The Wikipedia community is Wikipedians. Wikipedians are all who have decided to be recognized as an editor and not just by their edits. This is intentionally vague as we welcome anyone who wants to join, regardless of who they are, where they are, how old they are, what they are, or whether they're the same person as another Wikipedian. Any further subcommunities should be viewed as subcommunities. Any one WikiProject does not claim to be Wikipedia's community; they are merely a small facet of the larger whole. WikiProjects, therefore, are successful at promoting community feeling as their communities do not detract from the community as a whole. Groups claiming to be representative or working for the entire community will not work as they are not the entire community.

Concerted efforts to build community will not result in the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia's community already exists. It does not need to formed: it is already here. Furthermore, groups claiming themselves as above the community in as much as they are able to tell the community where it is, how it is, and such will not achieve any success, as the community defines itself.

Promoting a sense of community

I, for one, feel very much a part of the Wikipedia community whenever I use or understand Wikipedia jargon.

Jargon is terminology, much like slang, that relates to a specific activity, profession, or group. It develops as a kind of shorthand, to express ideas that are frequently discussed between members of a group, and also to distinguish those belonging to a group from those who are not.

But doesn't that exclude people?!?! and make us unwelcoming?!?! you ask. I say no. If someone doesn't know what something means, they should ask, and we should graciously explain, thereby welcoming them into the community. Yes, we say, you can know the ways of our community. Welcome to the fold.

Welcoming newcomers

Personally, I was nearly insulted by a {{welcome}}. Increasingly, it seems that this template is how blank user talk pages are dealt with, regardless of the age of the contributor (how long they've been contributing). I think that such a template may be useful for placing on a user talk page after that user's first edit. However, if it's been months, they've probably been around and seen those policies. Obviously they've done something that caused you to notice they hadn't had a talk page; comment on that instead. Hey I appreciate your work on this article is far more welcoming than here have a boilerplate cause I don't know how to deal with blank user talk pages.

Recognizing contributions

Concerted efforts to award people who fit certain criteria loses all the community feeling of people thanking out of sincerity. Barnstars are great things which should be encouraged, but not forced. I make a habit of giving barnstars to anyone who goes ahead and does something I'd been meaning to do. I no longer have to do the task and am grateful for this. I think that handing out barnstars or leaving thank you notes should be encouraged by example. When someone edits an article you've worked on extensively, I believe you should thank them and invite them to add more. Sincerity is key: be grateful they took the time to edit, but don't gloss over the fact if you didn't appreciate the contribution.

Community ties

Making connections at Wikipedia is not done as often as it should. There are many ways to overcome this; here are some of my ideas.

• Write an article and then leave a note on someone's talk page asking them what they think.
  • This says, I value your input and respect your ideas.
• If someone asks you to read an article they wrote and then comment on it, do so!
  • This tells them, I appreciate your contributions and your value as an editor.
• If you are part of a WikiProject and notice a new contributor, welcome them to the WikiProject.
  • This lets them know that they aren't just signing a sheet of names, but rather joining a community.
  • Don't use a template.
  • Do let them in on some of the goings-on: So-and-so tends to edit these types of articles; so-and-so and so-and-so often disagree on these points; you might feel most comfortable here/there; we always need help here/there; we've been looking for someone who can do this/that.

Wikipedia's community works on an individual level. Do what you can and through your actions, you will encourage others to do the same.

Sacraments of Initiation

• The Welcome message is the door into Wikipedia life and marks the blessed entrance of a new soul. Through a welcome message, we we are freed from vandalism and reborn as good contributors; we become members of Wikipedia, incorporated into her Community, and share in her mission.

• Attaining 1000 edits is necessary for reception of eternal wiki grace. It marks the acceptance of any user to devotion to the Wikipedia. Not only must the user be initiated into the holy Community, they must also show personal dedication to our personal saviour, Jimbo.

• Reverting a vandal is a holy sacrament which every user must continue to do, to replenish the spirit of wiki that is within each of us. It reminds us of our connection to Wikipedia and her presence in our lives. It leads us on a path to Eternal Truth. The Wiki Way is attuned to vandal reversion, and vandal reversion confirms the Wiki Way.

Sacraments of Dispute Resolution

• Public apology is how each dedicated user is pardoned by the Wikipedia for offenses committed against her. At the same time, they are reconciled with the Community, and the wounds these offenses caused are healed. The second part of this sacrament is being perfect: making no more mistakes, having a perfectly balanced edit count, being a substantial article editor, image contributor, beacon of hope and wikilove, tough on vandals, constantly reverting vandalism, and always assuming good faith.

