Here's the deal, I want to fix Uncyclopedia. It's full of crap, which is nothing new, but it's gone past the point of reason.
So, tell me what you think is broken about Uncyclopedia, be general or specific but do be serious. I'm not looking for stupid here, I'm looking to get stuff done, so if you post shit, I will ban you for a day or three. Let me know the problems that need fixing and I'll start figuring out what we're going to do.
edit Takin' out the trash
- Category:Rewrite WAY too many articles in it, and most of them are NRV or QVFD quality.
- I had suggested taking the oldcat template and extending the count on it to 100 or so. Starnes put it up: Uncyclopedia:Maintenance/Rewrite
- We need to bring NRV back. ICU is ineffective. Furthermore, we need NRV back with a 3 to 4 day (5 day MAXIMUM) expiration time to speed things up and relieve some stress from VFD.
- We have no mission statement at the moment; people seem to be getting confused about what Uncyc is for.
More to come later.... --♠ 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
edit messing with VFS
Currently, VFS is a once every other month where only 2 admins get opped, and from there in the last 3 instances, i think 1 new sysop left because of a new baby, and a few others have stoped contributing as much. the process takes an entire month, and is devided into 3 parts each being 10 days. i think that at least one of those parts(the one where the admins decide if we need other admins) is too long a time period becuase all the admins either vote within the first 2 days, or dont vote. I tried to do something about this before on Uncyclopedia talk:VFS however it because ignored due to lack of intrest. i went through the history, and found that before the current method, we had a vote where anyone coul be nomed at any time and there was a vote to see if we didnt need any more admins. I say that we just restore that system and let people and only op the potential admins as needed.--General And Min. THEDUDEMAN 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
edit User conflicts
I think, from now on, every time users have a conflict, we need a sysop to get in before it escalates, dish out small warning bans where necessary, and stop the issue in its tracks. -05:45, Nov 11
The Official Uncyclopedia Cabalanalyzed the cause of problems on Uncyclopedia, and most stem back to escalating user conflicts. QED. -- 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I also second this. Note: Some of TKF's edit was "adjusted" to reflect reality. -- ♠ 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just remember to give a heads up on IRC (or whatever) to an admin when you see one brewing. They aren't psychic. Mostly. Also, they taste like candy. I've said too much.
06:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Tasting admins are we, MO? -- ♠ 15:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
edit VFD limit
It seems as though Zombiebaron reverted your edits to Template:VFDRules2. Should we keep the 15 article limit, change it to 30, or eliminate the limit? --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 20:52, Nov. 11, 2007
- Eliminating the limit is a terrible idea and, as far as I'm concerned, if Zombiebaron would prefer that it be 15, that's fine for now. Since changing it, I've decided that there are bigger problems for me to address first. -- 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
edit Intro pages
The introductory pages are terrible, they don't tell new users much and they do it in a very slow and annoying manner. The introductory pages should be concise, informative and useful. -- 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
edit People Bitch When I Do Things
It takes far more time to read/listen/ignore/respond than it should. Can we set up some sort of script where I can ban everyone who edits a page, with just one click? 11/13 01:37
- Wait, so you don't already have one? Well, surely you are ten feet tall, and shoot fire from your eyes and lightning from your arse? - 01:40, Nov 13
“Sometimes, the only way to deal with mass idiocy is mass genocide.”- 02:26, Nov 13 Actually, I think this quote applies more:
“Sometimes, the only way to deal with a conflict is to ban all the unhappy people.”-- 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
edit Copied From: Forum:An Open Letter to Uncyclopedia
The biggest problems I see here are:
- We discourage stupidity more than we encourage humor.
- We often vote for articles on VFH because we were told to vote on them rather than give an honest opinion on how funny they are.
- We don't get rid of the crap fast enough.
- Too many anonymous and new users make unfunny articles thinking that they will be featured.
- Following our standard of what is and is not funny is not mandatory. And,
- We let people ruin things by making them funny without correcting them.
The best way to fix these problems might be to:
- Give out more awards to good writers than punishments to bad writers.
- Encourage voters on VFH not to listen to votewhores, avoid whoring articles, and give an opinion along with their vote.
- Remove age restrictions for QVFD and ICU and make the stay of execution shorter.
- Stop anonymous editing and give more positive attention to newbies.
- Make some sort of quality assessment or rating system to grade how well something follows HTBFANJS and require that articles below a certain score be deleted and require a certain score for VFH. And,
- Encourage writers to be funny and spend some time on their work rather than just slap it together in 5 minutes.
