# Forum:The problem with uncyclopedia

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > The problem with uncyclopedia
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2302 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The problem with uncyclopedia; when someone first posts a section it may be pretty funny. Then people edit it, adding random comments, slowly but surely reducing the humor content, until it's garbage.

Uncyclopedia is like a place where funny content comes to be made un-funny; wikipedia gradually gets less funny but more accurate over time, uncyclopedia just gets less funny.

I'm saying funny a lot in this post, and it's probably starting to annoy you. Probably starting to annoy you funny much.

That is all.

Kestasjk 10:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki, you're welcome to make any content alterations you see fit. So fix it, O expert of funny. Otherwise, the door's over there, don't let it hit your ass on the way out. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Take this article UnNews:Zimbabwe's_Mugabe_claims_to_have_won_the_Euro_2008_championship <-- funny. Someone comes in and makes a change, what are the odds it'll be less funny afterwards? Kestasjk 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
PS The door is over where? Where is the door? I can't find my way out and I'm getting claustrophobic. Kestasjk 10:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats just the Hemlock we gave you, better offer up your cock now;)--(Talk 10:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Kestasjk makes a very astute observation and I largely agree. That said, sometimes people do improve things, which makes for a tough balance. The best solution that I have found for this problem is to keep things in your watchlist and periodically clean things up. Mind you, when I say clean things up, I don't mean rollback, I mean play editor and decide which of the changes are good, which are bad and what wasn't very good in the first place. It's tough work but that's what it takes. --Sir gwax (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Kestasjk as well. It's not really like Wikipedia, where things can be refined again and again because 1) there are tons of Wikipedia zealots willing to work on boring minutiae and 2) it's often hard to maintain an Uncyc article's tone because the original writer wrote it from a particular subjective point of view. Of course sometimes collaborative editing works perfectly, and other times a completely terrible article can inspire a great one from another writer.
Like Gwax said, the easiest way to maintain an article's humor is to watch it yourself, but plenty of people (including me, often) probably don't even keep an eye on their own articles, much less others. Hence events like whatever that Article-Improving Drive we had was called (actually, AID would be a great acronym for future drives... I get royalties if we use that name). Aside from limiting article creation and editing, which is a terrible idea, there's no real arbitrary way to ensure that articles won't deteriorate over time. There will always be gold at Uncyc and there will always be garbage... improving the ratio is the tricky bit. —rc (t) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## The good thing about uncyclopedia

The good thing about uncyclopedia; when someone first posts a section it may be pretty stupid. Then people edit it, adding jokes and humour, slowly but surely increasing the humour content, until it's top-quality satire.

Uncyclopedia is like a place where un-funny content comes to be made funny; wikipedia gradually gets more funny and less accurate over time, uncyclopedia just gets more funny.

I'm saying funny a lot in this post, and it's probably starting to please you, as the more I say funny, the more funny there is on the site. Technically.

That is all.

Spang 12:38, 30 Jun 2008

<3U, Spang. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe the construction is $Spang < 3$, where 3=age in years. —rc (t) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## The mediocre thing about uncyclopedia

People first post either good stuff or bad unfunny crap. The worst crap gets deleted, the best stuff gets featured. The stuff in the middle then stagnates until someone comes along and rewrites it or tinkers with it and puts it up for feature. The rest is then ruined by idiots until it goes to VFD and gets deleted. And everyone else just jerks off in the corner -- 08:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

h00ray! I love the corner! The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 23:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## The problem with cakes

The problem with cakes; when someone first lays out a selection of cakes it looks pretty tasty. Then people eat some of the cakes, leaving a trail of crumbs, slowly but surely reducing the number of cakes available, until all that's left is the sour quince and prune tarte tatin that mad Auntie Mabel made and no-one wants.

Uncyclopedia is like a place where cake comes to be eaten; Wikipedia gradually gets less cake but more vandalism over time, uncyclopedia just gets hungry. --UU - natter 13:13, Jun 30

## The problem with English cooking

Is that it's always taste like baked beans on toast. No matter how many people you actually got meddling with the dish or the amount of spices you put it, it will always taste like baked beans on toast. ~ 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't knock beans on toast - its tasty--(Talk 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but they boil it in Britain. Then they deep fry it. Then they give it a silly name, like freckled nobbler or cocked dick. 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh man, I could go a plate of freckled nobbler right now. With a big old cocked dick on the side. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
With a pint of Piddle's Bitter? 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

## The problem with forum posts...

...Is that a lot of the time they're someone stating the obvious and then doing nothing to help out. I kan haz {{sofixit}}? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:10, Jun 30

## The problem with the Led Balloon

Is that from pure physics point of view, you cannot fly a balloon made out of led. I mean, seriously, that's just stupid. ~ 07:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends how thin the lead skin is, what shape/size the balloon is and what gas you're using to keep it aloft. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
He's full of gas. Methane, mostly. Plus whatever gas smells like poo. He cut one on the school bus and everyone had to open the windows. I almost puked. The girls all think he's gross now. They thought he was gross before too, but now they actually have evidence to back it up. 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, he who smelt it dealt it. I'm not saying that Modus was the one that farted, you understand, I'm just saying that the rhyme says that whoever smelled the gas produced it, and Modus just admitted to smelling it. That's all I'm saying. Oh, and it was MO. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:14, Jul 1

## The Problem with Cleaning That Part of the Rug at the Corner of the Room which your Vacuum Cannot Reach Making it Very Annoying and Difficult to Clean

...poppycock? i curve bulletz? - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 05:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)