Forum:Announcement: Wikia & Uncyclopedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Announcement: Wikia & Uncyclopedia
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5910 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I have some good news - Wikia is the new owner of the Uncyclopedia domain name and Chronarion has transferred the trademark rights to us. Wikia has been hosting the site since May 2005, but we were always cautious about adding the other language versions to this domain, and about adding new subdomains, to a domain owned by a third party. However, these things are all now possible. We're not intending to make any negative changes, so please don't be concerned about this change of ownership. The only changes should be positive ones, and ones that this community have been requesting for a long time, such as a shared image repository, and shared login with the other versions of Uncyclopedia, and possibly even with Wikia in the future. Mostly, we hope you see this as a commitment from Wikia to ensuring the continuity of the project. Angela 10:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh noes!

OHNOES....a hostile takeover. Chronarion will be avenged!!!! For Sophia!!!! -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Should I get my hat and coat now? --~ sin($) tan() 10:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Only if you're feeling cold... Angela
I doubt MoneySign even HAS a hat.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

There are currently eight Uncyclopedia language projects hosted externally. We have already had problems with Wikia staff removing links from this wiki to external sites which are part of this project. Apparently the preference is to push people towards abandoned wikis in order to avoid any link to an external site, even one that's part of this project. We've also seen at least one Wikia project created by staff which overlaps one of our existing externally-hosted projects. What will the impact be when these issues arise in the future and Chron is seemingly out of the picture?

Then there's the whole Google issue; anyone following the Forum: section on this site knows we've been penalized rather heavily in search results for reasons Google has refused to explain. If this continues, I'd expect that we may have wanted the flexibility to choose another ad provider or pay our own way instead of continuing with Google. This change takes those options away from us, short of moving the entire site to another domain - no small step and not something I would wish to see happen.

Any reason why neither Chron nor anyone else made any attempt to consult the Uncyclopedia community before taking this step (the first we've heard of it is at 0:20UTC today when it showed up on whois)? --Carlb 11:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know... this is completely out of the blue. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The claim that the word "uncyclopedia" is in any way trademarkable is also completely out of the blue. If it's already been applied to everything from the Uncyclopedia of Baseball book to various websites (some part of this project, some not, some not even wiki) it's hardly unique - and not a word in the more than a year I've been part of this project ever claiming it ever even might be trademark material. Jimbo has already tried to convince me to sell the .info domain out from under the Taiwan and Japan projects, needless to say my answer was (and still is) "no". And then there's all these "who owns the logo? who owns the logo?" questions (an issue if we ever want it printed on a T-shirt, a webpage or anything else) and the question of why we were not informed the uncyclopedia.org domain name was even for sale until after it was already taken out from under us. Business as usual? Not in the least. --Carlb 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was this decision made? Why did we hand over ownership to an outside entity? Was it just money or something, because I'm sure we could have raised it if we needed. But I really, absolutely dislike the idea of giving this to Wikia, and so far every defense of it has made me dislike it even more. Even this opening paragraph by Angela makes me cringe - she insinuates that we as a community somehow have asked for shared user names, when we infact have always rejected the idea outright due to the obvious problems that exist with doing such a thing. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The idea of a shared login was rejected ages ago, back as far as the original move from an independent server to a wikia server. Nonetheless, Angela had been quietly sending out this to various individual users back in early May... without saying anything at all publicly to the community as a whole.
Oh, and raising enough money to obtain a proper web server isn't the real issue here. I just picked up a dedicated server in Saudi Oilberta for just under $US50/month, P4, Linux, 200GB HDD, 1000GB/month transfer. Any project I had on shared hosting (some Uncyc-related, some not) will be moving there at the end of next week. If we were that hard-up for money for server space, we could just dump en: there with the rest of this mess (as there's more than enough capacity to spare) at no additional cost, bye-bye Google ads (which should never had been on a CC-NC-SA project) and that would've been the end of this matter. Servers are becoming rather inexpensive these days. And no, the server farms don't demand anyone sign over their domain names. That's nuts.
As for uncyclopedia.info domain and the Taiwan "false base of a hundred subjects" that appears to be its largest user? Original intention was that uncyclopedia.info serve as a mere placeholder and that the individual subdomains merely be redirects to existing projects. Taiwan attempted to get their own Wikia; as there already is a China project (zh.uncyclopedia.wikia.com) they weren't given a straight yes-or-no answer but told "go talk to your community". This dragged on for weeks, even though they had about 450 pages of content (they're over twice that now) and represented half of Babel: on this site alone. When attempts to get them a Wikia went nowhere, the project was dumped on zh.uncyclopedia.info using a commercial shared host. That got maxed-out rather quickly, so a second shared host was used for various smaller projects to compensate until the whole mess (and some non-Uncyc stuff I've been working with) could be dumped to a dedicated server. This isn't about money or making money; Uncyclopedians just needed somewhere to store their patented nonsense™.
If I have to go to some wretched courthouse to defend the right of the Taiwanese project to use a domain with the word "uncyclopedia" in it, I shall, even though it's a pointless waste of money. I have nothing to gain by doing so, but on principle these things belong to the community - not to someone who wants to hijack a CC-NC-SA-BY project and turn it into a trademarked asset to be sold to investors. That's not what this project (in any of its languages, including about twenty in which I don't understand a bloody word) are about. If I want money, I have a day job for that. --Carlb 11:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"I have some misunderstanding about these two Chinese uncyclopedia. I have strike and apologized to Hant." is what KJ said. That was just a confusion, not a sign of Evil To Come. :) --Jimbo Wales 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I want the other Uncyc project to be subdomains of Uncyclopedia.org, but I do not want a shared user list between Uncyc projects, I use different user names when working in different languages, and I want it to stay that way. However a true Commons will be great! - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind shared between the languages, but not between all of wikia... because some of the names on uncyclopedia are already taken by names on other wikia (My name is on the HR Wiki for example.) Even if you could iron out that problem, most of the wikia users don't use uncyc, so sharing their userlist would be pointless. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I have a username on Wikia, yet I forgot the password, and chances are if the userlist is shared it'll be the Wikia username which is used, so I won't be able to use Uncyc. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As I've already stated, shared user list between languages is a bad idea, because many user names (such as mine) are in English, and I want to use usernames not in English on other language Uncycs. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 19:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What we need is a pros and cons list - and possibly some of the cons can be fixed - for example (wild speculation here) what if you could set your preferences to use a different name in all the German language wikis than in all English language ones? Or specify a name for Uncyc, but still have shared contribs and other features available (shared contribs are a planned feature).... or whatever. I seems worth looking at what's possible at least -- sannse (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Like linking usernames? Sounds interesting.. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that overall, this is what I'm hearing from people.

Uncyclopedia wants to remain its own entity and does not want to become a part of the wikias.
The shared login and contribs is great for a network of small, community wikis, of which one may edit any number of different ones. Uncyclopedia doesn't want to join them. Owned and hosted by Wikia, Inc (which is what I think is what happened?), sure. Part of a network of small-time wikis, nothx. I don't personally know how appealing wikias are to the average uncyc user, but they seem to be sufficiently different in intent and interest and stuff that single user login isn't really advantageous.
The community doesn't want Wikia to make huge changes without the community's knowledge and support.
It seems that people are worried that Wikia has bought us so that they can make changes behind our backs, changes which would have been impossible otherwise because we wouldn't want them. It doesn't seem a likely reason, but we want assurance that this isn't going to happen.
What's there to gain with the licensing?
CC-BY-NC-SA is not profitable; what does Wikia hope to gain?

Uncyclopedia has been an autonomous commune for over a year now and would like to remain that way. It is resisting a merge with the wikia structure because it is different in scope and interest. Note: this is just my analysis of community opinion, feel free to toss it if it's incorrect. --KATIE!! 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) hm. i have another opinion. we are attempting to not conform, like emos, or goths. but with more success. therefore, we are independant, and have no standards here, unlike fancypants wikipedia.

