User:Keitei/Uncyclopedia

As both a Wikipedian and an Uncyclopedian, I'm asked a lot why I waste so much time at Uncyclopedia. "None of it is true" and "there's no point."

First off, I resent the idea that it's a "waste." Secondly, you, my friend, merely fail to see the point!

As a satirical wiki, it is our duty to make fun of everything in a subtle manner.

"'A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change, which usually incorporates criticism.' --Wiktionary"

"'Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change.' --Wikipedia"

The point of Uncyclopedia is to make light of things most people get hung up on. Humor is a coping mechanism that can be crucial to our thriving as a species. At Uncyclopedia, we try to take things that get people tied up in a knot, that make them angry, frustrated, upset, and lightly jab at it. We make fun of the idea of the thing, the response of people to the thing, and the response of people to our making fun.

Over the past year, it has evolved into more of a general humor wiki, but it is my opinion that satire should be first and foremost.

Uncyclopedians have more freedom to invoke their right to humor. Wikipedians are restrained by "No Personal Attacks", but Uncyclopedians are allowed to be dicks as long as they are funny. Being funny and not just stupid is above all else. Ideally, treading on another's toes in a funny manner allows all of us to laugh, including the one who's being treaded on.

Of course there are many people who do not understand this. Our advice to them is to find somewhere else to play. If they find it offensive or unfunny, they are under no obligation to be there. "Just close your browser: world peace is a few clicks away."

By making fun of things that are so emotionally charged, we are able to get everyone to loosen up a bit (hopefully). People become so involved in what they are doing, offline and online. We just hope to provide a bit of variety, a way to step back and realize it's not so bad.

Satire is supposed to provoke change. I don't know if we at Uncyclopedia do that, or even if we aim to do that. We're just a bunch of people having a bit of fun to break up the monotony. It's easy to lose sight of the wiki-ness of it all, the fact that it's online and it's not entirely "real", even at a wiki that's meant to break that idea up. However, due to our almost lack of constraints, we're able to keep going.

Admins and users alike at Uncyclopedia have been campaigning for rules and policy. I, on the other hand, think that is counter to the spirit of the wiki. We're meant to be making fun of the rules, not implementing them. Are we experimenting with anarchy? I don't think so. We have rules, but they aren't written in stone. We want to encourage the proliferation of humor, not stop people from mucking up our almighty wiki. Humor never conforms to the rules. We don't have a standard, except to "be funny."

People cite the fact that "humor is so subjective" as a reason why Uncyclopedia "will never work." We've been going at this for over a year, so I beg to differ. Humor being subjective is why we grow. We don't claim any humor to be greater than any other. We have our random nonsense, our political satire, our country specific jokes, our age specific jokes, our widely appreciated jokes, our off-color bad taste jokes, our "what the heck?" jokes. We have all sorts, and we're open to more. Of course there are some things we won't suffer to live: uninspired material which has no future, lists of randomly generated items, "unfunny crap," and one-liners.


 * We don't allow lists because they are only funny to a point. They invite vandalism and tainting with open arms. Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole, lists aren't encyclopedic. That's what categories are for.


 * At Uncyclopedia, we cannot allow stubs. With a Wikipedia, one can be reasonably certain that a stub will be expanded and improved. With humor, the intent of an article is hard to put forth in a few sentences, and a consistent tone cannot be achieved with another author building on the original author's work. Stubs will often stay stubs until they are deleted or completely rewritten. It isn't that we have some minimum size specification of an article; it's that we acknowledge that when an article is unfinished and its direction is unclear, it's pretty much dead already.

Uncyclopedia was originally meant to parody Wikipedia. As it has grown, however, it has attracted a different crowd. As much as we try to enforce the "do things the way that Wikipedia does them" rule, we've got a different audience now, and Wikipedia based humor is no longer the focus, but a facet. We do mourn the loss of a general encyclopedic feel to the place, but we must do as the fanbase wants. Gimmicks are in, intelligence is out.

Isn't that how it is everywhere?