UnSignpost:Article/Image revert wars
|
- By Spike
August saw not one but two tugs-of-war over the fine selection of photographs on Uncyclopedia articles. In the first, a series of alleged Uncyclopedians tried to change us from a humor wiki to a auto-proctology wiki. Our web-host obligingly ensured that the tempting button labeled "Upload a new version of this photo" will now require the support of a senior editor, a change not to be submitted to the affected vandals. Every Uncyclopedian remains free to upload photos under new names; just not implicitly edit dozens of existing articles, including those he cannot edit explicitly.
On the backside of that, Google selected one of our works, a photo that discussed the sale of dodgy baked goods to dodgier customers by England's Greggs chain, and made the logo the first choice in searches on Google Images, something the world's newspapers found notable. Several brand-new Uncyclopedians began a second war to repair (or to resume sliming) the baker's reputation, shortly before the above fix took effect. Admins locked down the image with the non-obscene version. The news stories said Greggs had a friendly exchange of tweets with Google (whom they need) for selecting the version; and we anticipated a less friendly exchange with us (whom they don't need) for hosting it in the first place; also that if Wikia were moved to intervene, they would leave one of their signature gaping holes in the article.
Not satisfied to merely resolve the crisis, Romartus added it to our art portfolio, writing virtuoso navelism that was worked into a Navelism Side-by-Side on the UnNews Front Page with the news that Facebook intends to tag content to protect its users from believing all the crap they read on the internet. Although we are sure Facebook would never tag Uncyclopedia content, development of a "privatized" way to protect the young and gullible may help us argue that we need never again have a Content Warning.