Forum:A better proposition

<<< Back to The Administrator's League • <<< Back to Forum

Please help clean out the trash and articles in need. We'll give you cookies!

Ok. What with the whole controversial "Illogicopedia V.2." thing, I think some things need to be sorted out. First I'm gonna explain the situation of the site as it currently stands:

Positives Our forum is the best it's ever been. It's pretty damn active, everyone uses it, and the chat's on a wide variety of topics. We have a high level of community participation, plus the fact that there isn't a single user on here who is negative or has a negative effect on the community. That's actually pretty amazing. Our blog is simply very cool. It took a little bit for me to adjust the casual usage of the blog for "thoughts of the week" but I've warmed to it and see it as a great thing now. I think the whole site has a big sense of family going on. Even though we've gotten far larger, the community still feels tightly-knit.

Negatives The biggest problem with the site is that its overall image is that of something juvenile. That's partially to be expected with a site based on nonsense and surrealism, but it's gotten out of hand now. While we have over 5000 articles now it feels like we're swimming in a sea of crap. I know it's subjective and that, but you gotta remember that with articles on sites like this, higher effort = cooler output. We've got way more output than we have effort. What we should concentrate on is quality over quantity right now. I think the main page could probably be reshuffled and jazzed up to not only look cooler but also reflect the site of nowadays, 'cos there's been lots of change. IRC is deserted! C'mon guys, we have, and I quote, a really high amount of active users for a wikia site. Get on! :P

What we (MMF + Testicles) feel the site needs

• An organisation of VFF. A big problem with VFF is that there're too many unconsidered self-noms, and there's a big problem with the whole situation of "mob voting", where a specific clique of users all vote together for something they want featured. First, I think voting should be made completely equal between all users: admins, bureaucrats and phantoms should get as many votes as users, i.e. 1. Second, and I hate to say this, but we need to be tougher on our policy on self-noms. What should probably be done about that is it should be a requirement to submit the article for review and get a good review before nomming it. If the article's that good, maybe the reviewer will nom it themselves :P
• That's a point, the ?review. It seriously needs improvements. All reviews in ?review at the moment are very short sentences. I (MMF, as an experienced reviewer in Uncyclopedia) want to take over the review section and revolutionise it so that reviews are well-thought-out and helpful.
• Like was said, the main page should probably be changed to reflect the modern state of the site. Plus it should be prettified :P
• A big-time concentration on revamping the articles we've already got before starting writing new articles. Trash, mexicans and stub templates will come in useful here. Those templates need to be a mark that say "improve this" as opposed to "this is bad/short". All stubby mexican articles could either be deleted (not cool) or, a better idea would be to make a section on the site that's like Uncyclopedia's UnDictionary. Y'know, the one that's a repository of merged stub articles that are still cool. (Damnit, why does Uncyc have to make some right choices some times?) A great idea would be a regular improvement drive, where users are urged to go and find trashy pages and work their magic!
• We could bring in some more experienced Uncyc users to help with site reorganisation, if they're willing to be cool and help. I (MMF) know for certain that Codeine thinks the site appears too juvenile, so maybe I can persuade him to put his money where his mouth is and help work at the problems he mentioned :P
• We definitely need to appoint a new admin, particularly in the US timezone.

Ermm, that's all I can remember at the moment. Duncan, if I've missed anything stick it in here :P MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 11:30, 17 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Warning: Looooooooooooooooong comment follows. And I mean long.

OK, I have calmed down slightly and am currently on IRC to talk about this some more. Yes, Illogicopedia might benefit from some changes and indeed, if we all work together we can make things better for all of us!

First of all, I have always been against deletion of articles, even if they suck there's at least one sentence in there worth keeping. I know I've been slacking on this front recently but I used to go through newpages (bear in mind this was when there were like, three new articles a day) and sift through them all adding links, categories and generally prettifying them. These days, the admin jobs are more distributed - there's updating features, refreshing VFF, welcoming new users, giving out stars... the list goes on. Some days I just want to write funny stuff, you know? Here it might be good to get some people on board who care about site maintenance. Guys who have the best interests of the wiki at heart; those who are willing to get their hands dirty and do the donkey work for no praise, just because they care about Illogicopedia. A tough one, eh?

