Forum:Enough is Enough; A State of the Wiki rant

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Enough is Enough; A State of the Wiki rant

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4232 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

So, it's come to this. As the forum topic just below this one points out, we're in decline. We're losing writers and we're losing readers. Maybe this is to be expected to a certain extent, but I can't remain silent anymore about the damage that I believe we the regular users (and in many cases sadly, the admins) are doing. So, although I don't have any right to dictate to anyone, I'm going to outline my concerns as someone who's been a user and admin here since almost the beginning of the site. This isn't a repeat of the other "what do we do" topics, I hasten to add, but my observations of the issues involved in the development (and/or retardation) or Uncyclopedia in the three years I've been here:

• This site has always functioned with a strong sense of community. This is a positive thing, by and large. People who stay come here because they share a common goal and sense of humour. Collaboration is encouraged and friendships are forged, as evidenced by the popularity of the IRC channel and the number of us who are Facebook friends. The other side of this is that "community" can all too easily become "clique" ("You ain't from round here, are you, boy?"). The types of jocularity and banter (and particularly "comedy bannings") that those of us who know each other indulge in may not be appropriate for a new user to the site ("Hold on, these guys are assholes!"), and I've witnessed more than one occasion when a n00b has been the butt of a (harmless to us) joke that confused or upset them. Sensitivity and inclusion are key. We do everything in a spirit of fun; but let's make sure everybody understands that.

• Adminship is treated like a reward or prize, with the attendant result that some admins believe they are above reproach. Controversial though this statement may be, again, I 'm only commenting on what I see. Now, I'd be the first to point out what a thankless and tedious task adminning this site is . Users really have no idea how much crap we have to wade through on a daily basis and the level of maintenance required just to keep the place tidy - and all this performed by unpaid volunteers. This still does not give us the right to treat the users like second class citizens. Uncyclopedia:Rules applies to everyone, regardless of status or position - and this brings me onto my third point and the very one that made me create this topic:

• Administrators are not police or jailers. Neither are they judge, jury and executioner (or even Judge Judy and executioner). Sure, some people don't take a polite warning. Sure, some people are just here to vandalise and blank, and these people should be blocked. But when we have a case such as User:The Improver, things get out of hand. Maybe he is the same person as NXWave and SU182 - I'll take the word of whoever did the checkuser - but here we have a case of a contributor who, under their current username has done nothing wrong as far as I can see from a my brief review of his contributions. You can say "Ah Codeine, but he's sockpuppeting, and that's inherently wrong" - maybe so, but let's remember that that assumption of good faith is one of the cornerstones of a successful wiki (hell, a successful life). To me, it appears that here's a guy who's been blocked twice already, yet keeps coming back to make positive contributons to the site and wants to be a part of it. And what do we do? We ban him. Again. I'm not here to play devil's advocate, but this person clearly wants to be a part of this site. They clearly know what the site's about because they got nominated for Noob of the Month. And we ban them. A ban is not like a life sentence. It is a preventative rather than punitive measure, and users who have "turned over a new leaf" should always be welcomed back genuinely. After all, if they start being disruptive again they can always be blocked again; this is a wiki and we have nothing to lose by giving people a second or even third chance. Of course, this isn't just about this case or this individual - this type of attitude has wider implications (and again, this isn't the first time I've seen a situation like this arise).

We have a good site here. No, in fact we have a great site here, but it's going through a rough patch at the moment. Let's all remember why we came here, and why we stayed. I truly believe we can get through these slow times and really build a name for ourselves as the number one humour/satire site on the internet - but it's going to take a lot of effort on everyone's part to do so. Effort to encourage and assist n00bs. Effort to create a warm, welcoming and inclusive community. Effort to watch, tidy and improve articles. Effort to promote the site in any way we can think of. But we can make this place great again. I've probably missed several points that I wanted to make, but my fingers are tired, I have real life stuff to do, and so I throw the floor open to you, my friends. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to help write. But I am a huge newb (joined like, 5 days ago), and I don't consider my e-humor that good, so I'm really afraid to write. -(Darthmat) 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Find an existing page on a subject you like. It doesn't matter if what's there already is good or not, just that it exists. This gives you the skeleton of a page, and should help get you over the hump, as you just have to tweak it a bit at a time. One line here, one there...before you know it you've fixed a page. Do the same to a different page. Have some lunch. Something light, like a salad. Come back and find another page. Start small and work your way up (and take your time), in other words. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. That actually really helped. Well, off to implode help the site. :) -(Darthmat)

