Why is Uncyclopedia so unfunny?

Vote for one of the first two options and for one of the last two options.

I think that Wikipedia is competitive with professionally written encyclopedias like Britannica. But I think Uncyclopedia, a satirical version of Wikipedia, is vastly inferior to professional satire such as The Onion.

Why is this the case? A few possibilities:

- My view is uncommon. A lot of peope would say Uncyclopedia > The Onion.
- Good satire is much harder to write than than good encylopedia entries. A professional encyclopedia contributor isn't going to be much better than a good amateur, so a lot of good amateurs working together can produce something credible. There is, however, a wider gulf for comedy.
- There is much less consensus on how an article should be written, leading to bad ideas sticking.
- Wikis are not suitable for humour. This is because humour is more dependent on the whole product, so adding new content can make the article much worse. Whereas with Wikipedia, you can more or less combine individual essays and it works out all right.