From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > "Policy"
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1145 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
This is an essay. It is not an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia, so you should ignore it even more and disregard the mad ramblings of its writer. Or you could submit it as an Uncycloversity assignment in lieu of actually doing any work.

There's been some pretty serious-sounding discussion of thing word here, from arguing on VFD about our apparent "policy" against video in articles, to the apparent "policy" we have about categories that had something to do with deleting categories. The point of this thread is to condense all "policy" related discussion into a single thread: this one. So let's go.

"Discussion" (in actuality, my policy on "policies")

First, cast aside all obvious policies set in stone to protect our rights. This includes vanity, cyberbullying, plagiarism, etc. No one is arguing about these. Many other pages in this category are from the beginner's guide, awards pages and maintenance/voting procedures, and informative pages such as About or Administrators. The rest are joke pages, labeled with the category solely for humorous purposes.

All other "policy" out there consists either of style-specific guidelines (the UnNews style guide is the only one I can think of immediately, all other namespace guidelines just seem to run on common sense) or assertions pulled out of thin air/off-the-record quotes/something else. I am going to take a little while out of my sleep schedule for god know's why to discuss these ambiguities that are leaving some of us puzzled and angry.

My take on "policy" is divided into two parts: creation and destruction. My take on creation is that if you have something funny to produce, via whatever medium (article, news, narrative, category, picture, video, poem, song, prose, meta, etc), and it doesn't break the two core rules and isn't blatant small-potatoes vanity, then the policy is that you should express your production in the best way you find fit, regardless of any generic constrictions that apparently exist on this site. If someone disagrees with your approach, on the grounds that it violates certain standards of humor, then you can offer them constructive criticism or enact changes of your own to improve the piece's quality. Any additional guidelines that have been provided as a method of maintaining standards are just guidelines, they need not be blindly followed down to the punctuation. If it is funny, it has a place, no matter where or how it is produced.

As for destruction, most extant policy here is purely procedural and outlined very well in the deletion policy. The vague area comes because being unfunny now means different things in different places. This is a problem, because according to my sextant unfunny things are unfunny no matter where-ever they are, just as funny things are funny where-ever they are. Sub-par categories, songs, articles, templates, reviews, news pieces, etc are all sub-par if they are sub-par, so they should all be received the same way based on the magnitude of their horribleness. I'll concede: categories are a lot more difficult to judge, because most category pages lack content. I am not going to retread this whole argument, but I'll say now that I support two things. I support creating/editing categories so that they're actually more than just a categorical label, and I also support judging categories based on common sense.

That's my general take. However, I'm not going to cower from specifics. My first specific issue was the category thing, which I just addressed. My next problem is this one: I, along with others, take issue with the VFD nomination of Aristocrats and baby chicks. Lyrithya said that she "wasn't aware that the mainspace was for videos and stuff." As I say above, all of Uncyclopedia is for anything, as long as it is original and funny. The argument here is whether the Uncyclopedia frame is necessary for the video, and the answer in this specific case is "Obviously, yes" because it was created specifically for an Uncyclopedia contest. Therefore, it is original and (to some) funny. Non-original videos being funny in context have also become prominent and accepted thanks to Aleister in Chains, who almost never works inside the box and probably doesn't even know what a box is. Lyrithya also says that sometimes a picture alone doesn't make an article. Michael Clarke Duncan would beg to differ, as would Mike Gravel, or anyone else from hundreds of funny stubs that are decidedly not in-jokes. SPIKE, however, says that he heard from some unnamed authority that Lyrithya's assumption is correct. I would like him to cite his sources.

Which brings me to my next specific issue: the UnNews style guide. My take on this is simple and also redundantly stated multiple times in this piece: it is a guideline, not a template. We have been over this argument many, many times though, so I'll save most of my breath. It is relevant to the discussion, though, so here I bring it up again. If someone, namely me, wants to cite sources on an original piece because it is an opportunity to use extra jokes, then I should be allowed to do that for two main reasons: it can be funny, and it is long established in precedent, as Zim himself had said. A homogenized image is okay because that's professional, but content should not in any way be subjected to objective standards and restraints. Not to sound redundant, but humor is subjective.

Anyway that's what I think about this "issue" of "policy" misunderstandings, and I posted it here in a new thread instead of segmented in four different places at once, because that is dumb and confusing. This header is called "discussion," but in reality I'm hoping to put the kibosh on this debate. In a way, this is mostly one big rambling complaint about how this site has kind of really lost its focus sorta in lots of places, but just putting it out there. I even tried to sound not-ranty. Tried really hard. Uncyclopedia has actually been funny once or twice this year, already, so let's not waste any more time arguing over semantics and petty "rules" that detract from the comedy. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 09:38, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr On the subject of videos that constitute the main part of an article, I don't see any problem with it as long as it was specifically made for Uncyclopedia, the guy who uploaded it is the same guy as the author of the Uncyclopedia page and it has to be original, of course. And fictional sources on UnNewses are a-okay with me, though I wouldn't know how that's really related to the video stuff. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:46, 17 February 2011
tl;dr version: Shut up, write an article, and quit being so serious about everything. MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 09:47, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I want my own tl;dr too!
tl;dr Rules < Funny, as expressed in a vaguely connected 6000 character rant. Focus on the humor, not the anything else. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 09:50, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
... TL;DR Jews are to be blamed for everything! MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 09:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
tl;dr Jews are only blamed for some. Totally agree with TKF. If it's funny (or even has the potential to be funny), it's not blatant vanity, cyber-bullying or plagiarism, it can live here. We were doing fine without Wikipedia-esque rules till now, I think we can keep going in the same way, until someone hits the off switch. ~Jewriken.GIF 10:25, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
And we all know who it'll be hitting the off switch... The Egyptians. Or my ISP. MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 10:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
The Jews. ~Jewriken.GIF 10:28, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Definitely the Jaws. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 20:23, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
My own vanity dictates that since my own rant has been referenced, and more-or-less follows TKF's sentiments, it should be linked. Always makes me feel better. Woody On Fire! Wood burningTalking Woody Stalking Woody 20:41, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

For the record

I just hate flash. Don't ask why; I don't really know myself... something about macromedia, I think. But have some general apologies if I was too harsh on the actual stuff, or the folks involved; that was not my intent.

Anyways, since most folks seem to agree it does indeed have a place here, then that's enough for me. I'm actually kind of glad I did vfd the thing, though, since it incited folks to speak their minds and now I've more of an inkling of the common notions... selfish? Perhaps. But don't you also like knowing how people stand? *shifty eyes* 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 21:07, 17 February 2011

If you don't like to flash then why are you always running past my window naked? --Black Flamingo 07:59, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Er... you weren't supposed to see that. But why are you complaining? I'm better looking that that guy who just left. *shifty eyes* 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 08:15, 18 February 2011
Personal tools