• By the sacred mentoring of the misguided and praying to the Wikipedia through talk page messages, the Community commends those who are struggling to their glorified Wikipedia, that she may reach out and save them.

  Only Trusted Users and Administrators may administer this sacrament. The sick should prepare themselves to receive this sacred sacrament with a good disposition, assisted to this end by the AGF and support of their wikifriends and acquaintances.

  Preparation for the leaving of this wiki-life is also provided as part of this sacrament.

Sacraments at the Service of Vandal Fighting

• The sacrament of increased permissions is one of the ministry. It consists of three degrees: administrator, arbcom member, and checkuser.

• The sacrament of bureaucratship by which a dedicated user and Wikipedia establish a lifelong commitment, is by its nature ordered toward having a fruitful relationship, creating many new admins and educating them in the ways of the Wiki.

Note to the reader: I do a lot of work with parody and satire, and when an idea comes to me, I feel obligated to write it. I was ruminating on the RfA process and noticed that to be accepted, one must have attained certain benchmarks of a sort, and I remarked to myself, 'that's an awful lot like a sacrament.' Then I groaned, knowing I'd have to write this. No offense is meant.

I ascribe to a belief of making only good edits. I edit pages because I want to build an encyclopedia. I believe that each edit should benefit the project or its contributors in some way that is significant.

I do not personally believe in making automated edits, especially if the value of the edits is low. I disagree with making edits solely to raise one's edit count. I think that automated edits are best done with bot accounts which may reap the benefits of many contributions, while remaining hidden in recent changes, while a user should be more concerned with quality edits that only a human can make. The faculty of reason is something which can never be automated fully, and as such, those who have it should use it instead of removing whitespace and making basic spelling error fixes.

I read Wikipedia for years and never created an account because I didn't think I had anything I could contribute. However, having been here the short while I have, I've found that everyone has something they can contribute, that is unique to them. I think that if users concentrated on things they were interested in and/or wanted to see expanded on Wikipedia, the project would expand in breadth of subjects enormously. It takes users who are committed to innovation and the increase of knowledge to build a good encyclopedia. I just don't think those users should be wasting their time worrying about edit counts.

I think that finding and reverting vandalism is a good thing to do. However, I don't agree with labelling oneself as a "Vandal Fighter." I've done extensive vandalism reversion on several wikis (not so much on English Wikipedia, though) and I have never once thought of what I was doing as fighting vandals. I think that being aware of vandalism is a good thing, recent changes patrolling is a good thing, but I don't think it should be the brunt of one's effort. I personally revert vandalism when I see it. If a bot reports it on IRC and I'm around, I'll look and revert. I do not exist to revert vandalism though. I want a good encyclopedia, and I will revert vandalism, but I am not on the prowl looking for vandals to fight.

I do not believe that voting or expressing opinions on AfD (xfD), RfA, or Wikipedia talk pages is an indicator of a user's interest or involvement in the project. It is very easy to edit/vote without completely reading a policy or article beforehand, and probably quite common to read thoroughly and refrain from editing. I think it is inane that those who throw their opinions everywhere without a thought to the opinions of others could be thought more involved than those who read, understand, and do not feel the need to comment, by virtue of edit count.

I personally do not believe consistent and frequent insertions of one's opinions wherever someone will listen constitutes good edits. I personally refrain from asserting my opinions and potentially creating division unless it is necessary or beneficial. I recognize that many people become very upset over wiki politics as they would in real life and I try to respect that. If I am potentially going to ruin someone's day and I don't have to, I'm not inclined to want to.

I do not oppose the use of userpages or the editing of said pages. I also do not oppose the formatting and coloring of userpages. However, I don't agree with the main use of one's time and energy being directed at one's userpage. There are homepages and free web hosting for that. User pages are, however, a matter of good judgement, and I don't think there should be some threshold of edits for the User namespace which defines a good editor.

I do not believe userboxes are a good use of time or edits. They separate Wikipedians into easily browsed categories and divide the community. They serve networking purposes it would seem, and that is not central, nor relevant, to the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I personally do not think arguments are a good use of my time. I try to stay out of them as much as possible. Likewise, I stay away from revert wars, edit wars, and other such warring. Bickering is not a constructive use of time

I personally put a great deal of effort into each of my edits. I try to preview and do a thorough job when copyediting. I do not aim to do the least amount of work possible, but merely what's needed. If an article needs an extensive rewrite of tone, I won't call fixing spelling errors a copyedit. I think that laziness (and hiding it) only hinders the project. I do procrastinate a lot, and I am lazy, too, but I won't call a half-arsed job a finished one.

