passing users have no idea about internal Uncyc issues. Those people will not read this forum, and apparently are now editing the site less. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 15:26, Jan 9
No, there doesn't appear to be a reduction in editors: (note that the figures for January are not for the whole month, as we ain't had it all yet) - sannse (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said to you on the IRC, those stats do not reflect positive contribuitions, i.e. articles, pee review etc. Any traffic does not mean good traffic, I don't know about other RC watchers like UU, but I've seen a significant increase in trolls for past few weeks; stuff that we have to revert is not "editing" or "activity" we call it trolling or forum edits. I think you yourself care a little more for the site that to pass around such nonsense. I take it wikia's new plan is to confuse the ignorant?--Sycamore (Talk) 15:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is best to look at real numbers, and do what we can to get them where they are lacking. To me, that is clearer and less confusing than more subjective measures. MrN9000 said "Casual passing users [...] apparently are now editing the site less". It's not trying to confuse people to say "actually, no, that's not so".
I'm also aware (as I think I said on IRC) of "oldbie syndrome", where the site is always considered better in the old days... with less vandals, less trolls, less arguments, and more good editors... there are few long-term users on any wiki that don't go through that. That's another reason to look at objective numbers if possible. -- sannse (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
BLOODY HELL. Did that really just happen??? I don't think I have ever been so badly quoted [..]. Obviously Uncyc is still getting new traffic. Links to Uncyc still exist all over the internet, so we will always get new users. However I totally agree with was Sycamore said. I am VERY aware of our web traffic. I had been monitoring, but it appears that this data has now been "moved" to Hmm, so we now MUST log in using our wikia accounts to view information regarding Uncyc? Another "little" change... How true the words of Rangeley sound now...
Are Wikia seriously suggesting that the domain name change has had no negative effect on the site, and all this fuss is mistaken and simply the result of "oldbie syndrome"??? Seriously??? Is this actually what Wikia think??????? MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 13:39, Jan 24
I don't agree that was a misquote, the part I removed did not change the meaning of the quote as I read it. I'm sorry if the meaning I read was not as you intended.
No, I am not saying that "oldbie syndrome" is the be all and end all of the discussion. Just that it is a factor that can affect the subjective impression of the site, and one of the reasons that objective numbers are better where it's possible to get them -- sannse (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Sannse. I know that I have myself mis-understood things which you have said in the past. Now I know what it feels like! :-) I hope ya know that I loves ya even if I do not necessarily agree with the actions of your employer...
I wonder, could we have a statement from Wikia regarding the domain name change. Do Wikia think that the domain name change has had any kind of negative or even perhaps positive effect on Uncyc? I guess I'm asking for the "official Wikia view" on this rather than your own personal opinion... I think if we can understand what Wikia's position is regarding this it will be very helpful to everyone. Thanks in advance. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 19:28, Jan 26
I'd say - for the fact that several veterans vanished because of this move and the whole earthquake we had here - it's bad enough even without looking at the numbers. ~Jewriken.GIF 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the old days. What? I say, that when I joined Uncyclopedia there was none of this bureaucracy, why your article could ramble on for pages. And you could post things - we called them "articles under construction" - without all these young whippersnappers tagging your work with things that called your work in progress a "deadend". Of course it wasn't all fun and games. There was a lot of silliness; it claimed a lot of articles that died too young. Its a terrible thing to see an article die too young from having to much childish humor. It can make you bitter and cause you to question God. And then there is what happened to User:Some user. You said you never heard of him? Lands sakes, you youngin's never heard about that bug tussle? Well, I'll save that for another day, now go on, git out of here, I hear you Maw calling you - now don't slam that door. Ah, I need my rest. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Indian 1.jpg

Somebody want to summarize this for people who haven't been bothered to monitor this page? Thanks ^_^ - Rougethebat.gifAdmiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate SonicLivesPicture.png 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mighty wiki god move buffalo to .com domain. Tribes complain. Some tribes leave. Tribes that remain claim buffalo taste no good anymore. Wiki gods disagree. Wiki gods say buffalo taste the same. Wiki gods point to hoof prints on ground, say traffic not changed. Tribes say hoof prints left by monkeys not tasty buffalo. Some tribes say "who give shit"? buffalo still edible, other tribes unhappy, some tribes still boycott. Wiki gods say nothing to see here, move along--DRStrangesig5.png Sherman.png Fingertalk.png  14:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I nom this explaination for VFH? Its tits! Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the rules you can, but I doubt if it will go very well. --Mnbvcxz 01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Think outside the box, dear. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And this doesn't even include the blankets with smallpox in them. - T.L.B. Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:59, Jan 24