I like your suggestion about the Uncyclopedians. Get some of those guys on board and start up the long awaited Article Improvement Drive again (I've made a page which has been lying here for a while). Really go to town with it and put features etc. on hold temporarily whilst we concentrate on improving what we already have. Let's take a leaf out of Fluffalizer's book and merge similar articles, creating redirects from the old ones. I already did this with the United Kingdom article and I think it's all the better for it.

?Review: My personal opinion on this is that I prefer giving one sentence reviews. Just a personal thing, but I'm sure other people are willing to give more time to this. Really pump this project up, and it'll go hand in hand with the AID.

Front page redesign: focus on community, community, community. Maybe lose the visual connection with Uncyclopedia/Wikipedia (is it getting old?) and modernise, baby. Stick links to recently updated forum topics; make the moon thing less prominent; cater more for Internet Exploder users; have a more conversational tone; more space for IOTM blurb; more ties with the blog - latest blog posts on the front page; keep the DYKs, news and Vandalpedia.

Overall, even though us regulars know that more structured nonsense is, on the whole, better, yes - for some reason we do come across as juvenile. I get that feeling from Uncyc anyways. When Illogicopedia started up, I (or was it Seppy?) made the suggestion that Illogicopedia be Family Guy to Uncyclopedia's Simpsons: a slightly more random affair whilst keeping some of the wit.

C'mon people, if we all focus we can do it. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 11:48, 17 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Idea

Maybe whats you should do is lock new page creation and force peoples to improve the existancing articles. --Unsigned comment posted by 194.80.240.66, 12:37, 17 Octodest 2008

No new articles ever would be really, REALLY bad though. Also, are the listed requirements for nominating an article for feature only for self-nom, or are they for any nomination at all? Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 20:03, 17 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

General improvement of existing articles is what is being asked of us, its not too hard, just skim through our creations and make em better. And try and make stubs better too. Though I do own some pretty naff ones myself... DG |Chatty Chaps| 11:11, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Like some...

The ideas I like are the new VFF and the fact that we need to make the main page look better. And that's about it. Readmesoon (Talk | contribs) (14:33, 17 Octodest 2008 (UTC))

Uh...

I fonchezzz have come to the conclusion that I shall become devoted again if duty calls. I will become devoted to the plans that you have come up with. Well, I have come to the conclusion that it is our best bet to redo the feature vote thing. At least we can say it is better than it was when we started. Remember that poll on each nomination? Ya. that didn't work. And I think, unlike hindley, that we should delete the crap that makes up most of our articles. The last attempt at that did not work well, so why should it this time. Maybe the best thing to do is have a reward for adding on to articles, so people will be more likely to do it. I would be up for it. I am willing to help out for nothing. Also, the main page... that could use some new stuff. I like that idea. I am bored of it. Let's see... review... I forgot about that. I haven't helped it lately. I personally it is up to the reviewer to decide how long the review is. And as for self noms, if they suck... they wont be voted for, so why bother banning self noms. Just as long as it doesn't get out of hand, which I don't think it is. And I think self noms for images should be welcome. We don't have many. Oh which reminds me, we shouldn't have all the pictures changing every time you enter the main page the way we have it. Some images appear from when we first came up with featured images. Maybe we should have a new batch every few weeks. And for new admins I say we need two. One Australian one American, or two Americans, or whatever. And... that concludes my rant for now. I hope this ends up with results unlike some things we have come up with...--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 22:05, 17 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Uncyc/wikipedia looking alike thing is getting a bit old, maybe we could redesign the page slightly to make it better but have subtle hints of wikipedia remain, similar shape of columns. flavours of it, rather than potato cut print.

