Forum:United Uncyclopedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > BHOP > United Uncyclopedia
Note: This topic has been unedited for 184 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
By Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:48, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

Just a year and a half ago there was only one Uncyclopedia. Now there are two. Two separate websites with two separate communities. Each Uncyclopedia has its own features, its own strategy and its own hopes and expectations. These are two different sites, which sometimes conflict and sometimes prefer to ignore each other.

But should it really be that way? Many people talked about reuniting which is very hard to picture, because of the different situation each site faces right now. But still is there really no way of working together without being on one site? I am sure that there is, - even - there are such ways. We certainly all have different motivations, but I think that we all want one thing: to make Uncyclopedia better. And even though, when thinking about Uncyclopedia, every editor thinks about the website to which he is contributing, still, we are both Uncyclopedias, and it is possible to help the whole project to grow, while working together. We won't be violating Wikia's terms of use, as we won't be diverting any traffic to the other site, but rather helping both to regain the life that was lost after the separation and possibly even re-defining Uncyclopedia as a project.

You can say that I am wasting your time, which you could have used for writing funny articles, but working together could be as simple as collaborating on articles. I don't know what project we should do, as it is not me, but you, who should decide. But the most important question now is: are you willing to join in an inter-site collaboration?

I made the same inquiry at the other site and there was positive reaction, but many of answers depend on your ones. Many of them would like to be with you and are only waiting for your answers.

So now only one question remains:

Would you like to work together with editors from the other site?

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anton199 (talk • contribs)

I don't see how this a practical proposition Anton199. From the comments I read from the other site, they are not interested either about some reunion unless it is hosted on their website. This doesn't prevent users like yourself, Aleister, Shabidoo, Funnybony from bouncing between both places and as you know, Wikia allowed re-directs on a user's page if they had decided to go with the fork. From my perspective, that seems like a fair deal. Each version of Uncyclopedia will only carry on if enough users stay, old ones return or others join to ensure that site survives and prospers. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 11:50, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

This is not a practical proposition, this is a question. So your answer is being separate? Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:09, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
It gives all Uncyclopedians a choice. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 12:53, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
This is all about collaboration, or at least that's what I meant when I was writing it. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:04, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
I think we should collaborate on publicity. And sharing articles. Other than that, I like the idea of two site, because when Spike banned me here a few times I just go there. It's a good site, with good people, and I wish we'd all get along, but that will take some ego-replacements for a few people who think uncyclopedia is one site rather than the two that it is now. This one-siteitis hurts the overall wiki, which is split but still related, like siblings who were Siamese twins but are now two people who can walk around in two different rooms of the same building and talk on the phone. Aleister 13:31 9-3-14
How do Siamese twins walk around in two different rooms? Stand in the doorway and wave their legs around?? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:49, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
One project is certainly not going to make one website out of two. But it could help build a good relationship between them. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:53, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

I think you did not quite understand what I was talking about. I propose to organise a project between the two websites. But we'll still have two of them. And the editors' choice won't disappear. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 07:25, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased that this is merely a social invitation and not a proposal to abdicate and leave it to Wikia to find our replacements — as opposed to what its mirror post has become. I am also pleased that you are mindful of not sending Wikia's site traffic elsewhere, despite making it awfully easy, and that it didn't pull you or others off creative work for even a day. By the same token, this Forum belongs over at BHOP. Spıke ¬ 14:12 10-Mar-14
I appreciate your efforts to try to keep the editors on this site, but I think that suggesting a collaboration without telling with whom to collaborate would be something pointless. So I am just providing the link to the forum over there, where the same question was asked: [1]. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:39, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Reasons to stay with Wikia

I see that on the spoon's mirror forum a few users have suggested that the spoon site is the improvement site, it has all the qualities of this site plus more. In response to that I'd say that there are a lot of reasons why I personally prefer this site and think that think that this is the improvement site:

  1. Wikia I see less as a problem and more as support. They can prevent this site getting into legal disputes when the comedy goes too far, they help and support this site without the individual user having to worry about it and they promote this site. What's more is that I trust Wikia far more than I trust a group of anonymous editors who've set up their own wiki. I am sure they have no bad intentions but that doesn't remove the fact that they could effectively run the site to their own content.
  2. Uncyclopedia at wikia costs me nothing to be part of. The spoon needs to fund its own servers and is now asking for donations. The financial stability that Wikia provides I find more comfortable to work with.
  3. Wikia has no content warning now so we are level with the spoon here. It's thanks to the perseverance of this site that it was removed even when the admin who apparently rules over us with an iron fist, was against the removal (hint: he isn't a tyrant!).
  4. Advertisments happen everywhere unfortunately, over yt and google as well. Personally no adverts appear on my screen when using Uncyclopedia but apparently some do for others. To be honest even though we have them we don't have huge donation banners.
  5. Spike isn't that bad at all. He has a great sense of humour, writes great articles and has helped a tonne with the formatting and administrating of this site. Always happy to help, on countless times I have put forward ideas to him and he has helped. Sometimes makes decisions that some of us don't agree with but that's what talk pages are for! Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 07:13, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the praise. I've changed your list to a numbered list to respond more specifically. (1) The other website's legal strategy has only been summarized as: "Tell them all to go fuck themselves," something that will not avail when the Fisher Price Company catches up with its libeler. (2) Not only will we never solicit any more from you than your sense of humor (and good spelling and good coding), you will never get the impression that any Uncyclopedian has acquired special standing through paying, or helping with, server fees. (3) I had no opinion on the need for a Content Warning (except that the original rationale, people mistaking Uncyclopedia for the truth, was bogus) — only that, if we had one, it should state its business and step aside rather than doing a song-and-dance. I asked the Admins traveling to Wikia to bring it up again, they successfully made the case, and Wikia removed the Content Warning. (4) The chronic gripe is not that we see ads, but that Anon sees ads instead of only what we would like him to see. Registered users can turn off ads. Anon pays the bills.
A competing website claims to be better than we are because they have more Admins, but we are better because we have fewer. It claims to be better because they have the ability to perform checkuser themselves. This could be a boon to an Admin but it is not a boon to an editor. On this website, editors know that even Admins have to beg to a famously unresponsive corporation to help track down sockpuppets. And that we cannot, say, look at their passwords and see if they unlock other wikis. And we no longer have Forest Fire Weeks. This website is the safest spot to hold your creative work. Spıke ¬ 12:20 11-Mar-14
Sorry hope I'm not dragging this out but I had a few more points and not enough time to express them:
  1. The humour between the two sites is subtly different in my opinion. This is a hugely contraversial topic and I don't want to start a row but most times I check their front page they feature articles that I would personally not see suitable for an encyclopedic spoof. I prefer the comedy of this website as the absurd articles are clever and funny and the rest keep to the encyclopedic spoof nature (the primary reason I read this site before I was a user, that sense of joy that someone had finally taken the piss out of wikipedia).
  2. Wikia appears top for all (or for at least the huge majority of) Uncyclopedic article searches where both Uncyclopedias have the same article. Higher chance of someone reading Wikia articles.
  3. More active users is definitely true here. The stats show (and they don't include mostly vandals as we get very few these days). One thing I will give the spoon is that it has more regular users (there is a difference between active and regular). More users contribute to forums there and more votes for highlight are made there (marginally). However at Wikia we have more users writing articles (less old timers who no longer write) and a lot of users who come here once a month to write but don't contribute (or contribute little) to forums. Personally I prefer a small community with a lot of writers and articles.
  4. The Wikia community have spent a big effort clearing up the crap made by this site in the years in which people wrote shit because Uncyc was a meme. Uncyclopedia Wikia has a general drive to become a good comedy website and not just a place where in-jokes and crap reign. Now I'm sure the spoon have the same ideas but it doesn't come across as clearly as it does here, in my view. We have a tonne of things back up and running, such as recently VFP and Pee Review re-formatted, which I gather the spoon do not. Also we delete the crap democratically and in a controlled manner, not through forest fires.
  5. Wikia also acts as a neutral manager of the website so if cases of cyberbullying or privacy issues came into force a responsible organisation is dealing with them and because of wikia having final say the admins act more as constitutional monarchs rather than elected for life dictators (even if they do not act harmfully there is a posibility that one day someone could).

Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:47, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

But I am not convincing you to leave! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:55, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anton, good Anton: As I say these points are not me trying to say we shouldn't collaborate as wikis but saying that I can't collaborate with another wiki until it agrees to provide or provides the things that this wiki provides above (hint: quite hard as you'd need to be part of wikia). Therefore I see two options for a re-join option of collaborating but staying seperate perhaps working on two sites that are targeted at different comedial aims or everyone move here. Alternately we could carry on as we are and everyone could try to cope with the situation which we have been left with as two individual websites. I don't know which is right so I'll leave you with a poem:

The Englishman who thinks he's a Scotsman writes to the Englishwoman who thinks she's Welshman (or how I found the bomb and turned it off before two World's were destroyed)

Let the dust fall over what still lies here

The bickering and squabling, the hatred and the disgust

Let it cover the the past and leave only the future exposed

But most of all, let it cover the trite

The in-jokes, the egoism, the vandalism

Let both sides brush it off with a call

"Seperate or together we still stand tall"

For both sides provide their users with their needs

And so both are content.

Now comes a time of writing and voting,

Joyous lives and dancing.

A great divorce for the better,

A few hundred happy comedians,

Dancing round their forest fires,

Instead of trapped in a sinking ship together,

Blaming and banning and harrasing and accusing

And getting mocked by the rest of the World.

Dedicated to Oscar Wilde

Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 19:04, March 11, 2014 (UTC)

Another header, because my ego demands it

I would happily support a collaborative project - I like most of the greater Uncyc community, and to an extent mourn the loss of community members who no longer edit here (or there). I don't mind if the project is hosted here and then imported there, or vice versa. I do think that any project does need to go to the betterment of both Uncyclopedias though, which is what I feel is likely to become a sticking point. Several more extreme viewpoints expressed have been along the lines of as long as they don't benefit - which of course is contrary to the entire idea of why we're doing this in the first place.