Also the part where Wikia is using their own statistics instead of someone impartial like Alexa and Google Labs which say that our stats aren't even in the toilet: they're altogether gone.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked the Alexa page. It says that for, the traffic is fairly stable, but for, it tanked at the domain change. I think, its putting all the "" sites together for "". And, it not registering traffic on "" for ""'s numbers. --Mnbvcxz 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
In other words, in the eyes of the internet, we are now nothing more than a quaint little wikia offshoot. I know I'm excited. - T.L.B. Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:45, Jan 24
Let's take over Wikia! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikia's statistics are not really the point here anyway. What matters is are people writing, and the health of VFH. Anyone who was around at the time of the domain name change, or anyone who has looked back in the records will see that it had a massive, obvious negative impact. I think I mentioned something along these lines above somewhere, but Wikia decided not to comment. I wonder why... MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 13:41, Jan 25
That could be in part from the writer's strike. This site isn't grinding to a halt like some of data might be suggesting, but it did slow down.
Also, have you considered that wikia doesn't really care about the Quality.JPG of this site. Actually, infrequent users/outright vandals probably have much more add clicking per kilobyte of bandwidth than a regular useful contributor. It doesn't matter to Wikia if this site writes comic gold, or turns into a vandalism wikia, as long as its generating web traffic and ad clicks. --Mnbvcxz 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Romartus 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The sound of the clashing rocks of Un Something or other here ! No one can make money off this site can they ???? Ego Sum Contraire ?

So can we get an update on the negotiations?

It's been like 2 months sence anyone has said anything on the progress of the cabal that doesn't exist on doing whatever they weren't selected to do. ... I think I just gave myself a headache. Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 04:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have heard nothing is quite a while, myself. I believe Mhaille is the only one actually working on it at the moment, as the rest have all buggered off. Mhaille, of course, is not around HERE much, which is why hardly anyone has heard anything is forever.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 12:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well Brad, I've actually tried to progress my side for quite a while and got despaired because a: people don't bother replying to emails and b. people don't bother showing up for the meetings, so yeah, I "buggered off" as you said. Mayhap people will bother showing up and cooperating more, we can revive this whole process. ~Jewriken.GIF 13:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually that's not entirely true. A couple of us have been working on solutions/plans, including a great deal of contributions from individuals who who not "voted" to represent the community, but who clearly have a vested interest. We have had several discussions with representatives of other wikis in the same or similar position about the possibilities of combined action. We have also opened discussions with CreativeCommons over the licensing issue, who were keen to point out that their recent survey does NOT indicate that they are going to issue a policy statement or revise the license to expressly permit advertising as a means of supporting the hosting or publication of NC content. No doubt as Jimbo Wales is on the General Council of CreativeCommons he would be fully aware of this.
I appreciate that people want to see a quick solution, as would I, but finding the right solution is better. We all want to see Uncyclopedia back to focusing on what it was created for and not what it was in danger of becoming. Its long term future is what is at stake. Viva la revolution! -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
I still say we should take over Wikia... and rename it! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Rename site Mohegan Sun Casino. It bring many buffalo--DRStrangesig5.png Sherman.png Fingertalk.png  19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? bother saving this?

If we do move, do we even need to take all our "weak" articles, legacycruft, bantering, et cetera with us? Why not spork the best 10% or so of this wiki, and start fresh? It would get rid of our "legacy costs" and we could set down new and better polices. For example, we might want to prevent ip editing, or even mainspace page creation by regular users. (Basically, relieve ourselves of the burdens of freedom.) Anyway, just a thought. --Mnbvcxz 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, for reasons in our name: Uncyclopedia: The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Specifically, the anyone part. The transition from IP to noob to productive user is an important one, and cutting off IPs would almost be like killing all the herbivores. We need them so the higher-level users can consume them for their energy. - T.L.B. Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:03, Jan 28
It'd be more like killing the grass, but the analogy still works, methinks.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is our current system of article creation the best course of action though? We've learned from experience that article created by several users not collaborating results in incoherent babblings. Why must we be Uncyclopedia: The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit why not Uncyclopedia: The content-free encyclopedia that only a few people authorized by the cabal can edit? (ok, that might be going too far, but we need to think outside the box, our current polices are not infallible).