Um, Wikia buying the domain name out from under us (and attempting to lay their paws on various other Uncyclopedia-related IP) *is* a huge change that was made behind our backs. That's part of the problem. --Carlb 11:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"buying the domain name out from under us"? That sentence, I am very sorry to say, leaves me completely confused. Jonathan owned the domain, not you. "lay their paws on"? What does that mean? Well, yeah, we do have a strong furry community... ;-) Seriously, this hysteria is a bit much. How about giving me something practical I can work with? What is it that you want me to do or not do?--Jimbo Wales 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Chronarion was a part of this community. Wikia is not. What can you do? Realistically, nothing. This conversation should have been held before the transfer of ownership occured. When it happens now, it can easilly be labeled "hysteria." ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Duchies for the bureaus would be cool. Even baronies would be acceptable. —rc (t) 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And monogrammed jets..... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Health insurance? HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you get us reGooglefied, or is that right out? -- Imrealized 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If even the mighty Chronarion hasn't managed that feat, no one can do it. :) --Carlb 21:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Never doubt the power of furries. We are now 6/10. --Splaka 07:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yet we still don't appear on the results. And the 6/10 is only the main page, and nothing else. Unless that'll change as google update themselves. Spang talk 07:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blame me a bit

Ok. I have something to say.

chronarion, several months ago (before I was offered internship at Wikia) asked my opinion on if he should give the Uncyclopedia domain to Wikia at some point in the future. Before that, there was much discussion about creating more subdomains for languages and projects, but no progress could be made, because Wikia was only the domain's administrative contact, and the legal implications would have been a mess. Memory-Alpha has a similar problem with new subdomains. So, I suggested to him that he probably should. I also suggested to carlb that he could, until that happens, register uncyclopedia.info to do some subdomain pointing as a demonstration of what it would be like (at least, I think that was my reason behind suggesting it). I only had the community's interests in mind at the time. I personally felt it would improve things overall. I also, at the time, assumed chronarion was asking several core people about this, but from the responses it looks like he hadn't. This freaks me out a bit that he might have based it on just my opinion.

The thing is, while the content of this Wiki is the intellectual property and copyright (albeit released under an open content license) of the editors, the actual wiki was chronarion's. It was his to do with as he wished. However, I believe his intent was to improve the flexibility of our experience, not to cast us to the wind. Carlb, from what I remember, uncyclopedia.info's purpose was as a placeholder and companion to the eventual sister project languages domains (which would only ever have come about by givin the domain to Wikia, Inc, as you know), not a competitor :(. There are technical aspects that can hopefully be addressed, now that Wikia has more technical staff who are not working just on one upgrade.

As for merged user databases, databasi? That is more a technical matter, it would make several of the staffs jobs much easier, such as interwiki vandalism and global rights adjustments. If you have two logins, just edit on uncyc with one login an wikia with the other. As they have separate domain names, the cookies (which can't cross) won't even stop you from being logged in with two users on different wikis. I don't really see a problem with that aspect.

It annoys and scares me to think that Uncyclopedia is now so resistive to change as to only find negative aspects of this change of ownership. "Uncyclopedia wants to remain its own entity and does not want to become a part of the wikias." --> It has been part of Wikia for most of its existance and almost all of its significant additions. Has it gained nothing so far? "The community doesn't want Wikia to make huge changes without the community's knowledge and support." --> Have they raped and pillaged the other projects? Or have they supplied them with an ever growing techical staff (who' by the way, have just spent a very stressful 6 weeks trying to track down a bug inside thousands of revisions, to upgrade to the newer 1.7, so that we could have parserfunctions) and community team. "What's there to gain with the licensing?" --> not much for them, MORE DOMAINS FOR US!

So in conclusion (and I am ambivalent about some views, being both staff and having done 99% of all my career wiki edits ever to this particular wiki) so I'll have to split this comment: <uncyclopedia user>CALM THE FUCK DOWN YOU UNGRATEFUL BASTARDS!</uncyclopedia user> <wikia staff>Please trust our intentions are honourable and benign</wikia staff>.

--Splaka 08:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

MORE DOMAINS FOR US!....never thought of it that way. --Icons-flag-us.png SonicChao Babbel!Contribs 12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"More domains for us" as in http://en.uncyclomedia.org after this domain is pulled out from under us and sold? :lol:
Also, what does the ownership of the uncyclopedia.org domain registration have to do with the parser functions? I don't recall anyone here yelling and screaming for parser functions, we just made a handy Wikia guinea pig if they needed to watch our site (and the traffic volume that it brings in) break in order to serve their test or diagnostic purposes. A red herring. --Carlb 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Divergence of Interests

