Vote for one of the first two options and for one of the last two options.

I think that Wikipedia is competitive with professionally written encyclopedias like Britannica. But I think Uncyclopedia, a satirical version of Wikipedia, is vastly inferior to professional satire such as The Onion.

Why is this the case? A few possibilities:

- My view is uncommon. A lot of peope would say Uncyclopedia > The Onion.
- Good satire is much harder to write than than good encylopedia entries. A professional encyclopedia contributor isn't going to be much better than a good amateur, so a lot of good amateurs working together can produce something credible. There is, however, a wider gulf for comedy.
- There is much less consensus on how an article should be written, leading to bad ideas sticking.
- Wikis are not suitable for humour. This is because humour is more dependent on the whole product, so adding new content can make the article much worse. Whereas with Wikipedia, you can more or less combine individual essays and it works out all right.

ugh!

This is a narcissistic thread. Uncyclopedia isn't funny! It's of little import, who cares.

What the **** is uncyclopedia

No "who cares" option?

Why is this thread so bad?

This thread is as bad as Uncyclopedia.

Seriously. They suck and the moderators are douches.

picked all four

I've never even heard of uncyclopedia.

Interesting.

I would conjecture that it's because the average idiot who thinks he's funny isn't actually funny (and is most likely ******ed). Also, I think everyone is bound to put less effort into humour but most people will make an effort to properly edit something more formal like Wikipedia.

But perhaps the most obvious reason is quality control. Wikipedia is patrolled by a lot of people who actually give a ****. I doubt it's the same for Uncyclopedia.

Dunning-Krueger effect? But why aren't there as many idiots who think they can write at encyclopedic quality?

Well it's easier to objectively "quantify" what makes an encyclopedia article good. But also, I find people to be often proud of their own perceived sense of humour. Many people who just aren't that funny will have a hard time accepting it. I can't see many people refusing to admit they're bad at writing encyclopedia articles.

wtf, where's encyclopedia dramatica, that **** is funnier than all of those.

Encyclopedia Dramatica > The Onion >>> Uncyclopedia

Too bad some ******* decided to take Dramatica down

Really? It's basically unreadable. The uncommon view would be that it's funny. But maybe someone will take this trolling opportunity to claim that Uncyclopedia is very funny and the rest of us just don't get it.

+1. The multiple option poll functionality on this forum is so primitive. It must be abused whenever possible!

Now I have ******** extension so I dont know if he has ads on the site but from all the content its obvius much time goes into this and I would be very surprised if this site isnt making good money then, so he and the guys who visits his site probably cares

EDIT: Agreed that its not even slightly funny though.

Seems like pretty standard OOT material to me. Someone making a thread about their most recent social experience is 100 times more narcissistic than this.

How is this an uninteresting or narcissistic topic? Uncyclopedia clearly isn't funny, and it really is a good question why. What makes anything funny?

For something to be funny, it has to be at least a little original. Uncyclopedia is just the same few jokes 30,000 times, because it's easier for some moron on the internet to copy and paste the correct Latin name for cat than it is to actually come up with something new. Nothing on Uncyclopedia is shocking or offensive, either, so it's probably heavily censored, which is going to drive away funny potential editors even more.

Lots of people write really ****ty stuff on Wikipedia, too. But it gets deleted or edited into something better by anal-retentive nits who get into a 30-page flame war on the edit pages about what constitutes an acceptable secondary source. Funny people could make unfunny material better, but they'd much rather be writing their own stuff. So even if there is some genuinely funny stuff on Uncyclopedia, it gets buried under all the crap, or worse, slavishly imitated till it isn't funny.

Case in point: if I really knew what made something funny, I wouldn't be arguing about it on the internet.

Because the title sounds a bit like that of a Ron Burgundy thread. However, his threads are typically "why do people like [widely liked thing]?", whereas if this poll is any guide, Uncyclopedia isn't widely liked.

iirc there's a lot of germans editing uncyclopedia

Never heard of uncyclopedia and it looks really dumb. Encyclopedia Dramatica is hilarious though. I also think The Onion is stupid but I could see why people like it.

I have an account on Uncyclopedia, and it actually is funny. Besides, how many of you have actually even looked at it?

I'm thinking that the opinion of someone so into Uncyclopedia that they search the web for related content and then make an account to bump a 13 year old thread might just represent a minority opinion.

I remember reading this thread 13 years ago and not visiting Uncyclopedia and not expecting to now.