Forum:Why We Vote

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Why We Vote

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6629 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Let me quote you some votes and comments pertaining to featured content on Uncyclopedia. No names will be or need to be mentioned.

As for your vote on my article ... your vote against was clearly in revenge for my against vote. If I vote for your article, I'd greatly appreciate it if you follow my lead and vote for mine as well.

For XXXX threatened to cut me if I didn't.

For XXXX told me to vote.

FOR see previous commment from above user, beaten into voting, the way it should be

Aside from these explicit instances (and I'm sure there are many, many more to be found if I had the enthusiasm to search through archives), I've been seeing many votes that appear to be more related to the author or artist's reputation than the actual image or page. I've seen some users vote for every nominated article written by a particular writer, often with absolutely no mention of the quality of the article itself, just a comment on the writer. I've seen myriads of votes changed from "against" to "for" just because the artist or writer asked the voter to change it.

This is stupid.

Ideally, you wouldn't know who wrote an article or made an image before you vote for or against it. Obviously this is unrealistic for VFP (since the artist's name is right in the nom box) and sometimes for VFH, although less so, but that doesn't change the fact that you're voting on THE QUALITY OF THE CONTENT ONLY.

Moreover, the article whoring is out of control. Sure, it's a time-honored tradition to "casually" mention your newest work in IRC or slip it into a Forum post. Nothing will stop that, and I'm certainly not too worried about it, having admittedly committed such crimes myself on occasion. But it seems more and more I've been seeing masses of talk page messages with the obvious intention of garnering votes, discussion on VFH itself (WHICH IS BAD, VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE and I'm considering tightening up my current three-comments-and-it-goes-to-the-talk-page restriction) after every other vote is cast, not-so-subtle hints that you'd like another user to nominate their article if you can't or don't want to seem like a massive vote-whore - which you are anyway. It's easy to make somebody feel guilty about a solid Against vote they cast - nobody not many people here want to be disliked, methinks, and some are willing to change their votes with prodding. And then of course there's the mutual back-scratching thing.

It's not the fact that this stuff is happening that I'm concerned about. It's that it seems to be happening much more frequently than normal. So, um, knock it off to all parties involved. Please. Vote your conscience. —rc (t) 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For this policy, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would vote for my next policy. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No way. You totally voted against on my proposal on UnPolicies: VFH. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we have blind votes somehow? Aaadddaaammm 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think that would raise more problems than it would solve. The transparency wikis offer is a great thing in many ways - it should help in holding people accountable for their actions. —rc (t) 03:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think now would be a good time to mention that Pontius Pilot is up for VFH right now...-- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine...*thump!* Ow! RC, you don't have to hit so hard!.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is inevitable with a system like the one we have, especially combined with the "don't take anything seriously" attitude of uncyc. I don't know if it would even be possible to curb this behaviour, without arbitrarily removing votes which seem suspicious, which will not happen. In short, I've been no help, and I don't know why I even wrote this. Oh well. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I always did think those were stupid voting reasons anyhow. And people who demanded to vote for something in IRC randomly were always bothersome in my eyes, to have a conversation and then mr. all caps demanding anybody there to vote for _____ just gets me annoyed. Anyway, as long as it's toned down I don't mind a reference, or even how someone sigged "save inkblot test from stagnation". That's fine and it's not direct demands either.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RATING SYSTEM -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A "For UserX made me do it" is better than an "Against I don't get it", in my opinion. As long as it's a joking "he made me do it" and no cash or film negatives exchanged hands. I may be a coddled and naive user, however, as the only time I use IRC is when there's a vandal that needs banning, but quick.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was acceptable to vote against an article that is not clearly funny to the voter. Didn't prettiestinpink make a topic relating to this issue a while back?--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's clearly a difference between "I don't find it funny/amusing/mindbending because..." and "I don't get it". Or there isn't and I, in my fevered mind, am breathing more into it than there is there.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my fault, I meant if the user doesn't get the article, you're alright.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 05:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I will still vote "Against, I don't get it," when pertinent. I am just one person. If the work is truly worthy of being featured, it will not be held back by my ignorance, but if it's truly obscure, enough people saying, "I don't get it" will keep it from being featuring. That's part of keeping the wiki for everyone and not just for exclusive groups that thrive on in-jokes.--<<>> 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a line between "obscure" and "so obscure that there's no reason I should get this." I think the reader has a responsibility to at least look up a subject they don't know anything about before voting against an article dealing with that topic. But if, to take a hypothetical example, the recent article on gas tungsten arc welding is so obscure that to get the jokes I'd have to read the entirety of Wikipedia's page on the subject (which is huge), I would not feel bad about voting against it on VFH. —rc (t) 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Except for the welding bit. Of course, as a quasi-qualified welder, welding is not obscure to me. On the contrary, it's scure.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But that article, for example, has a {{wikipedia}} on it, which means the author at least is acknowledging that it is/has potential to be obscure, and thus is trying to at least let the user in on the joke. If I read what's on the page, and have no idea why it should be funny, I'm voting against. Now, I could lie and put another reason other than "I don't get it," but that wouldn't be honest. Either way, I'm still voting against things that I believe are too obscure. Again, I'm just one person, so if I'm just a dumbass, it won't affect the overall results.--<<>> 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not using the welding article as a real example. I haven't read it so I can't say whether it's obscure or not, but the title lent itself to such a what-if. —rc (t) 06:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a different kind of idea. One so different you might even go so far as to say "hey wait, that's not an idea at all, that's just crap." But hold on one second crap-screamer, and hear me out. There is vote-whoring and vote-extortion and vote-protection going on behind the scenes, that's a given. But instead of trying to beat them or perhaps go so far as to kill them in their sleep, lets instead give them an award! Yes, that's right. Vote-whore of the month (VWotM). Each month we could nominate those who sank the lowest to gain a few measley votes. Did a person offer a return vote later for a vote given now? Nom them! Did a user offer an undisclosed sexual favour for a +1 on vfp? Nom them! Only with love can we truely defeat our enemies (Please note this does not actually work). Some of you might be thinking "wait a second, didn't they make a movie about whoring? And didn't it have something to do with a character of the alphabet and a rather dark shade of red? and didn't said move star that tramp Demi Moore?" Yes on all accounts. Also, when we run out of vote-whores one month, we can nominate random user's mothers. How much do we love this idea? --Anyone 05:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

we don't want to really encouage this...--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 05:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a court based on secret police, rumours and innuendo. Normally I'm for all of those things, but not here. Just as UGotM seems to encourage a certain breed of boobs and their ensuing boobery, this would no doubt do the same for the vote whores. Speaking of vote whores, did you hear that STM has a page on VFH? *thump!* Ow! Damnit! RC, you hit the soft spot on my head. Now I'm going to be smelling toast all night.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

-- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Point taken, Rc. I'll retire the boa and the pimp hat.--Procopius 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Against For Ooh, I got quoted, and I haet whoever wrote this article. rcmurphy :D  Skiddles (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote whoring is something that I believe corrects itself. While it may carry a particular article/picture over the line to featuring, I don't think it's something that will disrupt the wiki overall. If someone is ALWAYS vote-whoring, it will begin to have the opposite effect, where people vote against just because of the vote-whoring and put notes like, "I would have voted for, but User:X voted for without believing it deserved it, so this against cancels that out." or something similar. If we ignore it, I think it'll go away (to some extent).--<<>> 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. I can only recall one instance in which users clearly turned against vote-whoring (and it was an egregious case if ever there was one). And as I said, it's not the fact of it happening that's worrisome - it'll always happen and to some extent it's in the spirit of the wiki - but lately it's been worse and more widespread than I can recall ever seeing. —rc (t) 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• (In response to original Forum post) Well, that's me given a slap on the wrist. I promise to be good. -- Hindleyite 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that I was entirely kidding when I wrote "For XXXX threatened to cut me if I didn't." I wasn't being told to vote for the picture, I was just joking because XXXX likes to whore his pictures in IRC, and I like to write humorous votes. Would I have even ventured into the dark realm of VFP it it wouldn't have been for him saying he had a picture there? Probably not. But I voted for it precisely because I thought it was funny. I can think of a certain article that XXXX whored quite heavily that I didn't vote for because I didn't get it at all. But anyway, it wasn't an attempt 'rig the votes' or anything like that, just a harmless(full?) joke. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in calling anybody out at the present moment. The instances I quoted above are just a drop in the bucket - and since I "inspect" VFH/P votes more than almost anyone, I think I have some grounds for saying this even aside from my chronic paranoia. —rc (t) 03:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this old news? I believe that I proposed a fail-safe process for viting here. (about 6 comments down) Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 28/10 19:24

For --Sir Zombiebaron 15:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)