If we can do these things, people would be more inclined to be make an effort to be funny instead of just adding stupid things to make themselves laugh. As a result, the average quality and standards for humor would be raised and more people would want to come here. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 01:17, October 27, 2007
- Here's my irrelevant opinion on things:
- A featured article count isn't enough of an award? We don't want people to become competitive to the point where it's no longer fun. But I agree that the stupidity is very distracting. Something stupid happens, everyone flocks to make fun of it.
- Sometimes the pressure is annoying, and when you're asked to vote, you feel obligated to vote for and awful for voting against. Being whored causes bias, and why do you care when it gets featured so long as it gets featured? But VFH is slow, and it drives people to whoring. Maybe it would be better if writers didn't focus so much on their score of whatever article is on VFH at the moment and just focus on writing another one.
- No. Changing the stay of execution will change nothing. People don't live their lives on this place, I hope. A week is reasonable. Don't shorten it any further. And for QVFD, the problem is not the present amount of crap, but with the incoming crap. Let the other crap rot, for all I care, it's not doing any harm, and it can be weeded out from time to time.
- Never stop anons editing. This is a wiki, for god's sake. Some people just want to try editing first before jumping into it and getting a username. We know it's not that big of a step, but to a newcomer, it might seem that way.
- Rating systems would be nice, but the fact of the matter is, the community is small. Just trying to get feedback in Pee Review, VFH, VFP, and VFD is a struggle.
- Maybe if an article has some potential instead of a VFD or QVFD we can vote to move it to the "Uncrap:" namespace which we can create for crappy articles or maybe the "UnToilet:" namespace or something like that. We could also create many sorts of awards to give people to help make them feel good. Like the Andy Kaufman Award for an article that is only funny to its writer, but appears to be f-ing annoying to everyone else. The Mel Gibson award for an article that is supposed to be funny but ends up offensive because the writer got drunk and went on a racist or gay-bashing rant. Or the Cosmo Kramer award for an article that was heckled and then the writer made it offensive to the hecklers. Or the Jerry Seinfeld Award for a funny article about nothing, what's up with that? Or the Jeff Foxworthy award because the writer might be a redneck. Or the Larry the Cable Guy award, because the writer was in a hurry to GitRDone, and was sloppy in doing the humor. Or the Don Rickels award because the writer used a lot of profanity. Or the Paris Hilton award because the article had too many sexual references in it. Or the PeeWee Herman award because the article was basically humor masturbation and the writer "meant to do that" in public. Or the Anonymous Slashy award, because the writer basically went in and rewrote the article because he found it offensive to a certain group. I am sure we can think of more of these BS awards to give out for certain categories. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In regards to #2: The whoring problem is not necessarily that VFH is slow, it's that it's uncertain. Not everyone is going to read every page on VFH, so sometimes a page by a less-established author or with a less-interesting name will be ignored and wind up being rm low health'd with 5 strong fors and no againsts after a few days. The voting banner was supposed to fix that, and I think votes have gone up a little. Still, I personally would prefer to see more votes on VFH, especially by users I don't know, because that shows that new users are voting. -03:01, Oct 27
- That bit about lesser known authors or authors with less-interesting names is, I feel, particularly true. Not to belittle their accomplishments, but I suspect a major reason Ljlego, LedBalloon and other super-talents can regularly get so many votes is that, once they've made a name for themselves, they can rely on reputation to win nominations—users say, "Oh, look, [insert name here] wrote it, so of course it's good. Now I have to read it!" which makes them ten times more likely to vote. The singular reason I whored my article was because I knew it would never get enough votes otherwise; I'm not a "name".
- I'll also suggest a way to increase general voter turnout—do what Australia does and slap non-voters with a fifty-dollar fine, or make them write an essay on why they didn't vote. In the very least, we would no longer have to worry about funding. ...Okay, in all seriousness, make the "nommed on VFH" template BIGGER, dammit! That thing's tiny, it's so damn innocuous you can barely even notice it unless you're lookin' for it. --Humble Acolyte of Humor, CUN RA Talk to me _ 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- One idea I have is this: we create a Ho Patrol. Any user that tries to whore an article will be reported to it, along with the article in question. People who work for the Ho Patrol will be encouraged to vote against whored articles and to try to get writers to stop whoring. Because VFH whores would get against votes and a bad reputation if they whored, they would be more inclined to stop whoring.
- Another idea would be to encourage people to think about the article on VFH, not the writer. Voting based on the writer is a huge reason why a lot of good articles don't get featured, a lot of crap goes on the Main Page, and writers become so self-absorbed. If people would just read the articles and give an honest opinion on the article instead of the writer, the FA quality would go up. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 09:57, October 28, 2007