Forum:A proposal

Forums: Index > Village Dump > A proposal

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5547 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Okay, so I've sort of been doing some thinking lately, and one issue with Uncyclopedia is that we have really only two classes of articles: features (very good) and everything else (ranging from utter shit to very good).

It would be nice if we had some kind of more formalized way to identify articles that are at least good enough to get a chuckle out of the average person. If we had a category of "pretty good articles" that had been certified "worth reading."

And this is partially for my own benefit as well - if I just want to kick back and read some stuff I want to laugh at, right now, it's hard to find. I've already read most of the features, and so I can go through everyone's user page and see if usually-funny people have done anything new - but even that's kind of labor-intensive.

What I'm seeing is a system like a streamlined VFH - where people could (and would be) encouraged to self-nom. There'd be no against votes, and if, say, three or four established users ("established" determined by the same criterea it takes to be allowed to vote on VFD) vote "For" within a certain period of time, it would go right in the "good" category.

Then we could have some kind of a link on the front page to, you know, good articles of the last 30 days, or something.

What do you think? Good idea, or too much work for too little benefit? pillow talk 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be a bit labor intensive, and your current system could be abused too easily. I could probably get 3 or 4 users to call ICarly a good article if I tried, without any sockpuppetry or bribery.

But, on the plus side, it could identify articles that don't need work. In other words, it could also function as a "you probably don't want to edit this if your a noob" category. --Mnb'z 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if you could get three or four users to vote for ICarly, I wouldn't mind it in a category like this. I mean, if nothing else, the first paragraph of that article is pretty damn funny. And that's what I'd like to see - a collection of articles that are at least good enough to make the average reader crack a smile. Kung Fu yes, Mobutu Sese Seko not so much. You know. pillow talk 07:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has their quality scale, but I have no idea how that works. I don't really know why they do anything they do. I don't think they do either. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, complete incoherence makes me laugh more than a good or even great article. --Mnb'z 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But you are... you, Mnbvcxz. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, I think a "quality scale" is even more important for us than for Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, if you went to Avril Lavigne and it had a scale that basically said "This article sucks; maybe you'd like to read Miley Cyrus instad," that would be retarded. Here, it would actually make some sense. Also, Mnbvcxz: I agree that occasionally incoherence can be funny. Occasionally. And, actually, that's just what I'm talking about: there should be some way to tag a funny incoherent article "probably worth reading" without featuring it. pillow talk 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Such a system could be too large of a human resource drain, voting for good articles is actually one of the least productive tasks, besides userspace/bhop babbling. --Mnb'z 19:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I

approve this message. - [17:09 9 February 2009] YYettie

or

If all non-featured articles could have a "Do you like this article?" button, and votes were all automatically tallied on a separate page which displays links to say, the top 500 vote getters, you may have a decent collection after about a year of implementation. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's in many ways the exact opposite of my proposal. I'd like a way to help us highlight the obscure-but-pretty-funny stuff, not the well whored and popular pages that most of us know about already. pillow talk 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We could set it up so that only Janeane Garofalo could vote for it. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I so want to have angry sex with her. pillow talk 05:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

agree with all of the above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.251.95.56 (talk • contribs)