Forum:UnNews Main Page Quality Control

Forums: Index > Village Dump > UnNews Main Page Quality Control

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6063 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Alright, so we've got a lot of issues a'brewin' with the whole CW effort and the debate on another FFW. Personally, I believe quality control is something that Uncyclopedia could definitely use more of. As a whole, we have amazingly funny articles, but when the article pool is diluted with bullshit, bullshit begins to cramp our image as purveyors of quality comedy on this vast, mostly inane world wide web of ours. As a person taking the time to read this thread, you probably have a greater stake in this site than the average garbage-spewing IP or 1-edit user who passes through our pages. This is another effort to help us gain a level of excellence from which we call extract a sense of collective pride.

This quality control effort is for the UnNews column, situated to the right on our beloved main page. Currently, any user can edit this column, placing their oft-questionable articles therein. Plainly, there are a number of articles that make it to this area -- the first page of Uncyclopedia that the world sees -- with little to no regard for their content. As such, a new user may click on, say, the de facto "lead" story (or top article at the time), only to find that it is a piece of dogshit. This makes me a very sad THINKER. Change is needed.

I realize that UnNews isn't necessarily the bulk of our Uncyclopedic commitment, so if the community doesn't wish to concern themselves with this matter I'd be happy to form an internal tribunal (likely consisting of myself, zim, RAHB, and a few select others) to handle some control measures. But, in the spirit of libertas, I thought I'd open the issue up to the whole floor. So, please feel to comment on any suggestions, improvements, etc. to fortify this very large and readily noticed element of the Uncyclopedia main page. Thank you.

LONG STORY SHORT: Lots of UnNews articles in the column on the main page blatantly suck. As such, we'd like to figure out a way to regulate the content that makes it to said column. If you don't make suggestions, you leave the decisions to crazy people who care a lot about Uncyclopedia for some reason. SPEAK UP! --THINKER 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'd definitely like to see Zim's opinions on this particularly, something definitely needs to be done about it. When I first came here back in February, the first thing I'd always click on were the newest UnNews articles. I liked the idea of UnNews, moreso than the idea of other namespaces, for what reason I don't know. But the point is, the articles on that template are allegedly "the best" new news articles. I'm all for keeping it openly editable, but there's got to be some kind of quality control. Voting or requiring a pee review, while the logical ideas, would be just too tiring and long, and the news would likely be too old by the time it were "featured."

One idea is to just add Zim's Lead article to the front every time he switches it, which doesn't seem too farfetch'd. I'm all for that if others would like it. Let's see what other brilliance graces the walls of this forum topic. -RAHB 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Zim, how long will it be until his mouth has healed enough for him to start doing audio again? --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 07:54, September 15, 2007

I dunno, but I hope it's soon. I think he's being chased by mexican police right now or something. -RAHB 08:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me he didn't go to Mexico for cheap dental surgery... --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 08:04, September 15, 2007

No, he went there for cheap "shit! The cops are after my weed!" surgery. -RAHB 08:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That explains why he's sleeping on my couch. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. It should be the lead story. That's better than it being a crufty list. That's way better than it being contaminated with e coli. Like strawberries. Blech! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another idea: Add to the above a vote to see what gets on the list. Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me!

Pee Review should be mandatory. Also, a benchmark score should be enforced (ie: up to or above 35 may be the only ones placed in the column).-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be the ideal situation. The problem is that it's old news by the time it's had a pee review. If we can ensure UnNews's somehow get a speedy review, then maybe, but then of course we don't want to take away from the other articles on the review. -RAHB 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But the whole point is that the ones on the front page should be as current as possible. You don't necessarily want the very best there, as it's not intended to be a feature; it's to show the latest news in uncyclopedic format. Learning about the latest happenings from an unnews article is always fun. The more quality control you enforce onto the articles there, the less current news on it will be, and the less effective it will be. Next you'll be wanting to put some minimum PR score on the recent articles template (which, by the way, specifically tells people to add their new unnewses to the recent unnews list). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:22, 15 Sep 2007

I don't think a minimum pee review score is necessary, but I do think that people shouldn't be afraid to remove a page from the recent unnews template if it sucks. As Thinker compellingly argued, that is often the first thing people see when they go on to uncyclopedia, so really sucky stuff shouldn't be being added. --THE 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, removing blatantly bad ones is fine with me, especially as right after I posted that, I looked at the very first article and it was terrible. It wasn't even about anything current. I guess I should modify my position to be that if the story being reported on is current, but that article isn't great, and there's no alternative to replace it with, either make it better or write a better one, as the story itself should be mentioned. If however, it's bad and not based on a current news story, it should be removed until it's better. Obviously good non-current ones are fine. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:43, 16 Sep 2007

That just about covers it. Where should that sentiment be echoed in order to become official policy? Granted many of us will enforce it regardless; I just like having things like this in writing before I go ruining poor writer's evenings. :) --THINKER 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that ruins a poor writer's evening is the box of wine running empty. Or so I've heard. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You callin' me a poor writer?!??!? My wine comes in a plastic bottle (with a straw, but of course I don't use that, as it doesn't get the alcohol into my mouth fast enough), thank you very much!! --THINKER 22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my last sentence was meant to indicate that it was me with the box of wine. I'm being too subtle, apparently. You should consider switching to the wine that comes in a jug. I think the brand name is Wine in a Jug. It's also good for degreasing engine parts. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget that people I don't regularly see in IRC don't realize the insane levels of intoxication I push my body to nightly, and as such, jump at any angle to lampoon my insobriety. And yes wine in a jug is great, but my wine of choice comes in the "bum" variety. ;) --THINKER 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We definatly need some sort of quality control for that column. I'd be glad to help! --- UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Spang pretty much said it best; just delete accordingly. I'd probably add that it'd be wise to add a blurb in the edit comments, so people don't take it as malicious deletion, but other than that, I think its pretty much covered. I just want it in writing somewhere official. --THINKER 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Official writing follows: articles listed at the recent unnews template may be removed if they blatantly really suck, though leeway should be given to relatively poor articles which cover current news topics, where no better alternative is available. End official writing.

Perhaps put it in a comment at the top of the template, along with some helpful reminders to purge? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:56, 18 Sep 2007

Exactly. You could also put in a joke that refers to Total Recall if you'd like. I wouldn't mind that. --THINKER 06:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a similar question....

What do we do with really old, really bad UnNews articles? I've been browsing through the oldest of the old and finding several articles QVFD-able. It's generally taboo to VFD UnNews articles that aren't relatively new, and I figure it would just be a waste of space anyway, given the sub-substandard quality. My question is simple: What do we do with them? -- 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 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could deal with them during Vigilance Week? They aren't our biggest problem, as nobody really reads old unnews articles anyway, but I'm sure we could include a purge of old unnews articles as part of the...vigilance. --THE 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Post vigilance, perhaps an UnNews-specific VFD-style page could be established if necessary. We'll see what transpires. --THINKER 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)