What has happened is that Wikia, a company, has taken ownership of Uncyclopedia. We are assured that only positive changes will happen. No matter what they intended they would say this, its not like they would come out and say they intend to do negative changes, that might get people mad after all. Wikia is careful with its words because it doesn't want to alienate anyone in this community. This in itself isn't bad, it shows they are intelligent businesspeople. At least we can be glad that an unintelligent business hasn't taken us over, what a catastrophe that would be.
But one is left wondering what they have to gain. Taking the ownership of Uncyclopedia and the domain means they now pay the bills for it. What a gregarious move, no? Wikia would not have done this without something to gain, because they have proven above that they are intelligent businesspeople. Sure, we made Wikia a profit. We are the biggest Wiki out there, outside of Wikipedia. We are funny, we are large, and we are fairly well known. But we were this before they bought us out. If they speak the truth that our interests will not be abandoned, why would they have lowered their profitability by taking on the domain as an expense? The answer to this is that they now can take the site to places that are in their interests. It is the only logical thing to expect from good businesspeople. They would not have taken on that expense if they did not get something out of it; more than they put in.
It is here that lies the divergence of interests. As the outright owners, they have the full ability to implement changes that will benefit their goals, such as shared user logons, when we on our own would not have wanted such a thing - in fact we outright rejected the idea. To be able to honestly say that they just want to help us - or aid in our continuity, is to deny that they are the business savvy people that they are. The only reason that they would aggressively pursue our purchase is because they could implement changes in the direction they want, that we would not have otherwise done or wanted.
That is not to say everything they will do is bad, hardly. Some things will most certainly be things we wanted. Some things will be cool additions, that will give us a momentary feeling of "Hey, I wish I thought of that!" But, just as it is ignorant to think it will be all bad, it is ignorant to think that everything they will do will be good for us. Rest assured, everything they do will be good for them, but what is good for them is not necessarily good for us.
Most disappointing of all is that this was done in the background, and we were in the dark. The fact that this extremely large change comes only to the communities knowledge after it is completed, and the fact that our site has suddenly given away its power of self determination in such an utter and complete manner is perhaps the true jumping of the shark for Uncyclopedia and its community.
The idea that we have given this away, and now are in the position of an entity holding the power to do as they wish, is indeed quite sad. But that's where they are, and along with the knowledge that they will act in their interests, you can also rest assured that there is nothing that can be said that will change this. So spread the gospel of Wikia far and wide, the good news is here. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear... Don't cause panic when there is no reason to. Wikia will not do the user database merge if we don't want them to. They will not change us in any way (except the MediaWiki software) if we ask not to be changed. Wikia has been hosting us for over a year now, with the only major differences being that Chronarion had the trademarks rights and was the owner of the domain. The latter was nothing else but an obstacle, because Wikia couldn't give us the subdomains we wanted due to the administrative detours it would involve. As for the trademarks: why would Wikia take places we don't want to go, as this would undoubtably lead to a great loss of community and as such render the name Uncyclopedia worthless? In other words: we still own the community, no matter what they do.
As for what they might hope to gain? Contributors to other wikia, perhaps? Oh, and maybe make their job a little easier in keeping us happy. Guess you've shot that down now, though... --~ sin($) tan() 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
(bit of an edit conflict with that damn MoneySign, but pasting what I wanted to say anyway:)
Wikia has been absorbing the costs of Uncyclopedia since the move of hosting. There is nothing in this that means extra cost, it's just a switch of ownership of the domain/trademark - not the hosting, not the bandwidth, not the staffing costs... all that was already as it is now. And of course, the content ownership is the same too - copyright of the contributors, licensed under the CC-BY-NC-SA. Wikia hasn't, can't and doesn't want to buy that (and if you don't think a wiki company can't be set up that takes your copyright, look at some of Wikia's competitors.)
Of course Wikia plans to be a profitable business - it would be non-profit like the last thing Jimbo set up if that weren't the case, but extrapolating that to "they are going to stuff us" is just not on. I work for Wikia, but I also love Uncyclopedia. This is my wiki of choice for spending my free time, I no more want to see problems here than any other user. I honestly believe that this will not harm Uncyclopedia and very much hope that it will benefit us. All that is with my work hat firmly off. -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia rocks, as it is. That's why I offered to buy it. What is our business plan for Uncyclopedia? To demonstrate to the active community here, and by extension other communities, that we know how to not fuck people. Our entire business model depends on showing the world that we are a serious alternative to Yahoo, Google, etc., etc. because we represent a totally different approach... a totally wiki approach... to website management.--Jimbo Wales 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Jimbo :])
My concern has been whether we'd be allowed to set up a non-profit organization for the distribution of our content later on in the game. Wikia would allow this (as an expression of intent, not a legally binding agreement). All we would need is permission to use the name, and they would give it to us. The content is still ours, the community is still ours, the hosting is still theirs. This is finishing old news, sort of, the move that took place last year. No matter whether Chron should've done what he did, he did do it. We can make the best of it or we can throw a fit. And as with any project, we have the right to fork and the right to leave. --Keitei, who hopes it doesn't come down to any of that 20:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't have to ask permission. The content is ours, we wrote it. The word "uncyclopedia" isn't theirs to take from us. It was already in active use for too long in too many places; to trademark a word would require stating that the word is a trade name at the time it was coined - not trying years later to trademark something that others are already using. That's just dishonest. The fact that they even tried this (and pulled a domain name out from under us with no prior consulation with anyone) is clear evidence of bad faith.
At this point, all that's left to do is to change the domain name ever so slightly, move the project to a dedicated server with no bloody gargle ads, and get the word out to every site externally linking to us that we've lost control of the original domain name. Not much else we can do, unless we want to spend a lot of money on lawyers to force them to take our CC-BY-NC-SA content down now that the domain is being owned and used for-profit.– Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.150.76.4 (talk • contribs)
First of all, please sign your edits so one doesn't get you confused with someone else. Secondly: it seems you're not even listening to the statements in favour of Wikia. They didn't buy ANYTHING from underneath us. If you want to look at actual ownership, it was Chronarion's to do with as he pleased. And he didn't even sell it, because Wikia was ALREADY paying for it. As for the contents of this site: it has ALWAYS belonged to the contributors and will continue to do. And the CC-BY-NC-SA licence isn't going to change either. As for the trademark-stuff: we won't be asking permission to use the term "Uncyclopedia". At least no more than we would be asking permission from Chronarion... Can't you see that basicly nothing has really changed for us, except that Wikia will be able to answer our questions about this or that or whatnots straight away (i.e.: We tell Wikia that we want http://en.unnews.org as a seperate wiki. They'll most likely reply with "Ok. We're on it".)
Oh, and the only reason they didn't tell us before is quite simply because they made a very stupid mistake and can't appologize enough for it!!! --~ sin($) tan() 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

unnews.org isn't Wikia's to give you, sorry. And where are they attempting to "apologise" to any of us for any of what's happened? --Carlb 17:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering why everyone is referring to WIkia as this big huge corporate interest company, when really they're just a small group of individuals trying to do some good. This is proven when Jombo himself comes and tries to calm us down, and by the fact that many a wikia staffer contributes to uncyclopedia. They're not a Halliburton or an Enron, they're the coffeshop at the end of the block with vintage Nazi propaganda posters hanging in the window. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting... Wikia has investors to answer to now, and millions of dollars are (inexplicably) involved. That changes things. If many of the 1600 wikia are empty, dead or orphan, Wikia needs some sort of success story to present to the people in the suits with the big bucks to justify their having tied up so much cash in this. Claiming to pwn Uncyclopedia, which despite all its silly quirks is an active and unique project with plenty of users and activity, may help them appease investors. That's not necessarily anything that addresses what is (or isn't) in our best interests, we're just a trophy that might look good on the boardroom wall for unknown and incomprehensible reasons. Yes, there is some overlap between the two communities, and before this turned into a corporate who-owns-what nightmare the relationship was a close and reasonably amicable one. Hard to say what to expect for the future, though. People act strangely when money and influence with well-heeled investors come into play. Wax nostalgic if you like, but the small coffeeshop of which you reminisce is no more. It just got bought out by Star Bucks Corporation, Inc. What happens after that is anyone's guess. Pity, but welcome to the real world. --Carlb 03:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but re: "and before this turned into a corporate who-owns-what nightmare the relationship was a close and reasonably amicable one", you seem to be the one who is turning into that nightmare currently. :( --Splaka 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Carlb has stated he had no prior knowledge, so it seems unlikely that he is responsible for the transfer of ownership. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior use of "uncyclopedia"

The (possibly) first commercial use of the "uncyclopedia" name may well be:

The Uncyclopedia : Everything You Never Knew You Wanted to Know by Gideon Haigh
Hardcover - 176 pages 0 edition (September 15, 2004) ISBN1401301533

Chron and Stillwaters didn't use "uncyclopedia" in any context until January 2005. Even then, the site was originally located at mrpalmguru.com (an address which is now cybersquatter/linkspam rubbish), so uncyclopedia as a domain name is more recent.

The baseball uncyclopedia is more recent, at least in paperback:

The Baseball Uncyclopedia: A Highly Opinionated, Myth-Busting Guide to the Great American Game, by Michael Kun
Paperback - 256 pages (February 10, 2006) Emmis Books ISBN1578602335

If trademarks normally are used for commercial or for-profit activity, publishing mass-market books would be more likely to qualify than a little CC-BY_NC-SA wiki like this one - especially if the book was out the year before the website was started.

Still one could argue that Uncyclopedia is a general use term, because it is really Encyclopedia based which is a generic term. Even if there is prior art, Uncyclopedia.org is humor based and parody is fair use of a trademarked name. Uncyclopedia itself is a parody of Encyclopedia, and its use might go back farther than that if we search Google and other search engines and see if anyone used it. Chances are that the book "The Uncyclopedia" did not trademark the name Uncyclopedia. Ray Bradbury wanted to sue Michael Moore over "Fahrenheit 911" being a rip-off name of "Fahrenheit 451", but found that he did not trademark the phrase "Fahrenheit 451" and that fahrenheit is a general use word and thus his lawsuit failed. Just saying is all. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikia isn't trying to claim "fair use for parody", they're claiming to own the word "Uncyclopedia". Jimbo wants to trademark that word outright. Big difference.

If some Mickey Mouse™ corporation which only earns a paltry $2.5 billion/year is behind Hyperion Books (publisher of the "everything you never knew you wanted to know" Uncyclopedia back in 2004), what if they try to use the title "Uncyclopedia" again on the "23 Ways to Get to First Base: The ESPN Sports Uncyclopedia" book (ISBN 1933060107) in 2007? They're going to be in big trouble because Jimbo wants to claim the name. OH NOES! If Wikia sues them and tries to have them thrown out of the Magic Kingdom forever, hopefully their lawyer Donald Duck and a group of animated cartoon mice will arrive at the last minute, just in time to save the day. It's their only hope, what else is a poor Fortune 500 company to do when forced to stare down a massive corporate behemoth like Wikia Inc.? --Carlb 06:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

More idle speculation

That Wikia would want to pwn the Uncyclopedia in order to control the (substantial) web traffic it brings in would make sense. Perhaps they primarily want uncyclopedia.org to use us to drive traffic to other Wikia-hosted sites (many of which, lets face it, are abandoned, empty or as dead as a doornail). While there are a few wikia which are success stories (various science-fiction fan clubs and some site full of people dressed as furry animals come to mind), hundreds of others are dead enough that they should've been closed ages ago. Much like a shopping centre landlord needs that big department store and that fat supermarket as "anchor" tenants to bring in people and foot traffic so that smaller stores can be rented to niche marketers at exorbitant rates, Wikia may well need the few big projects like ours to get web traffic in order to attempt to drive visitors to the hundreds of near-empty projects on the site.
Uncyclopedia could well be the only project to be primarily Wikia-based despite having wikis in twenty-two languages (eight of which are externally-hosted, scattered even as far afield as Sweden) with a dedicated box on order. How many Wikia can claim to be in that position? A very tiny minority come close in traffic (and in having several languages) but we are reaching a point where Wikia needs us more than we need them.
As recently as a few months ago, there were only a couple of non-Wikia Uncyclopedias (de: and fi:), one of which seems to have been hosted on someone's home computer. Now we're at the point where there are some things we can't do (such as dumping a full 22-volume set of Uncyclopedia mirrors in the various languages onto one server, with a proper commons: setup and a fully-working set of subdomains and interlanguage links) without going to a dedicated box. With traffic to the handful of external Babel projects already over a gigabyte a day (and yes, MediaWiki is database-intensive by nature) we've outgrown shared hosts for some of these projects and the upgrade was pretty much inevitable. None of our external sites carry advertising; none of our external sites are used primarily to drive traffic to wikis outside Uncyclopedia. The external sites also give us full or relatively-full access in order to update things ourselves instead of having to beg for months just to get something small like an update to the interlanguage link table. The same is not true of Wikia-hosted sites.
Before the incident with the backroom-deals to transfer ownership and control of the project to entities outside the Uncyclopedia community, relations between the two communities were amicable and there was significant overlap between Wikians and Uncyclopedians. Odds are that, had no attempt been made by Wikia to claim outright ownership of the Uncyclopedia project and identifying marks, the community here would have been quite glad to stay put and leave the new server for the Taiwanese, the Brazilians or whomever else in the Uncyclopedia community is already external and actually needs the expanded server capacity. While we've been deleting pages more quickly than we create them, some of those projects have doubled in size in the last few months, if only because they have a brazillion people to add their patented nonsense to a relatively new wiki base.
If this is anywhere close to an accurate guess of what's happened to date, for Jimbo or anyone else in Wikia to blunder in after a backroom deal transferring ownership (and directly attacking the autonomy of the project as a whole) and claim that no one here had a right to be told what was going on because the Uncyclopedia name isn't ours but is just another commodity was dumb. Making major changes without consulting the community and then insisting that after-the-fact that this is "good news" and that we have no right to speak up and object or that all this is a "trivial change" to the point that our asking what's going on is an act of sheer arrogance? That would be adding insult to injury, especially if Wikia needs us more than we need them. They would have been far better off to work with us instead of trying to work against us. I have no idea why they made a blunder on this scale. After all, at the end of this, all they get for their money is a domain name. Being uncyclopedia.org instead of uncyclopaedia, uncyclopeedia or one of countless other possible variations means that visitors can find the site - certainly something of importance and not to be underestimated. Without the content, that stuff we wrote, it is rather useless though.
If this was being planned in some smoke-filled back room somewhere for months, certainly those involved had ample time to think this over and realise that nearly-unilaterally claiming outright ownership of a project that countless others in this community had spent more than a year to build was going to suscitate some sort of reaction - perhaps a rather pointed and divisive one - once the whole question was reviewed in the open by the community as a whole. Moving half of the existing community to some other server and domain while the other half stays here isn't something I'd advocate - it's actually the worst thing that could happen to the project as without the community intact the rest of this is worthless to anyone. If the intention were to avoid an acrimonious, after-the-fact discussion of who owns what and who has the most lawyers/computers/domains/whatever, Wikia really should've tried to work with us - not against us - by raising these issues with the Uncyclopedian community before messing with the ownership of existing domains or projects. To handle this they way they did is heavy-handed and divisive, not something that's a terribly bright thing to do if they were banking on the traffic this Uncyclopedia brings in order to bring visitors to some of their other, less active wikis. --Carlb 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Much ado over nothing

I am going to suggest that this is much ado over nothing. Wikia has kindly hosted us for over a year, for practically no money. Google ads make just about nothing. The only thing that is changing is that they control the domains and such now.

I think you are throwing rocks at people before they even do anything wrong. They're not about to turn the page into a giant mess of ads. If they *do* do that, then you have a right to throw rocks. Until then, I don't think you're being very fair. --Chronarion 23:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I agree... Until we start seeing Google ads down the right-hand side of the browser window, I don't see how anything is likely to change at all. It's the internet, after all, and anything can happen at any time! Until someone either tries to sue them for content that's available here, or else simply buys them outright, I just wouldn't worry about it. Anyway, sorry to butt in, but I saw the "Much ado" there and I guess I must have panicked.  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Chronarion, to put it simply, the reason there is "much ado" about this is the fact that we now have an entity, outside of the community, that can do things that would put us in a position where we have to "throw rocks." And the fact that we are suddenly in this position, without being able to discuss it before it was carried out and made irreversable. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chron here, let's just see how this plays out before we start throwing stones. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 02:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for remaining skeptical. When I first heard about this situation a couple months ago, I was surprised and certainly a bit dismayed just because we were going to become even more depedent on Wikia. But logically, what would Wikia have to gain by screwing up Uncyc? It would be easy for us, and especially those in the community who have been here and contributing and running the place for a long time, to up and just leave if things started going downhill. For a time, at least, that would essentially cripple the wiki. Unless that is their actual intention - and, unless Jimbo is harboring a secret hatred for us as a WP parody, I'm guessing it isn't - that puts the pressure on them to keep us content. Of course I'm reserving judgment for now, but what's done is done and getting preemtorily hysterical about it is unhelpful and won't change things. —rc (t) 02:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Be glad if you were told anything. The rest of us were kept in the dark and fed like mushrooms --Carlb 02:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone accuses Chron of playing favorites, I found out by accident through an email exchange with someone involved in the whole arrangement, after which event I asked Chron about it and he explained it further. —rc (t) 03:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I did not find out until the end of last month when I was staffed (when they were still deciding what to do). --Splaka 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled across the information that Chron didn't hold the trademarks anymore when I asked him what the trademark status was. He mentioned that Wikia had them and we'd have to work something out with them for the merchandise stuff. I figured it'd happened a long time ago, before I was around or something. I didn't "find out" until everybody started making a stink. --Keitei, who doesn't want to fuel a conspiracy theory because there wasn't one 05:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

All this Can-D is OK, but I highly recommend the Chew-Z. That is all... you may now return to Earth. -- Unrealised what? 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What Administrative Difficulties?

...I'm asking nicely elsewhere. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Main article: Forum:Things don't add up... hmmm... nah, couldn't be an international conspiracy...

And what of the investors?

I suppose the real risk isn't just that, in the event of any future conflict between "what's best for uncyclopedia?" versus "what's best for wikia?", we are doomed to lose out. The issue is more that "what's good for the investors?" will come up foremost with any of the Wikia staff who have been participating in this caught in the middle. Sure, Jimbo would have us believe that this mess of Google ads brings in only chump change and that the project still qualifies as "non-commercial" for CC-BY-NC-SA purposes, but what does he tell the investors? The only way they're going to sink money into something like this is if they have reason to believe not only that it'll make them a profit, but that that profit will be much more than they'd make if they just bought stock in Mall-Wart, put their cash in Christmas Clubs and savings bonds or stashed it away in their sock drawer under all of the puppets. Otherwise, no reason for them to take the higher risk of betting millions on whatever financial advice they read in the pages of Uncyclopædia.

