User:Isarra/Wikipedia for Uncyclopedians

As a whole, Wikipedia is not funny. This is fine. Wikipedia is not trying to be funny. It is, in fact, trying to be unfunny, and as unfunny as is possible unless there happen to be reliable sources backing it up. This is fine, however, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that is what encyclopedias are like: boring. And not funny. And reliably sourced.

But Wikipedia is more than a supposedly reliably-sourced encyclopedia, just as Uncyclopedia is more than a compilation of really bad jokes that only seemed funny at the time, and possibly not even then. Behind each, there is a community of people, some who don't interact much with anyone else and some who almost exclusively frequent discussion pages, especially those where all the nice squishy drama takes place, as well as a great many more who actually make the projects what they are, not just editing and not just discussing, but collaborating toward some greater ideal of the project that nobody can quite agree upon just what it is.

At the end of the day, Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia boil down to effectively the same thing - collaborative projects comprised of people, with all their fine strengths and niggling issues.

Wikipedia is not the enemy

Over the years, a common misconception has arisen that Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia are enemies. While this is fine in a humorous context, it is also not even remotely the case.

There is a practice on Uncyclopedia involving taking Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays and turning them on their heads, part of a running joke portraying the site as an 'anti-Wikipedia' of sorts. While this is certainly true in that Wikipedia is informative and Uncyclopedia is humorous, these entries should serve little purpose other than to amuse those who find the prospect of 'wars' between websites to be amusing. Nothing in Uncyclopedia's ancient and resplendent tomes of wisdom was ever meant to give the impression that they hate Wikipedia, that Wikipedia hates them, or that the predicted December 21st apocalypse will come as a result of eventual nuclear war being fought between the two entities. This should make sense to most people, but being that we are on the Internet here, it's understandable to assume that some are a little slower on the uptake, and may have been initially confused by a frequently-used little comedic device called 'deadpan'.

While this is fine so long as the reality of the matter sinks in before any damage is done, vandals in particular have often been encouraged by this notion of a war. ...unfortunate in either place, and not condoned in either.

Note about some Wikipedians being unwelcoming to Uncyclopedians, perhaps as a result? Doesn't help either group; puts off Uncyclopedians from contributing productively and only perpetuates the silly notion of a feud...

Wikipedia is useful and hilarious

Wikipedia is, like, this valuable resource and stuff. Explains jokes. Chickens.

Wikipedia's functioning is based in common sense.

Something about how WP:BLAH alienates everyone, even wikipedians...

Can serve to remind Uncyclopedians of what they already know, but which is easy to forget - logical essays, guidelines and policies, and Wikipedians tend to like writing things down, else they wouldn't be here editing a bloody encyclopedia...

Conclusion or something about how contributing to the blasted thing is actually a lovely idea and stuff...

COW PANTS

Dude, am I still on wikibreak? Because I, like, took a wikibreak to wikipedia. How weird is that? Nice people, and nice dose of perspective, too.

Wikipedia does smell funny. But that's fine.