I'm also thinking here about the advantage of a collaboration like IC. Not from the uniting communities aspect, but from what I've seen it do in the past:

  1. Helps new users learn how to write funny. Having a topic put forward then means the community brainstorms concepts together. This demonstrates how to create a concept for a page, rather than just stringing a bunch of one-liners together, punctuated by memes.
  2. It builds relationships. Working with another individual with a common goal helps create a relationship with them.
  3. It creates good outcomes. I'm proud of how Bruce Wayne and Science fiction have come out, and feel they are worthy additions to our pantheon.

The disadvantages:

  1. They are a gargantuan pain in the coccyx to organise. While I'm proud of those two examples, Science fiction dragged on ad infinitum, and Dinosaur was a train wreck.

No real point I'm driving to here, by the way. Just random thoughts. Well done for getting through this tl;dr post.                               Puppy's talk page08:53 pm 11 Mar 2014

I think that certainly the collaborating without joining together idea is a good one. It's just a question of whether the users can stand each other, each other's comedy and whether it will fall into arguments about who does what. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 21:00, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Which is where a "head of" comes in handy - ideally someone who straddles both sites, can keep a firm grip on things, and isn't me.                               Puppy's talk page10:40 pm 11 Mar 2014

Super cool shizzle yo

It is probably stating the obvious when I say this, but the sites are never going to be truly re-united. Why? Because we have fundamentally different ideas about how the site should be run. A reputable[citation needed] host has its perks as does independence. Well whichever site you edit predominately you should (in my opinion at least) publish your articles on the other site as well. Sharing is caring guys. Doing this shows that you are friendly to both sites and that in itself improves inter-site relations whilst literally doing (almost) nothing. Platinum, Conservative and Alcohol are all articles I originally wrote on the fork, but have additionally provided copies of here. Now that I'm editing this site mainly, any articles I write here are going to also be posted on the fork. This is a practice I encourage everybody that writes to also participate in. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 05:32, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

Geez - the ego of adding a new header just to make a response! I agree, except where such a contribution would be contrary to the individual site's developing style. My ATDB entry there I probably wouldn't bring here. The article on MrEx being anally penetrated by Matt Smith definitely not. By the same token, the apathy about History of the world over there suggests it may not really fit in now (or it could just be my name is an anathema.)                               Puppy's talk page07:57 am 12 Mar 2014
Or an enema, which sounds more Uncyclopedian. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:32, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the actual non-injoke content but yeah. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) Icons-flag-au 11:02, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
And by the same token, Shart has now arrived at VFD. Spıke ¬ 11:18 12-Mar-14
I agree with Frosty he has put it completely right. Sharing is caring. I don't think your trashing of the fork is useful SPIKE. --ShabiDOO 23:01, March 15, 2014 (UTC)
—and has been voted deleted. It is not "trashing of the fork" but the exact theme of this section to note that even Aleister voted that Shart did not belong on this website, whereas, as ScottPat often notes, such articles are often main-page features on the Fork. Spıke ¬ 14:28 19-Mar-14
At the same time, the person who pointed out the difference between the two sites (in this forum) was me. I did that using my own writing as an example, and two articles I'm happy with. The ATDB article doesn't fit in at this site, which is focused on more encyclopedic style parody, and is decidedly more low-brow, whereas HotW doesn't fit in as well at the other site - mainly because it is a more encyclopedic style parody, and more high-brow. (And by high-brow I mean my mother would be okay reading it - the Puppy's Mum rule.) Pointing out that difference is not trashing one and elevating the other - it's a difference. And keeping one low-brow and one high-brow is making my head lopsided.                               Puppy's talk page02:56 pm 19 Mar 2014
Should we replace Codeine's mom with Puppy's as our litmus test? Perhaps Codeine's mater has gone over to the Fork or is she reading both sites? We should be told! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 15:10, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
You guys always have extremely good analytically and logical skills, debate well, express yourselves well and can be objective. When the fork comes up the narrative goes bananas. Bananas. --ShabiDOO 16:10, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Good analytical and logical skills? What??!!! You trying to start a fight big head? You think I'm some matured debater. This ain't a mass debate, it's some other word that sounds very like masticate. I hate you stupid git with your exposing of my logical flawlessness. God will punish you all, die, die, die! Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:14, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
On a slightly less serious note I do think, as Spike said, that the Codeine's Mum rule is interpreted differently on both sites. One of the reasons that keeps me off the spoon is the stuff they feature. That's not because it isn't funny, I'm sure it is. I just find it to immature and too memish and in-jokey to see that the website could ever be taken as a "more serious" comedy site (ie on that's aim is to write things for everyone to enjoy of good quality). Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:14, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Bananas. --ShabiDOO 21:07, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects