Forum:A suggestion

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A suggestion

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4119 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

As I am apparently no longer welcome here, I figured I'd post a constructive suggestion in the Village Dump on my way out.

In the past when a project has (ahem) "forked" from Wikia, Wikia has been so kind and thoughtful as to rename the project which stayed behind on their servers. (I am, of course, referring to Wackypedia, which used to be Illogicopedia). Seeing as how most of the active community has left here for greener pastures (minus, of course, the stubborn few contributors whom we all miss, but who prefer Wikia's comfortingly tight grip to the frightening perils of freedom), any new community members here are not going to be "true" Uncyclopedians by any definition.

Therefore, I propose the following: Wikia should change "Uncyclopedia"'s name to reflect its changed composition. I don't have any suggestions for new names, as I've been too busy to have a funny thought recently. However, I'm sure that "Uncyclopedia"'s remaining community should have no trouble coming up with a name that is much more appropriate for its New, Glorious Future. Perhaps even a new logo, one that accurately reflects that this has become a much more sober, mature place, fit for even the most serious of scholars. One like this, perhaps.

Thoughts? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Feb 6 '13 3:02 (UTC)

The Fun Zone. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:15, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome here, this is your site as much as anyones. You hit the nail on the head here, that the main problem for FreeUncy is that it will take a long long time, if ever, to overcome the search engine results that wikia Uncy has. Chief had a look at the numbers, and 50,000 people a day come here. So I doubt if wikia would agree to rename it, as it is an attention grabber for them. So the people who stayed are trying to keep the roof on and the windows unbroken, and there is nothing wrong in that, and they should be applauded. In uncy's history the people that have stayed and said they won't be editing the fork to any great extent, if at all, read like a Who's Who of Uncyclopedia: Chief, Funnybony, Romartus, Puppy, Spike, those five alone have provided much of the backbone of the site for the last several years. It's like a murderer's row of heavy hitters. The fork losing them is very serious, and that's something which should be addressed in depth on both sites. What I've seen here the past month is a lot of good banter, caring people, quite a bit of play, people educating new people (Spike has gone out of his way over and over to guide new writers). Msnbc or whatever his name is has blossomed here, and got his first feature and has been writing UnNews at Funnybony and Leverage rates. So, long story long, the barrier to the total success of the fork is that the search engine points to this site. The strength of the new site is its vitality of users, the potential to garner publicity (wikia doesn't seem to want to do a major public relations campaign for this site), and the day by day collection of people who learn about it and come to contribute. But it's hard to find it unless you know where to look. This gets wall of text size, so enough for one post. Aleister 3:21

This site still is Uncyclopedia. Wikia Illogicopedia had literally no users, and had a trademark threat after the community left. This site, however, in generating new content almost as fast on the other site, and since Wikia purchased the uncyclopedia.org domain name with cash money, the would have as good of claim as anyone to use the name "Uncyclopedia." This site does not exist as a redirect to the fork. Some of us have issues with how the fork is run. Perhaps Free Uncyclopedia should think of a new name to differentiate itself from the community over here. --Mn-z 11:15, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

It is not theirs

Indeed, Mnbvcxz. Not only is this site still Uncyclopedia, it is still the only Uncyclopedia. It is legal for the Fork to take a copy of the articles but not to use the trademark (a legality that the Fork will surely react to as several there discussed their duties under the DMCA recently: "Tell them all to fuck themselves").

Bizzeebeever's post--a virtual suicide note in the name of "the community" inviting us to react to his self-imposed martyrdom by giving up what is ours--comes at the end of a short evening of manipulation; first, responding with trolling to Sannse's insistence that he stop using Wikia resources to disaffect users from Wikia (specifically, insulting Wikia and daring Sannse to take steps she had not even threatened), then to the user in question to insist that he had not been trolling.

I hate to sound Republican, but the stories are legend of undercapitalized companies, started not because anyone needs the work done but solely because the owners think they know what they'd like to do. When the money runs out, Aleister can blame those darned search engines for not feeding them traffic, just as the bankrupt storefront owner complains that road construction denied him the customers he was entitled to. Not even Aimsplode's lies on the Wikipedia entry could direct readers there. Not even Hotadmin4u69's sabotage of our Sidebar could divert loot there.

And when the money runs out, editors will find (as I did during my absence in 2011) that their works are behind a "pay wall," or that they can't even log in without a paid-up subscription. If you think Profit is an evil basis for creative writing, you'll see how Loss works. There might not even be funds to preserve your work on-line anywhere.

What do we have? Perhaps a few "heavy-hitting" writers, Aleister. But also the most level-headed chief Admin and management that works in concert. I do not believe that anyone has been banned as a joke, as part of a vendetta, or even as a "cooling-off" measure since about the date of the Fork. We also have the protection of Wikia corporate policy. For example, we cannot use checkuser indiscriminately to monitor your whereabouts.

People join as corporations, after all, not to impoverish the proletariat, but because riches, including textual riches, are best developed under a regime of stability. We are open for business, whenever the other producers of those riches wish to return. Spıke Ѧ 13:56 6-Feb-13

A fine response, and this is why Spike is a fine champion for this site. You have emerged from a once self-imposed exile with sword and shield not to start a fight, but to defend this fine territory. And the fork has its champions, which are just as important. Maybe at some point wikia will "reward" the people like Spike and Chief who have so far upheld this site with taking away that loathed warning notice page. The prophecy of the fork having to charge viewers is one which I can't imagine, as it would spell the end of that site as surely as it would for Wikia to place large and intrusive ads on this site. There is a standoff which, in reality, isn't really hurting either site right now, as creative juices still flow through everyone. I post my pages on both sites, and I wish more people would follow that practice - the readers should be our first priority, shouldn't they? Aleister 14:23 6-2-'13

I don't think "Uncyclopedia" could be trademarked, as it is being used by several "different" entities, not only the us and the fork, but the various foreign language uncyclopedias. It is therefore a generic term, and can't be trademarked. If it was trademark-able, Wikia probably would have already done it.

Also, if the fork did have the trademark, the issue would be who owns the trademark. Whoever owns the server and web address "owns" Free Uncyclopedia, just as much as evil Wikia "owns" this place. In fact, the sever owner(s) at Free uncyc have more control over there than Wikia does over here, since Wikia stays out of content creation. In fact, who actually has ownership of the web address or the server space over there? At least over here, we know who is charge at the webhost level. --Mn-z 18:07, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikia doesn't interfere with the content. They simply dick with everything else at the whim. That banner, for example, completely blocks the damn site from my viewing. I had to download Google Chrome just to view the site for more than a month. If that isn't the kind of power granted to ownership, I don't know what is. Don't be surprised if you wake up one morning and your beloved spoof site looks an average Wikia wiki with very unWikipedia-like formatting, à la our 2011 April Fools' reskin.

Meanwhile, I love how this is turning into a discussion over the very heart of capitalism, between Spike's free-market analogy and Puppy's FAQ on intellectual property below. We should do this more often. The following reference is dedicated to Spikey:



"You didn't build that."
-- Kip > Talk • Works • • 01:23, Feb. 7, 2013

Having two locations does have some advantages. Chiefly, the community can switch between sites if either web host does something we don't like. This applies to both Wikia and whoever is running Free Uncyclopedia. Suppose that Spike's doomsday scenario comes true, and Free uncyc charges a subscription fee to edit. Then, we can all move back here. Likewise, if Wikia does something the community over here doesn't like, then we can go over there. Both webhosts are aware of this, which preemptively stops them from abusing power. --Mn-z 16:48, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

This is the beauty of market competition. We have long competed with the dimmer bulbs on the amateur-humor Christmas tree, as the North Shore Navigators offer a leisure alternative to the Boston Red Sox. The difference from the current situation is that the Navs don't call themselves the Red Sox, don't promise fans the work of David Ortiz, and don't have their GM liaising with Sox season-ticket holders. The Fork is not so much a competing team as it is the poachers selling unauthorized merchandise just outside the gates. Spıke Ѧ 17:15 7-Feb-13

I would disagree. The fact that there are two sites using name keeps uncyclopedia from being controlled by any one entity, be it Wikia or whoever owns the servers for the fork.

As a digression, who actually does own the fork? It is a non-profit, or is it a partnership, or it is just one person? By owner, I mean who is going to the poor house/jail if and when someone over there mishandles a DMCA takedown notice. At least with Wikia I know who our corporate overlords are, and I can trust them to not get the site sued out of existence.

Getting back to my main point, there is no guarantee that the fork won't engage in unpopular moves, like charging a fee to edit the site, selling the site to some evil corporation, or shutting down out of spite over drama. Wikia can do the same stuff , but since it is a serious corporation, it would never engage in self-destructive behavior, aka rage-quitting and deleting the wiki with it. --Mn-z 18:21, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the disagreement, but without agreeing with Spike, because he simply cannot be more wrong. That's the beauty of Spike's wrongness. "Wrong" is an absolute state, but his opinions fly in the face of conventional logic by subjecting themselves to degrees of wrongness just so he can be in the most wrong position on the important issues.

There must not and should not be two Uncyclopedias. I don't read two The Onions, two Crackeds, I most certainly don't watch two Conan O'Briens and I don't want to live in a world with two Uncyclopedias. One will triumph in the end and the other one must surely go down in the trash can of history. It's merely a question of time. I proclaim without knowing anything about Highlander beyond the tagline, There can only be one. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 23:59, Feb. 7, 2013

There are enough people that only edit here to keep this site going for quite a while. The same is probably true of the fork. There is no reason both sites can't keep going. If anything, the other site will probably go down first, either due to lack of donations, lawsuits, or the server owner rage-quitting. --Mn-z 13:57, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions

What is Uncyclopedia?

It's not an easy thing to define, to be honest. There are a few misnomers, which I'll add a perspective on. And by perspective Imean my own understanding of the nature of the thing, which is by no means exhaustive.

Is Uncyclopedia a web site?

Not really. The name was certainly created and popularised as part of a website created just over 8 years ago by Chronarion and Stillwaters. They created it as a parody of Wikipedia. The site itself - or where it is hosted - is not part of the broader definition though. After all, when Wikia purchased the site around 6 years ago what they actually purchased was the domain name. The content does not belong to them, and the domain name they purchased exists as a redirect to here only. Saying it's a website excludes the aspect of it being a community or the content.

Is Uncyclopedia a community?

Yes, in as much as a community can be defined. By that I mean what makes any site that claims the name Uncyclopedia what it is, is the people who build and edit it, along with those that administer it.

Is Uncyclopedia a collection of content?

Yes. That's pretty obvious. But the content is not owned by any individual person, corporation or community. One thing that is often overlooked is that any contributions made to Uncyclopedia are the property of the contributor. Those contributions remain the intellectual property until the ownership of that property is released at the death of the contributor, or until ownership of the content is sold or gifted elsewhere. One of the beauties of CC licences is they still respect the rights of the creator. The content is licenced in a way that it can be distributed under a similar licence, which restricts its use elsewhere, but allows for it to be shared around the place.

This last part is important: Wikia do not own Unclopedia (as a collection of content). “FreeUncyc” do not own the Uncyclopedia collection of content. The mirror site does not own the collection of content. As such nobody has any claims on it other than the original contributor themselves.

So it would be as ludicrous for Wikia to say “this content belongs to our corporation” as it would be for FreeUncyc to say “this content belongs to our community”.

But coming back to the original point - If Uncyclopedia can be defined as a community and as a collection of content, then - by those standards - both sites have the right to refer to themselves as Uncyclopedia. (The mirror could as well, but it's claims to a community are much weaker, which is why it has always been referred to as “mirror Uncyclopedia”.)

So if they both have to right to use the name, and they both have the right to collate the content, than there is no advantage for either the corporation or the less well defined “FreeUncyc” to change the name. But the reality is that most likely only one of them will survive the long haul if the try and compete. Wikia's servers are peppered with the shells of discarded wikis. Places where a community once tried to build something that has long been abandoned. Both sites could end up like that. If the focus on either side is to destroy or damage the other, then we're looking down a drawn out process of self destruction.

TL;DR: This site is not changing it's name. The other site is not changing it's name. This site is not removing content. The other site is not removing content. Trying to get one or the other to do this is futile. (As the first person to ask for large removal of content from FreeUn, I know the futility.) So how about we both stop trying to win. FreeUncyc use it's larger community and the resources at it's command to prosper, and Wikia use it's considerable web presence and monetary resources to prosper. And as members of a community that is spread over multiple web domains - maybe we can actually help each other rather than try and screw each other.                                • Puppy's talk page • 09:36 06 Feb

One additional proviso - nobody try and screw with the NC-BY-SA thingy.                                • Puppy's talk page • 09:38 06 Feb

Pregnantpedia

Fits basically with the next logical step anyway. -- 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 05:48, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any policies relating to trolls with admin authority?                                • Puppy's talk page • 09:20 07 Feb

Yes, serve them coffee and dounuts. Pregnantpedia. Then someone would have to create a site named UnPregnantpedia, and we are back where we started. Al 11:27 7-2

I think "Preggopedia" sounds better than "Pregnantpedia." --Mn-z 15:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

So anyways

It's honestly best to ignore unconstructive/vengeful messages from users of the other fork. Just don't even bother responding. Seriously. --ShabiDOO 07:10, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith the first couple of times. Point out dickering the next few times (while still assuming good faith but poor execution). After that I'm suggesting that they may wish to leave the site. I actually believe edits are mainly good faith but misdirected priorities. (We're better than you are. Nyer nyer.) Just because someone's editing without the best interests of this wiki in mind doesn't meant hey have become an automatic idiot. TKF - to point to the above example - is a good guy. But he believes that the fork should take precedence, and that leaks into here.                                • Puppy's talk page • 09:18 08 Feb

The advantages of two wikis

Since the fork, it really has become apparent how much "overhead" we used to have. By overhead, I mean edits and mental effort that go into the site without adding new content. This forum, for example, is overhead. Reverting vandals, categorizing images, arguing over policy, launching unsuccessful de-op campaigns, VFD, VFH, et cetera is also overhead. Despite a much smaller user base, we were able to keep up with the fork, because they were focused on overhead tasks. Granted, every system will have some necessary overhead, but it should be kept to a minimum.

My point is that uncyclopedia isn't a website, but a collection of literary material and a community. My moving to a less centralized system, we are less controlled by whoever owns the website. There is nothing stopping Wikia or the Mysterious Owners of the fork from shutting down tomorrow. In fact, a mishandled DMCA notice might cause the other site to suddenly disappear, but I digress. With 2 wikis, there is a backup system. Although the categorization might be different, there is no reason that all the good article should be on both pages. Navigation tools are navigation tools (if that), they exist solely to help one find content. Likewise, all the other stuff besides writing articles are support tasks. --Mn-z 16:03, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

By George I think he's got it! And by George, what a great read! I'll read you post below later, I want to savor this one for awhile. Aleister 20:13 10-2-'13

A rant on decentralization and "Internet Nomadism"

“One of the successors of Bertezena was tempted by the luxury and superstition of China; but his design of building cities and temples was defeated by the simple wisdom of a Barbarian counsellor. "The Turks," he said, "are not equal in number to one hundredth part of the inhabitants of China. If we balance their power, and elude their armies, it is because we wander without any fixed habitations in the exercise of war and hunting. Are we strong? we advance and conquer: are we feeble? we retire and are concealed. Should the Turks confine themselves within the walls of cities, the loss of a battle would be the destruction of their empire."”

~ Gibbon

On of the main strengths of the internet is its decentralization. By being on one site, we effectively surrender "control" of the project to whoever owns it, be it Wikia, CarlB, or Anon & Co. With multiple sites, content can move between sites without any one person or group being the High Lord Arbiter of Content.

Too often on the internet, there is a tendency to "build castles". I.e. this community exists at One True Location™. The problem with castle building is that if the single castle "falls," there is no location to retreat to. However, a "nomadic" approach would use mirrors, forks, et cetera to provide backup locations if the main location falls, and would move content to other venues when appropriate.

As I said above, Uncyclopedia is the userpage and the articles, specifically the good articles. If someone deleted our bottom 25% content, it would actually improve the project. The navigation tools are just packaging. Packaging is important, but exists only to support the content. Packaging without content is trash. Literally. About half the stuff that you throw away is packaging materials you no longer need.

In light of this theory, I believe I may have hypocritical by trying to keep my content here. It is licensed under a Creative Commons license so that it can be placed anywhere and everywhere. I wasn't actively complaining about article borrowing, but I was mocking the other wiki for needing to borrow articles rather than create its own content. I will stay here for the fact that I trust Wikia employees with checkuser and DMCA notice-handling more than I do anon 'crats.

On a related note, paradoxically, the more one distrusts an entity, the less likely one is to be cheated or abused by said entity. The fork is begging for money and raising the specter of ads. However, because everybody likes Anon & Co, noone is complaining about. However, if Wikia did that, everyone would be up in arms. To be fair, the website might have some information about who is running it squirreled away somewhere. However, if I have "big-people questions" about a website, I want to look at the navigation tools, not search through every forum and talk page on the wiki. --Mn-z 19:25, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I set up an account at the fork. My userid over there, is really long. My sig suggests I am Kevillips, but I am still confused as an adult child of divorced parents. Oh wait, I am, my parents divorced when I was in my 40s. Like with them, I have to walk clear lines. I don't talk about my mom's dates when I am talking with my dad. I see the 2 sites as fraternal twins. Very much alike now, but will possibly grow their own form of differentiation. I copied my unnews I wrote here over there. But what about my featured article? It is there, linked to a non-existant user over there with the name I use here. Do I claim it as a feature there? I own the CCA as my real boy? I am probably going to clone my stuff to both sites, and like the Dakotas before me, who's on first will be I Don't know. Third base! Kevillips = --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 21:07, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

What is your user name there? Some users are listing their credits but then listing them on different sites (I believe Snippy has done that. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 21:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

doyoureallywanttohurtme is my userid at freeuncym which by the way google thinks is a typo of frequency I just realized the true changes will come about democratically by vfh and vfd

--K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 21:22, February 11, 2013 (UTC)