Forum:Merge VFH and Pee Review?
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
- Moved here from User talk:GlobalTourniquet
I read some of the above posts - would it be possible to amalgamate Pee Review and VfH, so we have one forum for feedback? I get the feeling that no one uses Pee Review, and a lot of experienced Wikipedians like Spike forego the public forums for feedback and use talk pages instead, so people (especially me) use VfH as the only way to get attention from other users on articles.
It would be cool if there was one place where other users were asked to contribute and/or be constructive, and then perhaps a mechanism whereby other users nominated an article for featuring. I just wrote John Travolta, my first wikipedia article, and don't know whether putting in the Peer Review will actually do anything, but I feel slightly embarrassed that I still have a few old articles in VfH, and people tend to either praise or insult an article on there, without making much constructive noise. --
- The Mets made it to the World Series in their first season, but most new writers don't produce Uncyclopedia's Best (that is what VFH is, you know) on their first try; and right now we are seeing that a Dutch punster submitted a good but buggy Present to VFH (and did get editing help) when he should have gone to Pee Review, then perhaps to VFH. The drop-off in activity here is a concern. (I tried to address it in Forum:The dwindling of Uncyclopedia.) The solution is not to merge a court that votes on our best articles with a court that tries to minister to our worst. They are not the same thing. You used to have to go through Pee Review before you could self-nominate. PS--Yes, I do rarely visit the Forum but I doubt that is true for "a lot of experienced users." 11:34 9-Nov-12
- Wait, did Leverage just say he wrote his first wikipedia article...? Because, if so, maaaaaan am I in the wrong place.... oh, God...
- I also confuse the two and that must be why my stuff isn't funny. 17:07 9-Nov-12
- Spike, I read your 'Dwindling' post. A few thoughts:
a) For me, the best way to keep the site fresh is to attract new readers and writers. Regarding readers, (i.e. possible contributors, but not necessarily). I posted a thing in the forum about the content warning (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Content_Warning), which I think is really off-putting. Regarding new writers, some senior writers are professional nice guys, but there's a lot of negativity and unconstructive comments on VfH, that serve no purpose. I take your point about Uncyc feeling 'done', but that's why I personally like UnNews, because there is constant stimulus for new writers to contribute stuff, and the more good articles the better.
b) I get the theory of keeping VfH and Pee Review separate, but I don't see them functioning discretely as 'the best of' and 'the worst of' at the moment: VfH is, as you say, self-nominated, so there's no quality control, and Pee Review often features users seeking feedback, not necessarily because their articles are poor. I suggested one forum because I think at the moment, the choice of forum has more to do with users' habits regarding the desire for feedback than any supposed quality. A current example of the lack of discreteness is that you can see Stevie Wonder in both (but he can't see you).
c) I don't buy the experienced writers vs new writers stuff. To me it's the same as real life, some people I find funnier than others, how long they have been here has nothing to do with it. I got 4 featured articles in my first month, does that mean I am the best writer since sliced bread? No, it means about 10 people voted for each one. If I am here in 5 years time, more people might be used to my sense of humour, or might see me a friendly figure and vote 'for' - but that doesn't imply there's a causal relationship between hilarity and time spent being a member on Uncyclopedia. I can see that you're someone who cares about the page, but if the site is 'dwindling', I find this particular attitude unhelpful. --
- No real problems with what you wrote (except perhaps that you went from criticizing negativity to criticizing an "unhelpful...attitude"). Regarding negativity, I don't know what we should do beyond what we already do, such as a notice on VFH not to be dicks and prima donnas, and even more detailed instructions on civility for Pee Review.
- I did not mean to imply either that no first submission could be feature-worthy nor that all new Uncyclopedians are crap until they've spent two years with us. But most new Uncyclopedians are worse than veterans, not because our inherent goodness rubs off on them but because the bad ones don't stick around. Current practice doesn't prove your point; some veterans like Pee Review even for stuff they'd like to see featured, because they want help refining it too. I never go to Pee Review...because I just naturally attract criticism.
- If it is true that there are only enough of us left for one meeting-place, a way to test your proposal by carrying it to extremes is to consider also merging in VFD. (Look at the number of hours that recent nominations have languished, 24 hours being the minimum required for deletion.) If they all got dumped into the same place, we would make grand, collective decisions on whether to minister to a given article by featuring, fixing, or huffing it.
- Regarding the underlying problem--declining participation--you read my thesis in the other Forum that, in the real world, the only solution to low traffic is advertising--at which point, we would have to wrestle with separating a single decision court back into multiple ones. 18:42 10-Nov-12