Oh Modusoperandi! How did you ever get to be so wise? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, once a guy showed me what the Matrix was. It looked like a penis. Then he buttoned up his jacket and ran away, giggling. I hope that helps. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr More openness and love! I like it! --

Kingkitty ~Fuck you Brett~ ~Die in a fire Favre~

14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.124.149 (talk • contribs)

Agree with you on every account except for the last one. NXWave, in his various forms, is a demented individual. In each and every roll he caused massive drama waves sooner or later. I can point out to at least one user who left because of him. In this role, as the improver (which was verified by ZB/sannse checkuser) he managed to nearly scare off one of the best noobs we had in a long time. On his original ban as NXWave (before we realized he is SU182), I banned him with the option to re discuss this after a month. His responses were threats being made at ban patrol. As Insignia he ran off AE. I'm certainly for releasing bans when the banned users deserve it. On this specific case, I can guarantee that he would have caused massive havoc, sooner or later. In short - I'm with you all the way, except for the NXWave case. ~ 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, I was thinking almost exactly the same thing about The Improver/NXWave. His recent contributions (aside from the whole NotM thing) appear to be made in good faith. The controversy over NXWave was before my time so I can't really comment on that, but The Improver seems to want to contribute in a positive way. I say let him. Maybe he is NXWave, I don't know. I don't particularily care either. If he's a sock, then obviously he's ineligible for NotM, but hey so what. I think it's ironic after having several topics about who we should unban that when we find a (alleged) banned user contributing here in a positive way the kneejerk reaction is to ban him again. If he is NXWave he seems to have had a change of heart; who the hell are we to say that's unnacceptable? EVERYONE acts the ass from time to time. Just my two cents. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:48, 28 Apr

Read again what I wrote, the guy ran amock eventually in every reincarnation. He was given ample opportunities to calm down. As long as I'm here he and all of his socks remain banned. Having said that, I'd like to end the discussion about NXWave here since he is not the issue at hand and he most certainly doesn't constitute of the main issues that Codeine mentioned. ~ 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I only saw what you wrote after I responded (I knew I should have refreshed the page first). Like I said, I wasn't around for the whole NXWave debacle so you'd know better than me if he deserves to be banned forever. I'm not just speaking about him though; replace NXWave with Nintendorulez or KipTheDip if you'd like. It's just that from my point of view it seems that The Improver (NXWave) seemed to be making contributions in good faith. Maybe he was acting a bit of an ass over the NotM thing (and if he really is NXWave he's being a total ass: obviously he should know he shouldn't be eligible) but I haven't seen any evidence of him attacking anybody or anything like that. I just think holding grudges really isn't going to do us any good either. Maybe we should just realax...just a little. Maybe we don't need to go run a Whois? every time someone does something we take as drama. Perhaps some folks feel embarrassed about their past actions and just want to sneak back in all anonymous like (again, not specifically NXWave) and try again. I just think we should let them as long as they're not being dicks. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:13, 28 Apr

Figured I'd drop by to vent my meaningless opinion on this NXWave/SU182/Nekami/Insignia/Improver(there's probably more) issue. Honestly, I think that maybe, just maybe that whole n00b-biting thing, which turned SU182 against us in that UGotM award so long ago may have caused him to become the jerk that he seems to have turned into. Who knows, maybe if we apologize or something his spirit will release its hold on our wiki and find peace at last, or something cool like that, but I honestly have no idea. Maybe someone should try emailing him, talking things out. At any rate, for now he is bent on causing mayhem, by going after NotM contenders and essentially trying to sabotage the site. Unless anyone can reason with him, an unban is a no-go. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:11, Apr 28

I have a number of views on all this. most of them controversial. Most likely people won't bother to read them either, so i'll compress them into bullet points.

• We talk about things too much, nothing gets done. "Shall we do this? No I don't like it. Okay how about this? I don't care. Okay sod the whole idea". In fact I can guarantee that no changes to people's attitudes or editing styles will come from this forum, or any forum
• We get drama because we have a metric fuckton of goofy awards, and n00bs seem to think that being on Uncyc is all for the awards and the fame. Scrap the minor awards, but keep ones that encourage writing such as Writer of the year
• Some people can't consistently write funny, up to the standard of VFH, so those people must therefore find something else to do or fuck off, this leads to a large portion of the community being deletionists and quality control freaks.
• Older users get sick of the constant bickering and pettyness around here, and leave. Some people should grow the fuck up
• As soon as we raise our profile on the internet we'll not only have an increase in readers and users, but an increase in vandalism and idiocy as well (That's for the other forum I think)
• I agree with Codeine about some of the idiocy that goes on in the IRC channel, some people come there wanting genuine advice, only to be bombarded by stupidity and false advice. I'm not saying tone the stupidity down, just be more mindful of the n00bs

There, I said it. Enjoy your drama (Bonner) (Talk) Apr 28, 14:57

I only wish i could help more.Im still a noob, i know only a handful of tricks and have only written 1 article. Also, i checked the users list, and it seemed like there are alot of users...anyway, if there is anything i can help this site with, id give my life do what i can. ~ NEZLR 15:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to do nothing and just hope this all blows over in a month? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seen all this before, ate the pie and bought the tshirt. People just need to calm the fuck down. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

More sex, less coffee. That's our new motto. ~ 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If we keep talking about it this way, it will just be a self-fufilling prophecy. We need some optimism, and we need to work to get some newbies on here. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

28/04/2008 @ 21:46

Ditto Codeine and ditto Bonner, they've said it about as well as I could. --Sir gwax (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

About the issue that Bonner had brought up involving IRC, I think #uncyclopedia should either be support-only and have another channel for social use, or another channel should be opened that's just for support and on-topic discussion about Uncyclopedia. It worked for the forums as most of the stupidity stays in BHOP instead of in the Dump. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 02:02, Apr. 29, 2008

Nah, I disagree with that. Uncyc's a creative site, the users like a place to unwind, and hang out with other Uncyclophiles. At least, that's why I like the chat room, obviously I don't speak for everyone. Still, though, it's a tad ridiculous all the people we get that don't make ever any uncyc edits... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:13, Apr 29

Besides, we had that, remember? #uncyc-lite is long dead. Besides, if we're going to have an "on-topic" uncyc channel, we need to link it on Uncyclopedia:Chat so people go there instead of to #uncyclopedia. Even when #uncyc-lite was still active, only regulars knew it existed. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still idle in #@uncyclopedia whenever I'm in IRC. I'd reccommend the other ops to do the same. I seem to remember that it was this channel that was to be used for tech questions. --PantsMacKenzie 07:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Update RE:NXWave (and socks)

Having had a conversation with Mordillo on IRC about this user, I now know that there are larger issues that I wasn't aware of regarding him, and I won't be undoing his reinstated infinban. As I pointed out, this isn't about him, it's about how we treat people in general; but yes, I can accept that there are some people who don't want to be helped. My points remain, such as they were. Let's just try and increase the love. By which I mean, "let's all take our clothes off and get in a big sweaty pile", of course. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

/me humps Codeine in a sweatily manner ~ 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Zombiebaron's Opinion Deserves Its Own Header

• I agree with most of that stuff. Basically, I think we can combine Bonner's point about useless awards and Codeine's point about adminhood seeming like a reward. I do, however, disagree with a few things. Sometime someone has to be the judge and jury. Otherwise, we all just sit around talking. Sure, it leaves some people sitting around going "WTF? I VOTED AGAINST THAT!" (I'm that guy pretty often, by the way), but that's the price of progress folks. We're a community with about 50 active users (approximately), and each of us have an opinion. We're never going to agree. I think that's what Famine was getting at in his Goodbye Speech. If we all sit around talking, nothing happens. Then people notice that nothing is happening, and either leave or complain. Those who complain are seen as "starting drama". Now, I'm not saying we need to elect "Zombiebaron and Famine in '08". No. Not at all. I'm just saying that once in awhile we should try to comprimise, or just do it, and see what happens. You've screwed up and want to fix it? Just do it. Want to fuck with people's heads? Don't do it. See how simple it is, folks? So. Stop reading about doing something, and go do something! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we abbreviate that to {{sofixit}}? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:18, Apr 29

I agree, there's too much useless voting.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 03:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. There's an awful lot of to-do and babble about voting, voting procedures, rules that are SRS BUSINESS, rules that are more like guidelines, quality control, this-that-and-the-other policy on every damn thing a user can possibly do, and I don't care for it. Uncyclopedia has entered the season of Bureaucracy, and I believe we are approaching the Aftermath. Prepare yourselves. --The Acceptable  Cainad  (Fnord) 05:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another similar idea

It's widly agreed that the site is declining, and that we are losing losers Users left and right, to drama, real world, and many other things. Why not try to get some of those users back after whatever petty arguement they were involved with has long sence ended. Take for example AE, that guy was driven off by NXWave, who's been baned for a few months now. AE would probably come back if he knew. --Lieutenant THEDUDEMAN Dude ... Totally UOTM KUN GotA F@H 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Then tell him. I expect a full report on my desk by Friday. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 02:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We're gaining new users too. Everyone quit yer bitchin'   Le Cejak • <Apr 30, 2008 [3:30]>

It ISN'T widely agreed that the site is declining. As for losing users its happened since the start. The admin who greeted me and helped me get started was a guy called Marcus Malo, and a really nice guy he was too. Then one day he just didn't come back. Like that puppy that Modus had. They are probably playing in the same field together now....running thru the long grass in the sunshine.....anyhoo, people come, people go, some people come back later, some don't, such is the nature of the internets. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Agreed.   Le Cejak • <Apr 30, 2008 [12:38]>

Sniffle. I'd forgotten about Mister Puppyton. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about "we are loosing users... nooooo... STM!!! :'(" Although it's always sad to see people move on. This is about statistics that show page views and edits have been declining, although March's stats look better (dunno about page views, I can't find them, but last I saw they were going down).

Those lost users are silent, they either click on the site and wander off again through dislike or disinterest (rather than upping our pageviews by reading more) or choose not to participate in the site (rather than upping our active users by editing). Or maybe we just aren't reaching enough potential visitors in the first place. Maybe we need to publicise the site more. In the ideal cycle: viewers -> active editors -> interesting articles -> viewers. I think it's that cycle we need to think about, rather than the inevitable change-over of highly active users. -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just waiting for someone to tell me it was safe to come back.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I Have Nothing More To Add

I just wanted a nifty header like those other folks above. But... so long as I have the floor, I might as well consume valuable disk space on the Uncyc 8 GB drive by blathering about nothing in particular. OK, so I lied. I'm adding something. :)

I remember feeling this way quite some time ago -- that there was some kind of community that was declining, or a golden age that was slipping away. Some people agreed with me, and some countered that there never had been such an era (but perhaps I n00bishly perceived it as such back in 2005). While I'm inclined to agree with Codeine (now, as then) I still don't know what the truth is -- but cliquishness and admin "joke" banning/bullying has been a constant. And I think there were a sufficient number of awards 2 years ago. And to quote Apocalypse Now: "the whoring... the whoring...". It was/is my biggest peeve. It was old and tired even before I left.

Some of the time I can laugh about it, but it's not that funny. Whether you like my writing or not, in my opinion whoring discourages a lot of writers from contributing good work. In my own case, I dropped out (like STM) when university was getting hectic. But now, even with my Master's degree done nearly a year ago, I still don't have the desire to write. I can't remember the last time I actually felt like expending real effort to write something meaningful. Sure, I've done some fluffly one-offs. But at some point I realized that unless I had the time to market my writing full-time, it probably wasn't going to make it to the front page. So, I went back to real life, read my talk page once a month or so, posted a few quickies, and got pretty comfortable with being divorced from the site. Now, I hardly recognise it (and a lot of users may have no idea who I am).

So now what? Whoring is now fully ingrained in the Uncyc culture, if it wasn't already so (and I think it was, waaaaay back when). But I stopped waving the white flag some time ago. At present, it's much more enjoyable to lurk, do the odd bit of admin work, and wonder if something I did years ago will be miraculously rediscovered someday. It's lazy, it's parasitic, but it's about all I feel like doing. Sorry if that sounds bad. It just is. If we were to conduct an exit poll with everyone who's dropped off the tailgate of this turnip truck, I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why people fall out of love with Uncyclopedia, and never come back.

Cody - thanks for writing this. --Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, you don't have to whore to get recognized for your writing. Put it on Pee Review and self-nom it on VFH, if you like. But other than that, is that really the only reason you write stuff? Just so you can have your article on the front page for a day? I mean, that's great and all, but... I dunno... Don't you think it's great just to be able to write something that makes you laugh, put it here, and make a couple others laugh, as well? That's the novelty that keeps me on the site. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:48, May 3

Nah. Thats just for newer users to strive towards. I try not to (except on YTTE's whore page... it would be an insult not to) --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 16:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, that page you whored was recognized and given the honours and the parade that it so richly deserved, you whorin' anti-whore. It's okay, I still love you. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. :) --T. (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I

Whoring aside, I actually think that part of the "problem" that we have at Uncyclopedia is that we are too good at what we do. What I mean by that, is that in the dark recesses of the Golden Age stuff slipped through the net, people could write some crap, expand it, come back a few weeks later and add a bit more funny, and really take time to establish themselves within the site. Now the patrolling of Recent Changes is almost a military operation, with the cattle carts waiting for the unsuspecting n00b on his first outing on the site. If take up of new writers is slowing or falling that has to be a major factor.

The deletionist approach to articles that don't quite make the grade is unlikely to inspire many new writers to stay. I for one would love to see some of the time that people put into lining up articles to delete and users to ban actually be used to try to improve some of these borderline articles, reach out to the people finding their way on Uncyclopedia and actually put some of the community spirit back into the site.

I'd like to see a nice big button top right of the front page that says "New to Uncyclopedia?" and offers to kindly advice to people on their firsts contributions to the site.

Also, welcome back Todd. ;) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Also, vote for this.

Thank you, friend of mine who still stylishly forgoes date/time stamp. :) --T. (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You know who you guys remind me of?

...Old people: why, back in mah day... Jeez. Shut up, grampa. I looked at your featured articles from 2005, and let me tell ya: they sucked. You guys are good writers, but saying that the site has changed? That's ridiculous. Maybe the Village Dump and BHOP have changed, but from my perspective, the only thing that's changed is the users and their names. Check out The Dog Dies at the End. It got 18 / 0 just yesterday! Whether it was whored or not, Ape did an excellent job.

The site isn't dying. It's evolving. Sometimes it evolves without us, and that's good.

...oh, and stop complaining about whoring. That's just dumb. Can't change it.

No one is saying it's dying. Also stop complaiing about complaining about whoring. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

A lot of people are saying it's dying. Also, I'm tired of people complaining about complaints about complaining. That's just me complaining.   Le Cejak • <May 03, 2008 [16:23]>

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the point of Famine's lovely little "goodbye message." And I've had it with you bastards complaining about people complaining about complaints about users complaining about whoring! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:39, May 3

The Ciiiiiiirrrcle of Liiiiifffe

Actually that decline is probably more of a part of the great cycle on a site where people come - prosper - get bored - leave - possibly come back hell I'll probably leave in about 6 months when have too much schoolwork. There were a lot of users then who just got bored and left and fewer people joined. What we need is a better advertising of the site and our absolute best articles so people will go Funny shit! I might write something there rather than people coming, seeing crap VFD quality shit and leaving. Reading good stuff produces good stuff. We just need to advertise the site and focus a bit more on writing. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. The people who founded this site are leaving because, hey, it's been three years already! But being on Uncyc for hours on end is not like being on World of Warcraft for hours on end (INNOCENT OF THAT, btw). If you're funny and clever and personable in Uncyc, you'll be all those things in real life too. If you're a level 60 hobbideedoo on WoW, you're the complete opposite in real life. People will realize this fact about uncyc, if they haven't already.   Le Cejak • <May 03, 2008 [17:03]>

Cajek hits the nail on the head again (and is sued by the nail). Some people just don't like this kind of thing, others will get bored and leave quickly, others will stay for a long time and be forced out by real life or looking for another challenge and some will stay forever. We just need to keep things evolving. The only problem I see is we are a 2 level site - Random IPs who generally make poor articles and good experienced users who write well, almost well enough to form a site like the Onion or something. It started off as one level and branched off into this, we are a site with a few "professionals" who write well and the proles who write poorly and need help to go from flab to fab. Our best articles are some of the best satire in the world, while our worst is complete shit - you don't get that range on many sites. This is either good or bad. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as a wiki it will always be like that. Even the good writers started out writing crap. It's a learning experience, you see, like chlamydia. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to believe that we're just in a downturn and everything will start coming up again during sweeps, but from my experience with other websites, once things go downhill it's exceptionally hard to get them back up. Suckage begets suckage on the internets is often the case. I love Uncyclopedia, and I'd hate to see it die, but I'm admittedly a bit of a pessimist when it comes to website longevity. We must do all we can to make it right again and prove me wrong. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, frogz! I totally disagree. Someone, whether on this forum or not, said that because we don't have a mission statement from our creator to become the leader in X like Wikipedia has, that we basically have free reign. I think featured articles now are better than when I first joined. They are definitely more readable. We just have to keep experimenting. I think we would die only if we forgot that, and got caught up in other things, like rules or something.   Le Cejak • <May 03, 2008 [22:44]>

Write. Be helpful. Minimize drama. Try to avoid whoring. Don't bite the noobs. With this simple framework, little else should be required. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, brotha! Can I a get a praaaiiiiiiiise Je-sus and a hallelujah!? - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 21:51, May 6

Yay! Led gets a header, too!

What Mhaille said and what DJ said just outlined the two "political parties"(if you will(and I know I will)) of uncyclopedia. Both are trying to do the exact same thing(recruit new users and get article quality up), just in different ways based on their personal beliefs. Now, there is a strong possibility that I've just been reading too much American history lately, so correct me if I'm wrong with either of these, but this is what I've perceived:

Mhaille's side's argument is this: if we manage quality control a little less rigidly, the n00bs won't have their pages deleted so fast. They'll enjoy contributing more, stick around, and eventually make better articles, overall getting the site's quality up, over time. Less interference.

The side that DJ just outlined is that n00bs are leaving because they see bad articles, dislike them, and decide that this site is shit. If we delete more bad articles, there will be a greater concentration of good articles. The n00bs will see these, like them, and stick around to make more pages like them, drawing ideas from the good ones to make more good ones. More interference.