One of two outcomes is possible. Either Jimbo is having us on and this mess of Gargle links is bringing in brazillions of dollars, or he's not and a bunch of investors in suits with high-falutin' city-slicker lawyers are going to be demanding some major changes to the site - even if it means turning it into the next geoshitties just so that they can get out not only every penny invested but also enough profit to make it worthwhile. That's what investors do, they are in this to make money. That's their job, effectively. What else would one expect?

If the people with the big bucks demand that the next edition of Memory Alpha be sponsored by "Enterprise 1-800-rent-a-capsule" and that every page of Uncyc look like a mess of blinking "FREE EPILEPSY TEST!" banners, Jimbo and Wikia might be limited in their options and not have a whole lot of choice. We don't have millions of dollars and the level of influence that goes with it, the investors do. Guess who gets the short end of the stick if interests conflict with Wikia caught in the middle?

It's not a technical question. It's a business question. --Carlb 12:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that people take your warning seriously, because it's a very realistic scenario if what we've been told is true and the site doesn't make money (or at the very least, break even). I'm uncertain, but I would be surprised if our rank hit hasn't resulted in lower ad value. Granted my experience with google ads is a couple years old, but at that time I worked with a very large site (they had the top google result for almost any search that included a few site-related keywords, which is not an easy task) that had hit rates theoretically similar to uncyclopedia, and they could pay for their monthly 8TB of bandwidth, regular server upgrades, rack space, and colo facility tech work, at a very impressive Tier 1 ISP. They even made a small profit... Of course, uncyclopedia doesn't have as much ad real estate, and ad blocking is far more common now than back then, so who knows.
I certainly would have prefered a non-profit foundation, but you take what you can get/afford. I'm worried about the fact that there's nothing more than an assurance that there will be no negative changes, especially when you consider the apparent lies in the past. Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me for intruding again, but I'm not so sure increased Google revenue is the main impetus here, even if it is more substantial than they're letting on. I may be wrong about this, but the way I see it, the big buck$ are in corporate wiki hosting and consulting. I'm tangentially involved with a couple of companies that do that, and there is a lot of money to be made - and the bigger the enterprise, the more likely it is to want to go with a market leader with name recognition, namely Wikia. Going by that theory, all their free public wikis (including this one) are just window dressing, loss leaders to keep the numbers up. Dawg and Carlb both make some very good points - I have no illusions about Wikia's motives either, and to some extent they are using us and the other Wikias to boost those numbers — but that's just what they do anyway, and for the same reason I think they'll actually resist the idea of greater intrusiveness for the Google ads. If anything, increased corporate-wiki revenue might make them less dependent on Googlebucks, and those ads might even go away eventually. But like I say, I could be wrong, the whole thing might be a conspiracy to take us down... I just think it's pointless to worry about it until we see something more definite.  c • > • cunwapquc? 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't say if they're making money, honestly. Their overhead is enormous, lower than, but somewhat comparable to, many small late-90s startups, though they do have a few distinct advantages. Regardless, I would appreciate an official response citing applicable laws that explains their prior actions and supposed policies; I don't see what has changed between now and then except the name on the whois, which should never have been an issue. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Who is saying it is a conspiracy to take us down? ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody, really - that's just a worst-case scenario. Sorry for any, uh, misunderstanding there... You've made some good points too, Rangeley, some of which I wouldn't have expected from a conservative type such as yourself. The thing is, I run a for-profit business, albeit a small one, and I can tell you that businesses don't do everything based on the bottom line. Some businessmen are more forward-thinking than that, and are willing to lose a few hundred bucks now to make a few thousand down the road (or a few thousand to make a few million). Going by that reasoning, buying our domain name could just be a glorified marketing expense. I was as surprised as anyone because there's a lot of content on this site that's just-plain offensive, not to mention critical of all things Wikipedia-related, and that's also why it's possible to conceive of it as a "take-down" - but I'd also assume that a typical investor isn't going to be as concerned with content if the point is really to bring in private consulting and hosting revenue. You see similar things happening in the publishing industry - people will print loads of crap that loses money just to establish a recognizable brand name, and then the money starts coming in from other sources simply because of that recognizability. If happens in other industries too, I suspect... Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now; it's starting to smell too soapy in here.  c • > • cunwapquc? 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC) <- (Sorry, I forgot to sign in that time...)
I agree with Mr User. I appreciate that a lot of people feel disappointed that they weren't individually consulted, after all our hard work too! But shit happens, and we've just got to get on with it. Wikia have taken on a commitment to maintain Uncyclopedia, none of us are able to say 100% that the reason is this or that, but we either work with it or we don't. Regardless of who owns what, don't lose sight of the fact that WE are Uncyclopedia, the community of contributors who waste away our hours here. I don't personally think that Wikia are going to do anything that would generate massive negativity for themselves. Uncyclopedia and Wikia can only succeed as long as people are willing to put the time in to make things happen. Lets get back to making the funny. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Individually consulted? The objection is in that this was not brought up to the community at all, until it was already irreversable. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I know, no one is happy with it, but it happened. I'm sure that if the clock could turn back Chron would have brought it up to a wider group, by thats with hindsight. We are where we are. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Will this be the attitude when other things are done without the communities input? ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think that our new evil overlords would seek the approval of the masses before any major changes in future. Not that I'm hoping their will be many. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
Dunno. The question of whether Wikia intends to make "major changes" or implement "negative changes" without consulting the community is also a slippery one. Like an advertisement claiming Brand Z dog food is "simply delicious" or that some big bank that charges $20 in service charges and pays a penny or two interest "is working their hardest to make your money work for you", these are statements of opinion. One can say anything, no matter how implausible, and if it's "just my opinion" then it can't be flagged as deliberately false. Nothing stopping anyone from claiming that a hundred pop-up ads on every page, were they to ever appear here, aren't "a positive and beneficial change to the site" and "great news" (as they would provide Wikia with more money to buy faster servers to download more ads, a change that could only benefit us) or "a minor change, not worth consulting the community in advance" because some other site has been using popups for years. And then there's the "oh, it must have been an innocent mistake" angle - also a meaningless statement of opinion.
In my opinion, changing something as fundamental as the ownership of the project is a "major change" and the cost to the autonomy of Uncyclopedia as a community a "negative change". And yes, we should have been consulted, in my opinion. Wikia may well try to claim the opposite on every one of these opinions. We may well see this same pattern when other changes are implemented with no consultation with the community beforehand. Such is the risk in trying to nail down anything which is a statement of opinion. Buyer beware, I guess... --Carlb 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...

Seems to me we should wait and make SURE that Wikia is a Wiki of Mass Destruction before we invade their servers and torch the place... In any case, I'm not sure Chron deserves all the hate I see on this page. It's his F@^$-ing wiki, he can with it what he wants. Wikia was ALREADY running the day-to-day around here. For, like, a year. They just had to ask Chron if it was ok every step of the way, which was kind of a hassle (he isn't easy to contact, you know).

Here's an analogy inpired by someone earlier. If your friend had an XBox360, and you wanted one but couldn't afford it, but could afford a game you wanted to play, and your friend suggested you go ahead and buy it and play it on his, and you say, "ok." Now you can play that game, at your friend's house. Your friend doesn't touch it without asking you first, because it's your game, but you don't keep it at home, because you don't have an XBox360. Eventually, would't you just give the game to your friend? Especially if he promises to let you play it anytime you come over, and he hasn't given you any reason to distrust him so far?

