User:Qua/Uncyclopedia is okay

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

To everyone who keeps dissing Uncyclopedia or saying that Uncyclopedia is great, I have something to say so please listen to me okay? I actually think Uncyclopedia is A'Okay. It's not bad, it's not good, it's sorta in the middle. Which means it's okay.

For example, it makes saterical fun of countries, goverments, and many various celebrities. Sure some are funnier then others and some aren't funny but there's nothing a fixy, fixy, fixy, rewrite can't... uh... fix. Going to Uncyclopedia probably means nothing cause it's just a website, unlike that other guy who thinks it actually means something.

I actually think they're okay. Sure their ideas of humor may suck, but once-in-a-while while the white moon is in the sky, they actually manage to come up with something funny. And when they come up with something funny, I laugh my sides really, really hard. I don't like or hate Uncyclopedia. I just think it's cool that's all. But there are some person like Jimbo Wales who truely, truely love it. So much that he has made an offer to personally buy it. I heard they rejected it but there's nothing to be angry about, nothing. They're still okay in my book. They have some sort of controll in the form of 2 rules but there's nothing to get worried about. They're not control freaks like Wikipedia who delete every page that's ever been created. Oscar Wilde is a great poetrary master who has come up with some of the greatest quotes ever, sure some of the Oscar Wilde quotes aren't good, but they can be removed. The In-jokes are sorta unoriginal yet they bring a harmony to Uncyclopedia. Zork. Now that's kinda tedious and stupid, but in the same time awkwardly hilarious. I'm still trying to figure out what is up with these people, it may take some time but Uncyclopedia is just right, for me.

edit Just a parody of Wikipedia

Uncyclopedia Puzzle Potato Notext

The hollowed potato, actually clever but not clever enough.

I can totally get the logo. It's a hollowed potato with puzzle pieces. Kinda like how Wikipedia's logo is a globe with puzzle pieces. I can totally also get that the logo somehow represents a symbolistic icon names Sophia, represents Uncyclopedia and is also the mascot of Uncyclopedia. That's a lot for a simple potato. The featured pictures I have to say, have quality, style and saterical humor stuffed in them. It took me some time to figured out what those featured images means but once I figured out. I was intrieg in their submirsive sense of humor. Sometimes they use traditional photographs or images from the Internet, but the quality of the articles are stil good.

Uncyclopedia is just a parody of Wikipedia, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the articles are funny and some of the articles are not. There's no need to make a big deal about it. The website is sorta funny in it's own, some of the articles are funny, and some of the articles are dumb. But I think it creates a balance of Zen that isn't found anywhere else. If Uncyclopedis were a house then it would be a moderatly priced and furnished house that prices just right. People would love to read an article about a hotel or a self refrential article. Uncyclopedia's content isn't supposed to be factful or truthful in anyway, also I feel pitty for those who used Uncyclopedia as a refrence in their history quizzes, they should of used Wikipedia which is much more informative and truthful, then they could of truely gotten an A+. Uncyclopedia well, suceeds in it's mission in getting aspiring humor writers and gives them a place to write humor that couldn't exist anywhere else, and I applaud them for trying to give humor writers a place to write.

Kittenhuffing

I'm still trying to figure this out, you know.

Also the earliest "in-joke" on Uncyclopedia, Kitten Huffing, I'm still trying to understand it. It's about kittens being injested as a drug (which is physically impossible), yet it's a parody of drug ingestion. It's a complex joke to understand but it's so absurd, I don't think it's good but it's my personal opinion on one article. Also the article does not encourages kids to be cruel to kittens or inject them as a drug, it doesn't warp their minds, in fact, you're all overreacting. Also their article on Barney, not crazy about it. The article is mostly about how Barney is evil and a child molestor. Don't get me wrong, I watched the show too and I'm not crazy about that either, but I truely think that the article can be rewritten to be better. Still, it doesn't change my perspective on Uncyclopedia, it's just one article after all.

The atmosphere in this place is certainly wierd and absurd, but I don't understand what the hell the Useless Gobshite of the Month award means. I mean it's supposed to be a joke award, yet it's been awarded to these balant vandals who messed up Uncyclopedia, 3 of them to be exact. Their requirements say that you must nominate the user who constantly writes crap and is useless. I don't understand the users who won the award, they're not useless at all yet they've been awarded. Confusing award yet nothing that makes me want to leave Uncyclopedia. Also I think that they're friendly towards n00bs, I think that they give them the best treatement yet and anyone who thinks that what I'm saying is not true is wrong. I just like their treatment of n00bs that's all.

edit <insert title here>

Basicly I'm astonished on how long this wiki's survived. 3 years and still going strong. I'm astonished because most wiki's don't live past the 1 or 2 year mark, and through all it has been through, it makes it cool in my book. Though some people hate that's it's been around so lond, and even though some people think it's doomed, I tend to ignore these people as I'm impressed only by the time it's been around.

I don't care that they make fun of other wiki's cause I treat other wiki's equally. Their article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, I just didn't care about it. I even visted Encyclopedia Dramatica myself, even though I was a little dissapointed, I thought it was okay in my book, just okay, like Uncyclopedia.

Some of the articles at Uncyclopedia are.... How can I say it... Weird. I don't get what AAAAAAAAA is supposed to mean. Is it supposed to be random, is it supposed to be screaming, is it supposed to be incoherent? What does it mean anyway? The page describing this "in-joke" is sparce, it describes that this joke is apparently a parody of random humor. Yet I don't see any randomness in it, all I see is confusion, and what I'm trying to figure out is what does it mean? Things like this don't piss me off, but they do make me wonder, philosiphly.

The articles that parody major political figures like George W. Bush

Personal tools
projects