But on a more serious note, a fresh start might be helpful. I'm not saying we need to abandon the current concept, but I don't think we need to be married to current system of ip rights either. --Mnbvcxz 00:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
For the millionth time, no. The no IP editing issue has been discussed numerous times in the past and was voted down over and over and over again. IPs are majors contributers to the site, and we cannot prevent them from editing. Even IPs have feelings. Mainly rage and hunger, but still. And also, what's that about a fresh start? What exactly is wrong with what we got here? If we ever do decide to move over, we'll be taking the whole luggage with us. No one will start filtering what goes in and what remains, simply due to the fact that no one has the right to decide what is "right" and what is "not right". ~Jewriken.GIF 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
With the possible exception of Apples, but it's been a while since he's edited, so on the whole, the lot stays until his return.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No one will start filtering what goes in and what remains, simply due to the fact that no one has the right to decide what is "right" and what is "not right". Then what do we have VFD/ICU/QVFD/maintenance tags for :) I'm not that we should restart. But, if wikia wants to hold on to it, do really need the bottom 70-80% of the articles. (Yes, we might lose some funny stubs, but we'd lose get rid of the legacycruft too) And, I'm not saying we necessarily should move either. --Mnbvcxz 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is something where the sum of the whole is greater than the parts by themselves. As for the banter, I consider it "corporate history" fo lack of anything else to call it. And at my advanced age (I'm well over 30, so I figure that I am one of senior members of this effort) I know all too well that when you least expect it, a question will come up that needs answers the minute you toss the cruft. IF this whole blasted thing called Uncyclopedia weren't worth saving, we could have skimmed off the "10%" of the good stuff (whose, yours? mine? mhailles?) that you advocate right this minute, as there is no copyright to prevent us from doing so, and off we would go. But its all important; its the record of what WE have created. As for your idea of just bothering with the "holy" 10% or so, if the rest of the stuff doesn't matter, why do you spend so much categorizing things as you do? (Answer because it does matter.) Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My idea might be (and in fact is) bad, but to be blunt, some of the defense of the status quo is worse. This wiki is supposed to be about creating funny pseudo-encyclopedia articles, not generating an archive of itself. --Mnbvcxz 04:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying because we don't follow strict guidelines, we should just restart? No. Were we ever a direct parody of wikipedia, with all of our articles parodies of their counterparts on wikipedia? Not to my knowledge, we weren't. Was a black, non-land owner ever supposed to be President? No. But that's how things turn out, and in my opinion it's for the better. That's what a (a very rough example, for our case) Democracy is. Things are going to change over time, whether we like it or not. If negaive change occurs, we change it to something better. Now are you saying just because the sojourn articles aren't in an encyclopedic format, we're supposed to get rid of it because of our "strict guidelines"? Wrong. Shit happens, and whether or not it's the variety you prefer or not doesn't mean others don't. So blah, I'm done ranting. Back to the porn cave for me. Colin Explode fire.gifALL YOUR BASEExplode fire.gifHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying the knee-jerk keep-everything-ism is bad. I voted for the sojourn articles on VFH and even wrote one: That time I accidentally miscalculated the date of creation during my sojourn in London. --Mnbvcxz 05:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
1. That's what we have VFD for. 2. As long as we're whoring our sojourn articles... That Time I Was Nearly Crashed Into by a Boeing 747 during my sojourn to the Twin Towers. Colin Explode fire.gifALL YOUR BASEExplode fire.gifHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 05:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I think that your idea is very valid, and it needs to be aired out. I don't agree with it, but others may. I just find the argument that "this is what the mission is, therefore this is all it should be" flawed. We have a community of writers, and it is, in my opinion, a huge mistake to jetison the creative process behind how we get to that which we create. Following your logic, if we were create a new world and someone were to make a decision to jetison all disease and all animals that aren't edible, well that would mean no sick days anymore froom work and no more platypus meat to eat. I for one would miss the platypus roast, of soup made from its bill. Absurd, yes. But nonsensical, as well. And I would think it a crime to lose that. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm probably not someone to listen to, but this isn't a nonsensical wiki. That's what Illogicopedia (link) is for. Nonsense and humor can be two different things, and Uncyclopedia:How to be funny and not just stupid says that the truth is usually funnier than nonsense. And two thirds of the articles on this wiki is more nonsensical than funny. This is probably one of the only things wrong with the wiki, besides its bad taste in, uh, everything. — JCM 01:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on the last sentence of your little rant there, I'd have to agree that you aren't someone to listen to. Colin Explode fire.gifALL YOUR BASEExplode fire.gifHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And I certainly didn't laugh at anything he had to say. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, little buddy! Most of us here have already gone through an impressionable period where we just couldn't get enough of everything. This community did certainly go through such a period as well. Given that fact, wouldn't you expect some time ago we somehow managed to create a self-contradicting culture that drove ourselves into shooting our own foot? Like PP mentioned, it is this process of searching and improving that makes the community ever stronger and greater. In other words, you need to allow people to make mistakes and learn from them. To put it blunt this way, if one day we just decide to draw the line here and all of the sudden we just kick the bucket, then who is going to take the baton? By pushing an elitist agenda you are basically suggesting that we should now hand ourselves a dead sentence and be done with it. That is something that I can never, ever accept. -- The Colonel (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, were you talking to me? — JCM 00:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think he was. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank God. I was worried he was ranting me out AGAIN. It gets old after a while. In other news, I think I peed on the rug in the third bedroom this time. Sorry, guys.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Whew. I thought I passed out and pissed myself. It turns out that I just passed out and got pissed on. Wait. That seems worse, somehow. (Fun fact: Brad eats asparagus). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for what I said. The fact that most articles here are unfunny garbles of crap made by immature people with no lives kind of threw me off track. Can Uncyclopedia forgive me? :) — JCM 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Uncyclopedia can for give you. But what you really want is to forgive yourself first...Take two Lexapro and call us in the morning. The doctor is out. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Something I've been wondering about

When I checked Sannse's original message of doom, I started wondering... Advertisers want to advertise, so by adding Uncyclopedia to the domain, we'd just be boosting the statistics with non-advertising stuff, i.e. useless to advertisers. Memory Alpha, on the other hand, do allow ads, then why have they not been moved to the domain? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the move was to attract advertisers to other wikis with ads for the time being, bigger companies that advertise want large page views on a site. Since we're part of wikia now, all the stats that we used to bring are no considered part of Wikia.Com. We're now sort of like a part of a massive commercial farm as opposed to smaller independent one - we are also non profit, however the move has effectively commercialised Uncyclopedia, a non profit venture.--Sycamore (Talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I know it was just a matter of appearances, but I still ask myself why Memory Alpha hasn't had their domain changed. Also, are you predicting that Wikia will soon add ads to Uncyclopedia? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The larger "flagship" wikis can appeal to some extent. This is based on their branding and their economic benefit as brands in themselves. I asked sannse if we could move as our brand is more important as we are about uncyclopedia as a comedy website, not another brand like WoW or Star Trek - however we're apparently not considered for this, and eventually they are hoping that the others will move anyway in the future, regardless of protest. I'm not too sure on ads as the protest could be pretty dire if that came to pass; sannse has said that this is a likely avenue in the future - so I guess that means yes they intend to, but aren't quite daring to do so right now.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So, are you saying that Uncyclopedia was only moved because it's a high traffic website? Because that kind of speaks for itself. — JCM 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue of ads and other commercial benefits with regards to Uncyclopedia are VERY clear in the Creative Commons License which the content is released under. Whilst it's true that CC are conducting a survey to understand better how various communities interpret the noncommercial term, that is very different from saying that they are going to issue a policy statement or revise the license to expressly permit advertising as a means of supporting the hosting or publication of NC content. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
That may all be very true, but let's not forget that Wikia is a for-profit organization. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Could Wikia get around that by being merely the hosting service of a nonprofit? I.e. can a non-profit entity place noncommercial CC on a site that is supported by advertisements? --Mnb'z 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