Allow me this moment of disappointment in the community's overreaction to all this - just about every one of you people pledged undying devotion to the man for his brilliant idea of creating a humor-wiki-community. He makes ONE decision you don't like (which may or MAY NOT even BE a big deal) and "off with his head!" His sin here is not consulting the community about a decision he made, something he's been doing since the wiki started, and everyone loved him for it before. That just seems kinda ... shitty to me, you know? That's my two cents, anyway. Take this for what it's worth.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

An XBox? Um, why...? We don't need some proprietary Mickeysoft game console if these boxes can run Uncyclux and do what we need. It's not a "you wanted one but couldn't afford it" question anymore. --Carlb 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Who hates Chronarion? ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The prevailing tone of the above comments seem to me to be "OMG! Chron screwed us! Now what'll we do?" Seems kinda negative, yes?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Than you, and anyone else who feels this way, is mistaken. I cant really speak for everyone, but I will anyway - the people who are objecting are doing so out of concern for Uncyclopedia. Others dont seem to think that this is an issue, and some, like you, seem to have the attitude that "its done, no use talking about it." I was, on the other hand, compelled to state the problems that were obvious to me, that we are now in a position where our interests are second to that of an outside entity. This should not be interpretted to mean "wikia is evil!" or "lets form a lynch mob," and its actually sort of troubling that it would be taken that way. Wikia is not evil, they are simply a business with their own interests. They have every right to have their own interests, but my beef is that I do not like the fact that their interests will now supercede our own. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so we've established that you don't feel hurt or betrayed by Chron. Good. Since that is established, the question becomes, "What now?" I sense you have a general distrust for corporations, but Wikia hasn't given us any reason to distrust them to this point. They've been running the show for a year now. If they screw us, we'll pack up and leave, just as we would have a year ago. What's the big deal NOW?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I wish you would not misrepresent my views, I have never said I distrust corporations, or that Wikia is evil (I said the opposite). Wikia was the host of Uncyclopedia since May 2005. A host is not the owner of a site, for instance a site I run is hosted by an outside company on their servers, but they cannot add things to my site unless I ask. Sure, they keep things running smoothly, thats what hosts do. And thats what Wikia did, as the host of Uncyclopedia. It was not until yesterday that Wikia became the owners of Uncyclopedia. I dont know why you would question "why now" would I have these concerns, because it was not until now that we were in this situation. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And here we have a problem that stems from the fact we no longer have a singular 2nd person in the English language. :) Y'all (the folks raising objections) seem to distrust Wikia simply because it's a corporation. You (Rangeley) NEVER owned Uncyclopedia. Also, if you did not distrust corporations (or, at the very least, THIS corporation), why be so concerned over the change in ownership?--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with distrust? Wikia will act in its interest, there is no issue of trust. Just like we would act in our interest, they will act in theirs, it is an easy, simple concept. Chronarion is a member of this community, and a pivotal part of it at that. His ownership of the site is as logical as an American being President, a Canadian being Prime Minister, an Iranian being the Ayatollah. Wikia is not a part of the community. They have their own interests, that of Wikias. I dont have anything against the United Kingdom, they are a great country infact. But I would not want the United States to all of a sudden be sold to them, so that they have the final say on what we do. Do I own America? No, but I would like for the people running it to be from America, with America's interests at heart. Did I ever own Uncyclopedia? No, but I would like for the people running Uncyclopedia to be from Uncyclopedia, with Uncyclopedia's interests at heart. It has nothing to do with trust or lack thereof, and everything to do with autonomy and self determination. This was given away, and this was a bad decision. You asked above, "what now?" Hope for the best, since there isnt anything else that can be done. I am not stating my concerns to get people to start a fight, you seem to be framing it as a choice between thinking this was wise and leaving. It simply is not that way. The decision was a bad one, and that is all I am saying. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, how I see it is that the decision is made. I don't see the huge gulf between Wikia and us, but you do. Sure, I would have liked to have been part of that decision as much as you would, but the fact is that it was Chron's to make. I'm sure that Wikia and Chron are just as floored by the negative feedback they're getting about this deal as we were by the announcement in the first place. I'm not sure the political analogy works, but I started the random, non-applicable analogizing so I won't nit-pick that. Repeating that you think it's a bad decision and why over and over again when there's nothing that can be done about it at this point only serves to depress Chron (in my mind), which is why I'm trying to get it to stop. That's my motivation. You know I have the upmost respect for you and your work here, and am not really interested in butting heads over this until we hate each other.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's misleading to say that there's "nothing that can be done". If we (as authors) own the content, we do have the unconditional right to leave and take this whole mess to some other domain on some other server. It's ours, after all. Whether we want to do that is another, entirely different question - a key distinction. Certainly quite a few would prefer not to see that happen, at least not yet. Entirely understandable. To say we can't, however, is a mite bit too fatalistic, methinks. We wrote it, it's ours. To act as if our opinions on this issue mean absolutely nothing is rather foolhardy. --Carlb 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
To think that this is done to depress Chronarion is silly. We all make mistakes. The reason I have stated it is a bad decision over and over is because people are trying to say it was a good decision, in what I see as a well intentioned, happy go lucky attitude that really wants to feel this change doesnt matter. But I think that this is dangerous, there needs to be an understanding of what Uncyclopedia has gotten into, and closing your eyes and humming isnt going to make it go away. You say you dont think there is a large gulf between Wikia and us, and I dont necessarilly disagree. The point is that there now can be a gulf between what is done and what is good for us, that did not exist before this. And I also see this show of concern as beneficial to Uncyclopedia, it shows that making large decisions without our foreknowledge will not lead us to simply keel over and accept it. What a message that would send if we all simply accepted this due to it being done. Perhaps now the decision makers at Wikia will think twice about making large changes without talking to us. There is no attempt to make people feel bad, its an attempt to get people to face the reality of where we are, and show that the community does indeed care what happens to the site. I dont see the need to stop this. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, just so we're clear on this: I'm not associated with Wikia in ANY WAY except for the fact that I use a website that has been hosted and is now owned by them. I was neither consulted nor informed of either decision until Carl mentioned it in the chatroom that first night. I have a great deal of respect for Chron, and that's why I put my foot down above and said that this "Chron made a bad call" chorus needed to stop. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but it read that way to me, and kinda got me ticked off (obviously). I'm sure that both of your opinions have been noted, as they've been spelled out in detail. The fact that you are each respected and more than useful contributors to the wiki (moreso than I, notably) doesn't hurt. If you announced you were both leaving over this, a good hunk of the wiki to follow, a great schizm would occur, this Uncyclopedia would die, the newly formed Uncyclopedia would be severely weakened, the internet would go on as though nothing happened, and I'll be a little sadder. It IS an option, but I don't think we're anywhere near time to discuss it. As far as sending a message that "decisions made without our input will not be taken well" goes, I think that point was made pretty early on in this page. :) My purposes for commenting were to put an end to the negativity, and it seems I've failed in that regard, though hopefully not completely. I'll try to back out now that I've stopped contributing contructively, myself.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's possible to end the negativity, if that's really what it is. Rangeley and Carlb are both spot-on about quite a lot of this - it probably would be a good thing to have a contingency plan, and to some extent, for it to be known that a contingency plan exists. So I'd say this might well be a good time to buy some similar-sounding domain names, figure out what it would take to reestablish the wiki on another host, and so on... But at the same time, we have to bear two things in mind here. First, having domains, servers, and software in place represents a huge temptation to put your contingency plan into action at the slightest provocation, and possibly one that might not warrant it. Second, making a big deal about the contingency plan could backfire on us all, and sabotage whatever goodwill we may have in place at the outset of this new arrangement. You just have to be careful, that's all; Bradley is right about the effect schisms can have on online communities, so it would be best to be as quiet about it as possible without making it a complete secret. But either way, domain names are simply commodities - they're not like nations, or even communities, at least not unto themselves... Corporate ownership of the domain name does change things, but we're still the ones adding value to that name, not them. More importantly, that value can just as easily decrease the same way, and you can bet your bippy they're aware of that too! And in conclusion, I'd just like to add a gratuitous cliche here and mention that I like pie.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well Brad, I suppose an issue I have is the unrealistic positivity you and others are portraying. Its like if someone loses a leg, and another comments "well you still have one, no reason to complain." Stating you have lost a leg is being realistic, stating you have lost a leg and your life is over is being negative. Uncyclopedia has lost its autonomy. This is a realistic statement, and I will not stop saying it simply because it doesnt make someone happy. I am not saying its the end of Uncyclopedia, but just like the loss of a leg, its clearly a loss. If you are worried about me all of a sudden announcing I am leaving, you can rest assured that I will not do this. Do we reserve the right to leave? Sure, everyone has their threshold, this doesnt happen to be mine however. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us.png GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If the current issue is one of domain name transfers being made with no prior consultation with the community, and a domain name is the primary means for Uncyclopedians to find the project, then "making a big deal about the contigency plan" isn't something over which we have much choice. All affected need to be able to find the backup site or sites long before they're ever needed... even if we don't know that we'll ever need to use them as anything more than simple mirrors. Like the warning on the 'wheelify a page' header states, "...humour isn't funny if you can't find it." Sorry about that. --Carlb 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I WAS the basis for the main character in Candied... good to hear you're not leaving. Silly as it sounds, it eases my mind somewhat.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Candied... is that the one about remaining optimistic in the face of taffy? Written by Voltoblerone, or something like that. -- Imrealized 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Uoi--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 02:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Brad. The thing is, if Chron had died (there's still time whilst the lynching party is out) as the individual owner of the domain it would have been very difficult for us to do anything once the name ran out, and we may have faced the possibility of losing the domain name. At least Wikia are not likely to get hit by a bus tomorrow. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
About that... HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Local or express? --Carlb 22:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Both. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, the other thing is that i'm not entirely out of the loop, you know. It's not as if they are suddenly running everything without asking me now. I'm still running things, so to speak, just under their employ now. --Chronarion 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you're "under their employ", isn't the normal meaning of those words (si je comprends l'anglais) that they don't ask you, they tell you? They're the ones running things, so to speak - they're not under your employ. Have I missed something here? --Carlb 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
UnNews:Uncyclopedia founder Chronarion new head of Wikia. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Okey dokey, someone really should write that article. Crazyswordsman 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey look, a frickin' novella

