Wikimedia-internal alternative to Wikia suggested at village pump

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 109 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Wikimedia-internal alternative to Wikia suggested at village pump

Post by CMAwatch » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:39 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _to_fandom
Wikimedia Alternative to fandom
Currently on Wikipedia articles on fictional topics are constantly under threat of deletion or merging due to overly strict notability rules and full time deletionist editors. This forces fictional articles to be exiled to Fandom where there is adverts and privacy violations. This is antithetical to the Wikimedia Philosophy. I don't think just because something is fictional your privacy should be violated. I think it is time for an inclusionist Wikimedia fiction project should be created and rescue the cc licenced content so people can read about fictional content with dignity. 2A01:4C8:57:1178:ABC7:9B7:572F:DF52 (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I liked the concept of Fandom but the profiteering from Wikia is digusting. That website is completely unusable on mobile even with Firefox and uBlock Origin installed. Wikimedia should do a service to the People that donate money to it and create a nonprofit Fandom/Wikia alternative. But Jimmy Wales, a founder of and investor in Fandom, is also the Chair emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation; so I don't think it'll work out for obvious reasons. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 12:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea that even our most ardent deletionists could be considered "full time deletionists". I'd also dispute that the consequences are particularly antithetical to "Wikimedia Philosophy" either. That isn't to say that either of those, alone, is sufficient to sink the idea of a spin-off project that allowed "in-universe" sourcing for fictional content. However, this is in no way the right location for it. If you had some rough ideas, the "ideas" village pump page might help finding some support before going through the formal project setup. Projects in Wikimedia require huge levels of effort (Wikimedia Abstract, recently formed, was the first one in seven years). THe ideas stage would need a rough framework, and the submission stage would require significant support. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that this is not the appropriate forum. Meta would be better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
This has been proposed before: meta:Wikifiction_(In-universe_encyclopedia). – Joe (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not officially linked to the Wikimedia Foundation, but Miraheze (https://miraheze.org/) is a nonprofit that runs a advertising-free MediaWiki-based wikifarm similar to Fandom. If you have a specific wiki in mind, you might want to check it out. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
There's also http://editthis.info, which makes it even easier to create wikis (just create an account and click a few buttons), but 1) there's no HTTPS (so don't use it on public networks or reuse your passwords), 2) it's using a version of MediaWiki that doesn't even have Vector (which makes it *checks mediawiki.org* 11 years old) 3) it's veeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy slooooooooooooowwwwwwww. That said, it's a good tool for creating wikis if you want to create small wikis about topics that Wikia or Miraheze wouldn't accept, or if you just want to try out MediaWiki but have no clue how to use web servers. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I support but first we would need to get rid of Jimmy Wales as chair of the WMF as he is also related to Fandom and Wikia and also would take a long time to be created as WMF would need to get the project approved and then set up guidelines for the Wikis and set up how the domain names would work and stuff like that 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
He hasn't been Chair of the WMF since 2006, so not much point trying to "get rid of him as chair". He is "Chair Emeritus" but I'm not sure if there is any formal authority that comes with that title. He is also a board member of the WMF, and that is a real position within the movement. But it is possible to be a board member and have a conflict of interest. The key test is whether he has recused on WMF votes where he has a conflict of interest. If you are serious in your concern about Jimmy and conflicts of interest between Wikia and the WMF then have a look through the votes he has taken part in as a board member - having a conflict of interest is not the issue, what matters is how you behave when you have a conflict of interest. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this. Not only am I a deletionist, I don't see any inherent problem with running ads on crufty wikis like Fandom as the contributors there just want to bask in legitimacy they haven't earned. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
We don't discriminate against fictional characters. They are held to the exact same standards as real events or people: Either it is notable enough that independent 3rd parties are covering it in a significant way....or they aren't. As for Fandom, that isn't our concern, it isn't Wikipedia/media. Anyone can fork the fictional content here anytime they want, all the text and images are free to use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Opposed to special treatment for fanboys and their pet projects. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, Fandom is a massive project with hundreds of thousands of wikis, and a user and content base comparable in size to that of Wikimedia projects. (While its numbers are not entirely reliable, s23 wikistats might give you some idea.) Running something of that size comes with its own technical and social challenges, and they have a product and community team of the appropriate size. Having a wiki for fictional characters is one thing; having something at the scale of Fandom would be a sizable chunk of the Wikimedia budget. Given that the topics they cover are peripherial to the Wikimedia mission, I doubt there is any chance of that happening. --Tgr (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
#BbbGate
Weaponizing WP:G5
Oops! Didn't think we'd see? It's right there on WikipediaSucks.co!
ericbarbour wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am
[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikimedia-internal alternative to Wikia suggested at village pump

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:16 am

Opposed to special treatment for fanboys and their pet projects. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Fuck you, little person. Your idiot project already gives "special treatment to fanboys".
chart8TVshows.gif
chart8TVshows.gif (29.95 KiB) Viewed 1662 times
And this would not happen in any case, because it would cause Jimbo to lose money. He is still chair of the Fandom Inc. board of directors.

Post Reply