Featured articles lately have been following the "family guy" "simpsons" analogy, which is nice, but i notice its a rare few in the range of articles. i dont mind articles where they do something else just as interesting, but some articles, like pew are just "they dont exist". people are sadly too defending of their articles, id imagine a wiki where edits can only be a maximum of some arbitrary number say 500 bytes, so all articles would be build through everyone making tiny contributions to an article rather than wacking out massive ideas. Had i been doing ?pedia now, i would have suggested that :D , anyway, i meander. the point is, im happy to plaster over the cracks if we can come out of the other end with a real wiki, not like our half arsed efforts to inject energy :P --Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 22:20, 17 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

That 500 byte thing intriguess me.If you were to write an epic, youd have to start with a bit of text, save the page. Edit and add more, save again and so on till it's done. Could be annoying, don't you think? -- Dxpenguinman, the Penguinman ...He's e-vile! • Talk • Got An Idea? • GAMESHOW! 00:00, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

No, because you wouldn't be able to do that, 500 per page, not per edit everything would be a collaboration.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 12:48, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Nothing would ever get done. This is a wiki. We should allow people to contribute as much as they feel is necessary. In addition, please describe how this sytem would work (Which namespaces? Would there be exceptions on request for certain articles (group pages, political parties)? How would the coding be implemented as long as we're tied to Wikia?). --Aaaaannooooo!!! 13:04, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Comments from a retired user

On the Illogiblog, I have been having a conversation with BenedictBlade about why he left and all that. This is what he had to say when I asked exactly why he left Illogic:

It's the community, which has become one which has split in ways that show that not too many people care about the wiki's health and look, they just care about themselves and their articles. That was not the same back in my day. The articles aren't the random prose they were, there more of a poorly created uncyclopedia articles and humorous attempts at a story. You may argue that our size has bonded us together, though just take a good look at the talk pages. Most are from one user, and when others are on it is usually a moan or flamewar. This isn't everybody, i'm just highliting it now before it turns into more of a wobble than it already is

Completely agree with him on everything he says, I suppose it just took a user to retire for me to realise it. There's a few loose cannons who only care about their articles and never edit anybody else's. This might be fine, but when they start hating everybody's articles but their own, we have a problem.

Having stewed this over, I propose the following (in lieu of all previous comments):

• Main page redesign. We can draw up some roughs in Paint or something and, with the help of some coders, put it into action. I'm gonna give this one some thought.
• Article overhaul. Relaunch the Article Improvement Drive, get people to hit 'random page' and improve whatever comes up. I'd love to see recentchanges filled with these!
• MMF's super Pear Reviews. If you're up to it, MMF, we could designate you the head of the review committee and you can concentrate on that for the duration of this improvement drive. If you want to do it.

• Review of voting laws. This was going to happen anyway, but the archaic "two votes for admins" laws should be done away with. On vote per user, unlimited nominations. In addition, prohibit self nomination unless there has been an entry on ?review.
• New admin. Somebody who cares about the site's well being and is prepared to get their hands dirty, mucking in with trash improvement, fighting vandals, updating features, IllogiNews etc etc. All the existing admins get together on IRC to discuss who it ought to be.

Thoughts? -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 10:58, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Some good ideas there. I didn't even know admins got two votes. I must say I find Benedict Blade's decision to retire rather sudden (I talked to him on IRC, he reviewed my article and said he'd vote for it!). I also agree an article should be reviewed before being self-nommed for VFH. --Aaaaannooooo!!! 11:38, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for this (obviously) - so basically - let's get cracking. What first? --Testostereich • (ballsack) 14:43, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with VFF rules. Here is a plan Anotherpongo proposed on IRC for VFF: Admins and users both get one vote, IPs get 0. I'm thinking we can discuss other details on IRC today; feel free to join in. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 14:50, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

MMF says we need an admin in the us timezone. I am in the us tinmezeom. i am an admin on flapjack wiki and billy and mandy wiki and hitchikers. --Ragglefraggleking 15:31, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Flapjack wiki? Cool, I want a flapjack now... --- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 16:28, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but are you wiling to do you share of the work? Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 17:21, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the admins should only get one vote like everybody else. Elassint, 10 23 2008 ^talk

Cool!

