Uncyclopedia

Eh, it’s all right. The site just give the impression as being a way of trying to shunt vandals from Wikipedia, but a vast majority of the pages have dull, repetitive humour.

Conservapedia is a joke, right? A satirical jab at the far right-wingers, right? A tongue-in-cheek parody of the very extreme conservatives, right?

…please tell me it is.

And on the subject of Uncyclopedia, I agree with peas_and_corn. There’s a lot of geniunly funny stuff, but it seems to me that a lot of contributors aren’t exactly comedic geniuses; the page on Burger King, for example, refers to someone “huffing 52 kittens”. I’m really not into the “RANDOMNESS LOLZ” style of humor. It’s not clever and just strikes me as repetitive.

Thought the Red Dwarf entry was extremely tedious, but the opening paragraph of the Doctor Who one did make me chuckle:

Doctor Who is a British TV documentary, with an associated cult of brainwashed followers. It is produced by the BBC and funded by the London Tourist Board. It follows a now-famous presentational format, in which the presenter, referred to as “The Doctor,” covers such diverse topics as history, physics, warfare, cookery, art and sex, with an assistant who’s usually a young, attractive, and promiscuous female. However, the UK’s Danny La Rue Act of 1922 forbids women from the acting profession, so the assistants are actually queer actors in drag.
What makes Doctor Who markedly different from other documentaries such as Horizon, The Day Today and Newsround Review is that the educational nature of the program is carefully disguised behind a plot regarding aliens, time travel, and the like, woven from the real-life adventures of Oscar Wilde.