Here's a bit of commentary from someone who should probably just keep it to himself — I feel like a bit of an outsider as far as all of this is concerned, merely because I am not internets-savvy so a great deal of the technical mumbo-jumbo is lost on me (like the shared login stuff). But what I can discern is that everyone here is committed to and wants the best for this wiki, no matter their feelings on this particular matter. So we all have that in common. The problem (not so much a problem as a difference of opinion) is that some see this as a completely bad move, or a mistake, while others are basically saying, "Wikia hasn't done anything to us to make us fear them, at least not yet, anyway." Now, imagine if somewhere along the way Wikia actually did do something that legitimately fucked with us and our home... there would be no difference of opinion as, based on the dedication I see from everyone here, I would imagine that all the people who are saying, "give them a chance at least," would suddenly be extremely pissed off, especially since they went to bat for Wikia. So everyone here would be enraged, together, in solidarity. Where would Wikia be then? We would pack up all of our funny articles and kick-ass pics and find a brand-new home (maybe we'd leave them I maed a yuky doody just for effect). What would their investment be worth then? I'm sure if Jimbo wanted an empty wiki there were any number of options presented to him that wouldn't involve coming here, pissing off a shit-ton of intelligent users who would suddenly have serious qualms with Wikia and leave for greener pastures. I'm certain he's got the forethought to see that this would be the outcome. This move was obviously not done to close down Uncyclopedia because, as I said, we'd just resume the project elsewhere and maybe host it from Mhaille's basement (I hear he's got a billiard table and a great number of Euro-centric knick-knacks that are quite humour-inspiring). I don't know, it doesn't seem to add up to me. But I think what some here are trying to do is to calm things down a little bit so that maybe we can talk, real civilized-like, with someone from Wikia (Angela, Jimbo, whomever) and find out if we can work together to make Uncyclopedia better, not worse. But until we get past this right here, which seems like a great deal of speculation, it's not gonna work out that way. And the more stubbornly defensive we come across, the harder it's gonna be to reach that goal. I know a lot of you have been here way longer than I have, and I don't presume to tell anyone with more experience what they should or should not do, so please don't allow my observations to get you in a tizzy. But I think we oughtta hear Wikia out, see what kind of ideas they have, see if they're willing to work with the community instead of issuing mandates and taking unilateral action that will be divisive or worse. If we just assume they are going to thrive in nefariousness, what incentive do they have to act otherwise? Let's give 'em a chance, at least. -- Imrealized 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait... Europeans have basements?! HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Secret ones filled with Euro-porn, or so I'm told. -- Imrealized 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Acclaration: We could leave them a wiki empty of users (till they get new ones), but not a wiki empty of articles since they could always undelete the deleted articles. As far as I know, according to the license we can spork the articles to elsewhere but we can not force them to shut them over here. We could split uncyclopedia, as it happened to the Finnish uncyc, but not just move it. We would have two weak wikis instead of a big healthy one, but wikia´s wouldn´t die. But that´s the worst case scenario. I think we can expect mostly good things from wikia, they usually dont´t intefere with their wikis, except for providing technical support and advise, updating the software and such. Till now, for more than an year, the interests of both entities have been the same in a 99% (the exception being the foreign non-wikia-hosted uncycs issue, which nobody seems to care about anyway, except for Carlb and a bunch of annoying foreigners (including me)). As Mr. Adams used to say: DO NOT PANIC.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ

If the content is under a free licence, anyone can create a mirror anywhere or even fork the entire project, if they comply with the terms of that license. In Uncyclopedia's case (CC-BY-NC-SA), our non-commercial license would allow us to demand that either the Uncyclopedia content goes (along with anything translated from en.uncyclopedia to other languages) or the ads go. It would not, however, allow us to demand that the various Uncyclomedia projects never be mirrored at all. --Carlb 10:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my bad and thanks for the clarification. But even if they did have all the articles, the difference would be that they wouldn't have us. These articles, as outstanding as most of them are, will not improve on their own (if they even need improving, that is) and sit here stagnant. Meanwhile, we'd be in Mhaille's basement, drinking a few pints, looking at knick-knacks and becoming even more inspired. And the way something like writing/piccy making usually goes is the more you do it, the better you get. Imagine our talent growing, and then Wikia having an all-n00b (as far as this comedic format goes, anyway) team of contributors, creating nominally-funny stubs and more than likely ruining the pre-existing content. Yep, I say it still doesn't add up and that anyone using a sci-fi genius like Douggy Adams or Philip K. Dick (ahem) to calm things down is worth listening to. Rock on, Captain Rataube! -- Imrealized 06:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Mhaille's Basement is currently syndicated to the Playboy Channel, but I'm sure we could come to an agreement if needed. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

Actually, there's no point in having a contingency plan (which would include a server with a full mirror of this project on some other domain name) if no one knows where it is. If we were stowing a spare tyre or a fire extinguisher somewhere, odds are we wouldn't want to have to use either but it would be nice to know where the spare tyre is tucked away just in case one of the others were to go flat. A backup site, like a spare tyre, is a mundane item that'd be good to have at hand should it be needed later. The importance of Jimbo secretly buying the uncyclopedia.org domain name and leaving us to find out through whois? A domain name is a tool which allows users to find the site. That's all it is. People need to be able to easily find the various scattered wiki bits and pieces which comprise the various Uncyclomedia projects - a loosely-knit collection as it is - or all is for naught. If there's an alternate domain (or domains, nothing stopping each of us registering one and pointing them all at the same server - or different servers - anywhere on the Internet) we do need to know where to find the stuff if we want or need it later.

A mirror site with a copy of a full set of Uncyclopædias (twenty-two languages, plus meta: and commons:) is something I would have wanted to have anyway, if only to have a full set of everything in one location, grouped under one domain with the interlanguage links and shared image base up and working. The dedicated server on a server farm in Cowgary? Already bought and paid for before any of this hit the fan. Original intended purpose was to move a pile of stuff currently on multiple shared hosts scattered from Dallas to Omaha. The one dedicated box is inevitably more room than we'd ever use, so no harm in dumping a full set of uncyclopædias there - and a mirror site might be good to have so that people can still find us if Google keeps punishing uncyclopedia.org for reasons unknown.