I'm finding it really cool that loads are coming here to help and chip in ^^. I'd be happy to super-ify the reviews, but I definitely wouldn't want to just do that. After a little bit of discussion with Dunc, we surmised that all the previous "illogilutions" were too unfocused. Basically I think what we're doing here is adjusting to becoming a genuinely big wiki, and what we need to do is focus our tasks: blitzkrieg one idea at a time so we get all done rather than being unfocused and not doing that good a job. So we work on the article sort-out drive first, then the main page (cos content will be sorted out in the site) and then the other systems like VFF and ?review, all in that order. Maybe a good analogy is that ?pedia is like a car, and the engine's gotten a bit rusty and there's a view other minor problems, so we need to stop the car for a little bit and fix the problems, so that the car can get back up and running better than ever ^^. We'd have to be really focused though, cos I don't think writers are qualified enough to repair cars :P MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 21:01, 18 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

I have a spanner. It is, however, made of plastic.

Ready to get the show on the road RE. Article Improvement Drive? Here's an idea I had ages ago but never quite got round to it (Pickle judging was a priority then)... you get a reward for cleaning up articles. I was thinking gold stars, maybe, but that would be a bit much per article. So we create a subpage and invite people to tell us the articles they have improved. At the end of, say, a month, we tally up all the articles and redeem them for Nectar points, er, I mean gold stars. Say, something like 6 articles=1 star, or whatever. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 10:52, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not gold stars, we need a second currency methinks. Feel free to shoot me down --Testostereich • (ballsack) 11:13, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Points you can use to buy stuff from IllogiShop, with the special IllogiClub Card? -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 11:22, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Hindleyite, I categorically morbidly clinicly love you. :p Could be an idea actually, but it would need some thinking through. If you want to go ahead with it I'm happy to chip in, also if there's any monkey work you need help with y'know where I am Testostereich • (ballsack) 11:25, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

'Twas partly a joke, but it could work... each user has a cool template with their points written on it. Dunno what you'd be able to buy from the shop though, maybe some marbles or something. :) -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 11:33, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Marbles are notoriously easily lost. Testostereich • (ballsack) 11:35, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Who'd want to buy marbles??? .....Oh good i get them all to myself! -- Dxpenguinman, the Penguinman ...He's e-vile! • Talk • Got An Idea? • GAMESHOW! 12:34, 19 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

It sounds too much like capitalism to me, I'm afraid. I know of few wikis which have thrived on a currency-based system. It sounds like just another complication. You would probably need to double your number of admins to ensure proper distribution of currency and punishment of forgers. --Aaaaannooooo!!! 10:17, 20 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. Oh well, t'was a nice idea, alas.... --Testostereich • (ballsack) 13:23, 20 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Silver stars. Or maybe golden mops (cleanup). Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 18:57, 20 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

What about titles to go into a user's signature? Like, for a limited period only they're available in increasing rank depending on how much effort / edits are put in, or something... MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 19:06, 20 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

This is the best idea yet, it seems perfect. Uncyc has got ranks of the British Army, can anyone think of any suitably illogical titles we could bestow upon people? -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 12:37, 21 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub Apprentice Janitor? Sub-Sub Apprentice Janitor? --Sir Asema ^Politics _{Complaint Inbox or Outbox}

ASEMA! :D MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 18:36, 21 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Hey I got an issue sorta related to this. you know how we are redoing the aids stuff? can hamburg articles be an exception? They are different. They arent crap cause they are short. After all they are already redone articles.--|Fonchezzz| Quacking| 01:01, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Yeah guys, please take note that "George hamburg" articles are how they are for a reason, so please don't go tagging them :P Otherwise, go nuts! MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 10:45, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, George Hamburg is Illogicopedia's resident poet. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 11:15, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

