Forum:Official Move Date Announced:January 5th

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Some background and a reflection on the move)
m (Changed protection level for "Forum:Official Move Date Announced:January 5th": Adding a comment to an old forum long since closed. (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite)))
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Forumheader|Village Dump}}
 
{{Forumheader|Village Dump}}
<div style="font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;">TL;DR: Uncyclopedia is now at [http://en.uncyclopedia.co/ en.uncyclopedia.co]. This version will continue to exist for those who choose to stay.</div>
+
<div style="font-size: 110%; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;">TL;DR: The content and much of the active community of Uncyclopedia is now at [http://en.uncyclopedia.co/ en.uncyclopedia.co]. The Wikia based version will continue to exist for those who choose to stay.</div>
   
 
----
 
----
Line 236: Line 236:
 
::::''/me wonders what the fuss is all about. New site is better.'' [[User:Hooray Red Stripe!|Hooray Red Stripe!]] ([[User talk:Hooray Red Stripe!|talk]]) 23:21, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
::::''/me wonders what the fuss is all about. New site is better.'' [[User:Hooray Red Stripe!|Hooray Red Stripe!]] ([[User talk:Hooray Red Stripe!|talk]]) 23:21, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
:::::Thank you, sock puppet, for that utterly useless and self-serving comment. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|02:11 20 Jan}}
 