In conclusion, I understand that my edit count will be low. I understand by not editing every talk page I visit, by not getting into arguments or disputes, by not vandal fighting, by not welcoming users, my edit count will be low. I understand this means that it will take me longer to attain an edit count that is substantial enough that I will be widely esteemed. However, my duty is to the project and I can live with being a lower class of user in the eyes of some. I do not think it is right that wiki social status is determined this way, but I prefer to make good edits.

If you see me around, do say hi. I don't comment everywhere, but I do care. :]

   First off, I resent the idea that it's a "waste." Secondly, you, my friend, merely fail to see the point!

   As a satirical wiki, it is our duty to make fun of everything in a subtle manner.

"A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change, which usually incorporates criticism." --Wiktionary

"Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change." --Wikipedia

   The point of Uncyclopedia is to make light of things most people get hung up on. Humor is a coping mechanism that can be crucial to our thriving as a species. At Uncyclopedia, we try to take things that get people tied up in a knot, that make them angry, frustrated, upset, and lightly jab at it. We make fun of the idea of the thing, the response of people to the thing, and the response of people to our making fun.

   Over the past year, it has evolved into more of a general humor wiki, but it is my opinion that satire should be first and foremost.

   Uncyclopedians have more freedom to invoke their right to humor. Wikipedians are restrained by "No Personal Attacks", but Uncyclopedians are allowed to be dicks as long as they are funny. Being funny and not just stupid is above all else. Ideally, treading on another's toes in a funny manner allows all of us to laugh, including the one who's being treaded on.

   Of course there are many people who do not understand this. Our advice to them is to find somewhere else to play. If they find it offensive or unfunny, they are under no obligation to be there. "Just close your browser: world peace is a few clicks away."

   By making fun of things that are so emotionally charged, we are able to get everyone to loosen up a bit (hopefully). People become so involved in what they are doing, offline and online. We just hope to provide a bit of variety, a way to step back and realize it's not so bad.

   Satire is supposed to provoke change. I don't know if we at Uncyclopedia do that, or even if we aim to do that. We're just a bunch of people having a bit of fun to break up the monotony. It's easy to lose sight of the wiki-ness of it all, the fact that it's online and it's not entirely "real", even at a wiki that's meant to break that idea up. However, due to our almost lack of constraints, we're able to keep going.

   Admins and users alike at Uncyclopedia have been campaigning for rules and policy. I, on the other hand, think that is counter to the spirit of the wiki. We're meant to be making fun of the rules, not implementing them. Are we experimenting with anarchy? I don't think so. We have rules, but they aren't written in stone. We want to encourage the proliferation of humor, not stop people from mucking up our almighty wiki. Humor never conforms to the rules. We don't have a standard, except to "be funny."

   People cite the fact that "humor is so subjective" as a reason why Uncyclopedia "will never work." We've been going at this for over a year, so I beg to differ. Humor being subjective is why we grow. We don't claim any humor to be greater than any other. We have our random nonsense, our political satire, our country specific jokes, our age specific jokes, our widely appreciated jokes, our off-color bad taste jokes, our "what the heck?" jokes. We have all sorts, and we're open to more. Of course there are some things we won't suffer to live: uninspired material which has no future, lists of randomly generated items, "unfunny crap," and one-liners.

We don't allow lists because they are only funny to a point. They invite vandalism and tainting with open arms. Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole, lists aren't encyclopedic. That's what categories are for.

At Uncyclopedia, we cannot allow stubs. With a Wikipedia, one can be reasonably certain that a stub will be expanded and improved. With humor, the intent of an article is hard to put forth in a few sentences, and a consistent tone cannot be achieved with another author building on the original author's work. Stubs will often stay stubs until they are deleted or completely rewritten. It isn't that we have some minimum size specification of an article; it's that we acknowledge that when an article is unfinished and its direction is unclear, it's pretty much dead already.

   Uncyclopedia was originally meant to parody Wikipedia. As it has grown, however, it has attracted a different crowd. As much as we try to enforce the "do things the way that Wikipedia does them" rule, we've got a different audience now, and Wikipedia based humor is no longer the focus, but a facet. We do mourn the loss of a general encyclopedic feel to the place, but we must do as the fanbase wants. Gimmicks are in, intelligence is out.

   Isn't that how it is everywhere?