As you can see, these ideas are in pretty explicit conflict. What we need, is elections. Modus-Brad in '08! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:01, May 3

More Pie! That's all we really need. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:25, 3 May

Hea, I say... Let's get rid of the old crap and keep more of the new crap. The old crap is stale and not helping anyone, whereas if we keep the new stuff (sometimes) there is a better chance that the guys who created it will stick around long enough to learn to write good stuff... Or did I say that somewhere else before!?! Also, obviously more pie for all. MrN  Fork you! 17:30, May 3

Yeah thats what I'm getting at... --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 10:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually my side of the argument isn't less interference, its about more focus on writing and contributing and less on deletion and banning people. I remember Todd telling me that he stayed originally because people wrote on his talk page and added images and stuff to his first series of articles. We don't seem to be doing that as much now, if someone makes a mistake it gets reverted and often they get banned. Or they add a short article that contains some potential, but really needs work, and most of the time it gets deleted.

Now I will and do happily delete rubbish, all day long if necessary, but when I see an article that someone is trying to put together, and I can see that it has that seed of humour I'll help as much as I can. That is what Uncyclopedia should be about. We have more than enough janitors and poopsmiths, how about we focus on writers and helpers and help the site grow. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yah. Well, it's easier to prune than to create. That doesn't pretend to be a moral statement about the virtues of deleting bad content versus creating good content; it's just a fact of life. Actually there's no versus about it, both activities are needed. But since it is harder to create than to prune, I agree with Mhaille: encourage content. ----OEJ 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Idea...

OK, this may be a stupid idea that has been already suggested, but what about a N00b Friend Adoption thingy to go with the current Adoption program? So n00blets would also have a n00b assigned to their case, just to come round, talk to them and make them feel welcome. I've actually been trying to do this with a few users... it would be different to an experienced user just helping them when they need help, this would be forging a friendship with someone on almost their own level of wiki knowledge (obviously they would have to be slightly more wiki-knowledgeable, but, yeah...). Like "the n00b befriending program" or something.

Er, I know I'm awful at explaining things, so sorry if that's a bit incoherent and not understandable! - 22:30 3 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!

I do that now, and it's just being friendly. ...or, trying to be friendly.   Le Cejak • <May 03, 2008 [22:33]>

That's what forums are for, surely? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:34, 03 May 2008

Another topic related to improvements of the Wiki...No please don't leave...

So here's one for ya, I'm sure i've seen people mention that n00bs get scared off because the things they write are instantly being QVFD'd by vigilant users (I can attest to doing this myself), so how about an informal agreement let's say, that says that we don't tag anything for maintenance (ICU, QVFD etc) if it's obvious that the writer is trying to put some effort into it. Further to this, we should help by putting construction templates on these kind of articles for the users, yeah it's a little more work, but some .js can sort that out (even i'm competent enough to add that to my .js file) because most n00bs I think, don't know about templates, and how they can help them. (Bonner) (Talk) May 6, 16:08

Basically, go to Special:Newpages instead of just watching Special:Recentchanges all the time. And don't QVFD pages that are longer than 3 lines, either. Same with those pages tagged {{Construction}} that aren't clear vanity. I'm not going to delete them. - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 16:20, May 6

...unless of course the user clearly isn't putting any effort in...But yes, I agree with you. Also hold back on blocking n00bs. I remember I got blocked because as a n00b I accidently deleted an ICU tag . While things like that are hard to tell if the user meant it or not, the user shouldn't be blocked. - 16:25 6 May Sir FSt. (QotF BFF NotM) YTTETalk!Read!Sign!Whore!CMC!Pee!

don't tag anything for maintenance (ICU, QVFD etc) if it's obvious that the writer is trying to put some effort into it... I was under the impression that that was always the case. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:27, 06 May 2008

Hmmm... not necessarily. ICU could, I think, be used to point an author in the right direction, maybe directing them to check out HTBFANJS and avoid memes. More like a quick piece of advice to keep them from falling into the classic pitfalls while they're in the developmental stage, you know? - Don Leddy the Crunch (Nyah, see, nyah!) 21:58, May 6

Yea, as someone who uses ICU a fair bit I feel like I could use some clarification on this issue. I'm happy to hold back on giving them out, but if we do that, I'm concerned that we will end up with lots of half started articles hanging around which are likely to never be finished. MrN  Fork you! 06:34, May 10