Forum:General Quality of Articles
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
General Quality of Articles
I suppose in the grand scheme of things, or even in the rather shitty scheme of things, I am a bit of a noob here. I've been reading articles for a few months, but only started my user profile recently. What I've come to notice the more time I spend here is depressing. While Uncyclopedia has the potential to be one of the funniest sites on the entirety of the interweb, only as much as no percent of that potential is realized in the vast majority of articles. This is especially true of articles about topics that are inherently funny or at least inherently powerful opportunities to be funny. I mean, check out the article for police. This thing stinks in mutliple senses of the word. I become physically ill from the literal odor it emanates. Can't we do better?I know leaving this forum post here isn't going to accomplish anything on its own, but maybe with a bit of serious effort, this place could be consistently funny. I was first drawn here by the general nonsense and occasional uproarious article, but now that I feel like a part of it (even only as a user), I want to see Uncyclopedia show off what it has he capability to do. Is anyone interested in trying to help me out here? I'm more than willing to contribute time and effort into a venture to clean the place up...
Contact me if you're interested in what I'm talking about...
--CleverScreenname 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um...what? You know that bitching won't do anything. Edit. It's a wiki. We already do take it seriously. Comedy is serious business. We already do try to make it more betterer. With you on board, we can make this wiki the best darned wiki on the interweb.
07:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- What that Mad person about me just said. You like the place? We like you. You want to help? Don't start effort-coordinated-writing-ability-charades-with-pseudo-army-ranks. We have enough of those. Start writing. Rewriting. And bake me some pie damn it! 09:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Against. As per Modusoperandi. --16:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. shut up newb. I do agree with the sentiment, and have stated similar on many occasions, but thats because I try to be part of the solution. Do the same before complaining about quality. --THINKER 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Process for improving the wiki
Okay, here's a genuine process to improve the wiki that you can follow. It won't really show that much, but it's at least something.
1.) Hit Random page.
2.) Look at the article. What could be improved about it?
- 2a.) If the answer is "nothing," proceed to step 2 above.
- 2b.) If the answer is "it's beyond hope," list it on VFD (if there's enough room) and return to step 1.
- 2c.) If the answer is pretty much anything else, fix it and go back to step 1.
- What about the beer and sex? --Dexter111344 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand all of what has been said on this forum so far. (I well knew that I'd get comments telling me to quit my whining and things like that; I've already taken your advice and edited some articles, and I realize it's just a work in progress. But what I'm asking for isn't a gradual improvement co-ordinated effort. I know that takes place without anyone's being prompted by forums. What I'm asking about is whether or not there's something that can be done to prevent the crap from being put out there. I realize that a wiki is meant to allow ANYONE, even those with learning disablities, crippled grammar nodes, and worst of all, no sense of humor, to contribute. I don't think that that should change. But for God's sake (or Krishna's sake, or L. Ron Hubbard's sake), the How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid how-to does little good if it's blatantly ignored. Is there some level of discouragement that can be reached to keep stupid frothy-mouthed 13-year-olds with less talent than Ben Affleck from authoring the majority of the content, or rather, un-content, here? Maybe I'm just pissing into an ocean of piss here... Somebody lend a hand, please? --CleverScreenname 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- We are working to improve quality. Now shut up and just do it. On a related note, there is a petition to allow deletion of old crappy articles. Vote!
- You answered your own query: "...whether or not there's something hat can be done to prevent the crap from being put out there." to "I realize that a wiki is meant to allow ANYONE...contribute.". We have methods of minimizing the garbage (like Forest Fire Weeks, QVFD & VFD), but as long as this is a wiki, there will be junk. In other words, grab a shovel. Hey! Not mine! I put Hello Kitty stickers all over mine. Hello Kitty! Woo! 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. In other words, what Modus said. You want anything done right, you hire Mexicans. Unfortunately, none of them ever show up here, so you'd better just do it yourself. - 22:41, Jan 18
--OK, I get it.-- All right. I appreciate the guidance. I will continue to wade through crap and fix what I can. I won't "whine" anymore about the inherent problems that are due to pop up with freedom of creation. I guess that I'd better get started on making that pie, too...Just for you special guys with the highly "constructive" advice, here's my specialty.
--CleverScreenname 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)