GASP... IT'S ASEMA! The man is back, and he's badder than ever! Welcome back aboard, Assman. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 11:15, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the title, Sub-Mariner? -- Dxpenguinman, the Penguinman ...He's e-vile! • Talk • Got An Idea? • GAMESHOW! 11:43, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Umm

I'd have thought the mass article improvement thing would have been more official than a simple increase in aid tags... --Testostereich • (ballsack) 16:37, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming it will be. I'm guessing this is the mass-tagging period before the actual sorting out :P. I'll sort out the whole page decreeing the stuff and stuff or whatever. MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 16:41, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna base it on classic things from Illogicopedia's back history. Hope that's ok! MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 17:17, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget this, which I spent absolutely ages on. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 10:54, 23 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

There should be a template to state that an article is lacking in nonsense. An article may be quite large, but not have any illogical content whatsoever. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 19:29, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

I doth Wonder...

Could we somehow split the site into 'Old Illogicopedia' and 'New Illogicopedia'?

I actually agree with this idea, too. It gives newer members a chance to contribute larger. Migraine 19:54, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Can I be the first to say about that first point, no. :P MMF!→talk←/→admin(:D) 20:12, 22 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

That idea is to radical and sounds silly. Elassint, 10 23 2008 ^talk

How do you improve nonsense?

If it's nonsense, how do you differentiate between "high-quality" nonsense and "low-quality" nonsense. To judge quality you must understand it. If you can understand it, it is not nonsense. If it's not nonsense, it's Uncyclopedia. Either Illogicopedia is Uncyclopedia, or it is full of meaningless nonsense. What is, must be.

$p\leftrightarrow \Box p$

Like Oedipus--what man can force the hand of heaven? You can try to escape the prophecy, but your actions only result in its fulfillment. An encyclopedia of nonsense entails an encyclopedia of nonsense. It's tautological. Now we complain that it is nonsense. The proposition is illogical. --ModusTollens 07:13, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We are not an encyclopedia of nonsense, "The wiki is mostly dedicated to non-, semi- or entirely humorous surrealism (which might variously be considered clever, dumb, silly, or just plain nonsensical) and some satire. Humour-wise Illogicopedia is more about anything funny that didn't necessarily take that much effort to make, or the kind of random self-referential humour you find removed from Uncyclopedia; the sort of thing people'll get a cheap laugh out of. Un-humour-wise, if such a word exists, Illogicopedia will accept virtually anything with some form of redeeming value. This allows a fairly lax content policy that helps make the wiki more accessible to everyone." I don't think that is nonsense. Sorry if the name misled you. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 09:45, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of nonsense here though. The vast majority of my articles are nonsense. To answer your question though, Modustollens, low quality is a page full of "fo4oiwjfjjdfkkkvkkv," or a one-line article. Higher quality stuff tends to be funny or interesting in some way, though most of the time it can still be classified as some form of nonsense. --THE 11:11, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

:D cheers TEH --Testostereich • (ballsack) 11:21, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you put it quite well there, THE. We need to make that clearer on the policy/about pages, perhaps? -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 12:59, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

I dont think anyone actually read that page ever. --Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 13:22, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I recommend that editors avoid when attempting to write illogically is taking something sensible and adding little scraps of nonsense here and there. Just because you use the word "flugnoflarbex" doesn't make it a better or more suitable article; there should be nonsense in what the writing comes down to. (This is just advice; it is not a proposed guideline at all.) Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 18:53, 28 Octodest 2008 (UTC)

Having said what I just said, I think people should be cautious when tagging stuff. Quality on illogicopedia is a very subjective thing. Don't run around tagging everything you don't like, or risk losing illogicopedia's sense of accepting the bizarre, pointless and strange. --THE 17:51, 27 Octodest 2008 (UTC)