:::::Thank you, sock puppet, for that utterly useless and self-serving comment. {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|02:11 20 Jan}}
  +
  +
== Comment from a user who joined after the split ==
  +
  +
I would really like to understand why we insist on keeping two nearly identical sites open. Why was this site forked, rather than moved? Why was there such insufficient consensus that we did not all stay here or move [[:cy:en:|there]]?
  +
  +
I realise this forum has not been edited for six months and I am sorry for necroposting on it, but I think an agreement as to which site we should be editing is long overdue and should be reached if possible. There was once a single community; there ought to be a way to make them come together again to decide this thing that was apparently decided by two sides with different opinions - and then, if possible, stay together. Enuncyco users have been complaining about a lack of activity. Uncyclowikia users have been complaining about sending traffic away from their site. Both sites share the exact same purpose and extremely similar content, and both of them seem to be wanting a more active community. Therefore, it would make sense to bring them together again, whichever place they may eventually come to.
  +
  +
Also, if we do not once again become a single community as I believe we should be, it would in my opinion be appropriate to have the site notice or the welcome template say clearly that there are ''two'' Uncyclopedias, not one. This fact should be out in the open. Not having it be so, I think, is to almost purposely hide the existence of the other site for our own purposes. Of course, the site notice/welcome template on ''both'' Uncyclopedias should mention the other site - let's be fair here.
  +
  +
With the number of users on each site, it should be totally possible to close one wiki or the other, or at least ensure that wiki we decide not to use directs users to the other one. All we need to do is come to some sort of agreement on this, and always stay civil and assume good faith. There have been a lot of attacks thrown around. In particular, I appreciate Sannse's desire not to get into rights and edit wars, but the way not to do that is not to interfere with the community. To simply stay out of what they are deciding and not let the interests of Wikia enter the discussion. Not ever. I know about the terms of service thing but that is simply not right.
  +
  +
Those terms, it seems, are why the fork was created. They were too restrictive. What this has done is to divide those who do not mind the terms from those who do. Now the new site contains those who do not support Wikia, and the old site contains those who are totally happy to act in Wikia's interests. Those like me who have got to really dislike Wikia's ways will leave, or if they are [[User:Bizzeebeever|too]] [[User:Multiliteralist|outspoken]] be blocked, and this community will then be composed entirely of users who either have little to no opinion of Wikia or think of it as being a truly good thing that we should support in whatever way they want. Then it will be impossible to get a consensus here that we should all move. Still, though, it is not doing us any good to be separated like this, is it? Would it not be conducive to our purposes if we could come together in one place?
  +
  +
Again, I am sorry for posting on an old forum. Do what you will with me for it. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig}} 01:41, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
:The users that moved wanted everybody to move, but those of us who stayed with this site see no problem with allowing censorship in exchange for reliable hosting of our site, ongoing technical support, and not having to worry about financial issues interfering with the ongoing operations of the site. Besides, Wikia has a tradition of keeping wikis open even when the entire community has moved (if you have visited Illogicopedia, their old site was at wackypedia, which was renamed wackypedia when the community moved, and wackypedia is basically a dead wiki which is hosted by Wikia). So "closing" this site is out of the question, even if theoretically everyone decided to move elsewhere, which is not going to happen. There are also fundamental differences in the new focus of this wiki as compared to the focus of the fork. We focus more on providing quality content to the readers here, whereas the fork is becoming more of a social club, focusing lately on inside jokes that newcomers might not understand, and exploiting their lack of censorship. Not everyone here wants to join the social club of the fork, some edit this site only, and some edit both this site and the fork. So "coming together in one place" is not likely to happen anytime soon. Surely you should have picked up the hint that at least one person here would not fit into the social club at the fork from a recent VFH there that failed, fortunately. Those who are actively promoting the fork on this site are violating Wikia's terms of use about advertising non-Wikia sites on Wikia resources, so we have to discourage this. With members who were banned for promoting the fork, the real question is, are they willing to come back and become positive contributors to this site taking into consideration the Terms of Service. So far, the answer is no, so there is no reason to lift their bans. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 02:20, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
::Yes, coming together in one place is not likely to happen. That does not mean it would not be a good thing. The differences of opinion of the two communities combined could make for something even more successful than what we have now with the two sites. You are not even considering this possibility.
  +
::I do not think you read what I said about Wikia's ToS being 'unjustified'. You obviously believe they are justified or are at least not willing to question them. I ''know'' they prohibit 'not being a positive contributor to the site by advertising forks'. Does that mean it is 'wrong' to do so? No. Wikia's terms should not be an absolute from the community's point of view. What one needs to ask is why advertising the fork is ''wrong'', not why it is a violation. So far I have seen no reason why it is wrong other than that it violates Wikia's terms. ''Wikia's terms are not an automatically justified absolute.'' Think about what would happen if the blocks (''not'' bans, see [[wikipedia:WP:BLOCK|Wikipedia's blocking policy]], they have a sensible definition of these things) were lifted and those contributors continued to promote or speak positively about the fork. We would have both opinions on the matter freely dispersed. Yes, there would be promotion of the new site. No, not everyone would go there and begin to edit. How would lifting the blocks be anything but allowing different opinions to be heard? How would it be a bad thing if everyone had the opportunity to hear all sides of the issue and see both sides of the split? We can still find the truth by digging deep enough, but it is more obvious what they think if they are not silenced. I can only see the blocking of those who promote the fork as censorship, if you will forgive my word choice. Allowing free speech on this would let new users make more informed decisions about which site to use. The reason for not allowing free speech seems to be entirely self-serving, if not entirely to serve Wikia.
  +
::Indeed you say the truth here, but you have mainly stated things that are obvious and that I already know. I know Wikia does not normally close wikis. If the community all left, or somehow convinced Wikia that this wiki was not worth keeping open, we might succeed in truly moving off Wikia. I know Wikia's ToS prohibits advertising other sites on those of Wikia; this is furthermore a rather vague thing to prohibit and wide open to abuse, and it should also be noted that the ToS state that Wikia may block anyone at any time for any reason or no reason, so it is not even necessary to violate the ToS to be blocked. That is why it is rather hard for me to take use of the ToS as a block reason seriously. Essentially, violating it means seriously upsetting a loyal Wikia user in a position of power.
  +
::You also say things that sound exactly as if you were a staff member, even though I know you are not. You speak of the Terms of Service as if they were an absolute that we must follow. (We don't have to. We can move.) You say that the blocked users are 'not contributing positively' because they are speaking positively about another English Uncyclopedia that has just as much right to exist as this one and, if you ask me, actually ''should'' be advertised here merely because it is equally legitimate (though of course I will not do so because I would quite probably be blocked too).
  +
::Because you have obviously not read or not considered a good deal of what I said, I do not really think it is worth saying it all over again. If you continue to repeat what you are saying without taking my points into account I have no real interest in continuing the discussion. {{User:Llwy-ar-lawr/sig}} 05:40, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
  +
:::Why do people apologise for necroposting and then write war and peace? There's a reason why this thread was left to die. As for the must thrust of ''we need one site''… it has been expressed over and over, but the question always arises as ''where'', which is unable to be resolved. There are reasons why some of the older members here have chosen to remain here, as well as valid reasons why those that have moved have chosen to stay there, and why those that flick between the two flick between. If there was a simple resolution then we would have already done this. I have no desire to see multiples sites with near identical content, and I miss the member of te community that have left (or been banned for violating rule 1). So if we are in a position where we have exhausted the possibilities of reuniting the two sites, then we are left with the only option available - to allow the sites to grow in different directions. I'm also not intending to respond to anything more on this thread - if you truly wish to continue this discussion create a new thread rather than bumping a forum (which used to be a bannable offence, if I remember correctly.) {{User:PuppyOnTheRadio/sig3|06:23 28 Jul 2013}}

Latest revision as of 08:49, July 28, 2013

Personal tools
projects