A non-profit status is a tax status, so depending on their "for profit" tax authority (lets assume its the U.S.'s IRS) , all they would need to do would be to set up a 501.c3 non-profit affiliate, with a seperate Board of Trustees that reports up, and wouldn't have co-mingled funds. Of course I haven't the vaguest idea how things work in Yurp, it could be quite different. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The "not for profit" (actually noncommercial) part that is of most relevance is the licence which the content is released under. This is released by you, the author, under the noncommercial licence viewable here. What this means is that no one can use this work for commercial purposes. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Would the nonprofit be using it for "commercial" purposes though? One could argue that the for profit hosting service isn't really "using" the content. Generally, web site hosting services are not held responsible for the content they merely host, espeically for copyright violations. You'd have to argue that the site hoster's ads are a commercial use on the part of the nonprofit, who doesn't make any money from such ads. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. --Mnb'z 00:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Could Wikia, as a hosting company inform us as to their costs for hosting Uncyclopedia? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Now that's a good question. Why did no one ask that before... Obviously Wikia know, or they would not be able to claim that we don't make enough to meet our running costs. Obviously they can't be making more than what we cost them to run or that would make us "for-profit" therefore invalidating our license. MrN MrN9000SouthParksmall.jpg 23:44, Feb 11
Under the US Tax Code, Non-profit (not for profit) means that the organization doesn't operate for the profit of the owners or share holders, and that the organization has a purpose other than making a profit. A lawyer could have said that better. This doesn't preclude a noit for profit from making a profit, but that money is driven back into the business for the purpose operating the business (to increase its capital, which is like an orgainzational savings account, in simplistic terms). So Wikia can make money, it can raise money, but it can not pay money out to investors or make money by getting involved with businesses that have nothing to do with its core mission (it can't make money to buy real estate so it can charge rent to tenants), again, if its non-profit under US IRS guidleines. AND they have to file tax forms with the IRS. I know all this because I was treasurer of the PTO. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikia is a for profit company. However, it would claim that it is not using the content for commercial purposes. Right now, they do "run" wikis, but, it would be quite easy for them to switch over to "merely hosting" with some content control, like geocities. --Mnb'z 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I think that this is where the lawyers come in. We, the writers and artists, are giving them our content for free, so the question is, if they are profitting from our works, are we entitled to a cut of the pie, so to speak. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
They would claim that they are not using the material in a "commercial" fashion. Also, most content on a wiki would have numerous copyleft holders, many of them anonymous, so getting permission for commercial use from the copyleft holders would be practically impossible. --Mnb'z 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikia are a for profit organisation, they cannot use our content which is released under a non-commercial license to make money, through either advertising or boosting its hits so to appear more appealing to advertisers (which seems to be a commercial benefit to me). I can't understand why people are still discussing this? -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Because we need to work it out. Is there budgetary proof that they are making money from us? Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Try asking for budgetary proof that we are costing them anything. :) -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
I don't think they need to make profit for us to prove they are using the content for commercial purposes. I would say right now, maybe they could be accused of it. But, if they switched over to merely hosting the site, I doubt they could be accused of violating any copyright laws. And doing so wouldn't change how the site is ran in practice. For example, someone were to host noncommercial content of geocites, which is ad supported, could they copyleft holder go after yahoo! --Mnb'z 17:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What about a commercial wiki hosting company using a non-commercial wiki as an advertisement? Spang talk 00:11, 13 Feb 2009
To tell you the truth, I think Uncyclopedia is just the first in a series of url changes. I think that the World of Warcraft Wiki, Wikiality, Memory Alpha, and more are coming soon. — JCM 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody else get annoyed when people spend their time poring over what you've said and then repeating you? It weakens my faith in humanity is all I can say.--Sycamore (Talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
A forum post can only go on so long before it degenerates into repetition or babbling. --Mnb'z 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're right. I checked some of the forums and they're also protesting against the domain name change. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else get annoyed when people spend their time pouring over what you've said and then repeating you? It weakens my faith in humanity is all I can say. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

Mhaille is %100 right; I dunno what the hell you're on about, sycamore. Think before you post, man! - T.L.B. Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:21, Feb 16
How do I add pictures? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
How do I post messages? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)