Carlb doesn't have a basement, so that aspect of the operation will need to be left to Mhaille. Domain names are inexpensive ($10-20/yr), so if anyone wants to go register (and own) one or a brazillion names in order to use the extra space on the Cowgary box for something else, sure, why not.

As for the question of a commons:-style setup here? I doubt that en: has much to gain (as images.tar for en: is at least ten times larger than that of any other project in the Uncyclopedia set) - benefit would be primarily to other projects like de.uncyclopedia.wikia.com that need desperately to Bild: an image collection after a badly-bungled move from external hosting to here. Having de.uncyclopedia.wikia.com look on just-plain uncyclopedia.wikia.com (a copy of this site which has existed for as long as any Uncyclopedia-related content was anywhere on Wikia's site) is a minor change to one configuration file. It doesn't and didn't require Wikia going after ownership of the uncyclopedia.org name. --Carlb 11:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikia understnads community, so I don't think they'll be meddling in ours, they usually just let each Wiki fend for itself unless the Wiki specifically asks for help, so I don't think there's much to fear from them, they're really pretty harmless. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 14:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That point would probably be better received about a mile up the page. Seriously, you came in way late on that one. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I remember us all hiding underneath our beds when the "Welcome to Splaka" email came around on the mailing list. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb.png MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


The length of this thread is rapidly appoaching infinity

This page is currently 67 kilobytes long. That makes it longer than any Uncyclopædian page except these:

Long pages From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

  1. Chicago Justice ‎[108,388 bytes]
  2. Hitler ‎[105,062 bytes]
  3. Camp Fuck You Die ‎[99,230 bytes]
  4. Vandalism/example on wheels! ‎[98,465 bytes]
  5. Filibuster [90,090 bytes]
  6. 01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 ‎[86,849 bytes]
  7. Infinity ‎[69,710 bytes]

Two kilobytes more and this one surpasses infinity. :) --Carlb 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like I better get crackin' on "Hey, it's yet another frickin' novella" then, huh? -- Imrealized 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Carlb - Thank you for bringing the funny into this thread. I laughed heartily. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
70 kb, let's aim high, I think we should merge the "I don't get it" topic with this one. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
For---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 03:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

{{:Forum:Announcement:_Wikia_%26_Uncyclopedia}} --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Crotch Drops Vaccum.png There 2cents.PNG 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Illegal art problems ?

Um, could this final consumation of uncyclopedia's marriage with Wikia spell trouble for some of the more blatant copyright violations that are Uncyclopedia's images ? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It could spell trouble for anything that's under any non-commercial license (including CC-BY-NC-SA), as Wikia has investors to whom to answer and their intent is going to be anything but non-commercial. If an image is under an entirely non-free copyright? Unless it qualifies as "fair use", it's a problem regardless of what happens with the current domain name issues. --Carlb 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Carl's right - copyright violations are a problem regardless of who owns the domain. Wikia was the Designated Agent long before we bought the domain name, so we'd still have been the ones dealing with this issue before this. Angela 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So you mean you guys just kind of sit there with your lawyer held closely and hope for the best? Pretty gutsy... HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Safe harbor, DMCA, blah, blah... Angela 06:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
James Bond as Designated Agent might've been worth a try. Shaken, not stirred. Licensed to kill. --66.102.74.129 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What Really Matters

What really matters here (as I see it) is will we still beable to ply the same humour wares that we have been, tastless though they may be? Are we going to be getting Vulgarity Bans for describing in detail the night Hitler and Jesus made love at Studio 54? The one thing that has really been wonderful about this site is that no matter what your sense of humour may dredge up onto these pages, it's still going to have the same rights as any normal two bit joke... or to put it shortly, how will this impact our freedom from reprisal for exercising freedom of speech? --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Crotch Drops Vaccum.png There 2cents.PNG 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'll be celebrating it with a new article I'm working on to be called Zombie bukkake. And just wait till you see what I'm potatoshopping together for it. I've just had two features in a row and it's time to make people lose their lunches for the following week again. I have discussed things like the logo image on Niggers with Jimbo (namedrop namedrop) and he didn't bat an eyelid, let alone scream "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING YOU PSYCHOTIC BASTARD?!" So I think on balance it'll depend on the quality of the work, as usual. Writing Cancer porn I would write a sentence, be horrified at what had just come out of my brain them write something even worse. And that's gotta be art - David Gerard 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that you'll be kicked out of Hell 2.0 soon? —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I may end up single - David Gerard 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikia buying the domain name won't impact on the content any more than us hosting this site, which we've been doing since May 2005. The Wikia:Terms of Use have applied since we started hosting it, so this doesn't change anything. Angela 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to say nothing has changed. Interesting theory, but there have been some odd interpretations of those terms to broaden what can be removed - for instance, an incident in which links to an externally-hosted wiki in this project were removed as "advertising". The possibility of something being removed because it offends the investors also didn't exist a year ago - funny how money changes things. Whether this wiki turns into a mess of unilateral WP:OFFICE protection (or its equivalent) of any page whose subject has money, lawyers and an attitude? Time will tell.
Gameover.gif
As authors of a CC-BY-NC-SA project, we have the right to put it online elsewhere were it destroyed bit-by-bit here, starting with whatever bits happen to offend any of the outside investors. After all, any non-commercial site may use the content, subject to the CC-BY-NC-SA terms. The only impact of the loss of the domain name and the spurious attempts to claim a trademark on the word "uncyclopedia" is that it serves as a tool for harassment against us if we ever need to put this Uncyclopedia online elsewhere. We (potentially) would then have to spend money on lawyers just to explain or re-explain the legal concept that you can't trademark a word like "uncyclopedia" that was already in widespread commercial use by others at least since 2004? That's silly, nonsensical even by Uncyclopedian standards, but for-profit corporations try things like this every day to silence their critics. The assumption is that the 'little guy' isn't going to have unlimited money and lawyers to respond to every spurious claim.
Certainly, the question of what can or can't be posted to any one particular server is something we'd have to keep an eye on in any case - and the legal considerations are rendered complex enough by Uncyclopedias being on multiple servers in multiple languages in multiple countries. Having some web host which was hosting a key portion of the project claim out of the blue to own the word "Uncyclopedia" only adds to the confusion. Even if we don't get run out of Calgary for posting about mad cows, I wouldn't want to be the one to post Holocaust Tycoon to a German server, for instance. Historical reasons there... --Carlb 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Wikia Server Woes

I can understand why Wikia wanted this, and I personally think it's fantastic, but one of the reasons that Uncyc moved from it's host before Wikicities is that the servers simply couldn't handle the load. With the ever-growing influx of users, the Wikia servers really need to be up to scratch or we could be the next Wikipedia for downtime. --officer designate Club symbol.png Lugiatm Club symbol.png MUN NS CM ZM WH 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At least I'm glad that Chronarion didn't sell this domain to Peelonet. :) --Carlb 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Dealing with server issues and stability is the top priority of our tech team. Please don't be concerned about this. Angela 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/forum:Announcement:_Wikia_%26_Uncyclopedia
en.uncyclopedia.co
CC-MAIN-2023-23
210208
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5MIJQQAXW5ZVDD7JK3MXSOUYHJC2XNSD
<urn:uuid:27f80800-713e-44c7-88df-d5da7e15386f>
2023-06-08T22:27:36Z
176.31.248.206
text/html
sha1:MTIKZ56GTLCK3OMT3MU7WELVSU4WCZ2Y
<urn:uuid:4074b2ef-0d0c-4df4-9020-a590fd799dfc>
https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/forum:Announcement:_Wikia_%26_Uncyclopedia
response
<urn:uuid:cd931fac-b544-40f5-9461-eda63333fe75>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-218
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/