Talk:Wikia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Notice On this page the project name Wikicities that had been used before March 27, 2006 has been replaced by Wikia, as this is the correct name now.
Notice A blue link to a page on Wikia can be made by means of the {{wikia}} template. Note that this template should be used only in the "External links" section.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability

(I posted the following to Anthere's talk page, following her comments here. I'm copying it here in case the issue's still being discussed.)

Hi Anthere, I saw you express some frustration at the Verifiability policy. This is just to let you know that material that's self-published by Wikia e.g. a press release, or a statement on its website, is allowed to be used as a source in the article. The policy allows self-published material that was written by the subject of the article — with some restrictions, which are listed here — and as that part of the article directly concerns the Foundation, a press release from the Foundation would be acceptable too.

The point of the "verifiability, not truth" provision is just to make sure that Wikipedia is never a first publisher of information. We always need to be able to point to where we took our material from. It helps to keep the project safe.

Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

The following hatnote

{{Distinguish2|the [[Wikimedia Foundation]]}}

is bad, the template {{distinguish2}} is only meant for disambiguation (I mean word sense disambiguation). The only ambiguity (I still mean "word ambiguity") between the two names Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation is the word "wiki" they have in common. So it's true readers might be confused about these two names because of the word "wiki", but if so, they are strongly likely to be also confused by all the names including the word "wiki", so that's why I suggest the following disambiguation link:

{{otheruses4|the wiki farm|other similar names including the word "wiki"|Wiki (disambiguation)}}}}

moreover, I disagree with Prodego's argument. The two names "Wikia" and "Wiki" are more likely to be confused than "Micro" and "Microsoft" since the word length difference is only of 1 (there is nothing on this article about the etymology of the name Wikia but I strongly assume that Wikia is only "Wiki + a"). 16@r (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously people do misconstrue the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia, we have all the evidence of that. Also, see how the template 'distinguish' is used, which I would have used, except I needed to add the word 'the' to the template. {{Distinguish}} is very applicable. Thirdly, Wikia, and wiki aren't very similar in my opinion, but I don't care if you keep that, so long as you do keep distinguish. This is the right way to deal with a misconception, not slapping massive tags on it. You can even WP:IAR, if you want, the distinguish template is an improvement if it helps readers who are mistaken, and hurts no one in the process. However, as long as some notice is there, something that isn't ridiculous, that would be fine with me. Prodego talk 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously people are confusing Wikia/Wikimedia, so it makes perfect sense to disambiguate between the two. I suppose people might also confuse Wikia/wiki, so we might disambig that as well (though I do note wiki is linked in the lead sentence, if that'll do). We needn't make this disambiguation "official" for it to be needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self-reference

Please argue before removing the self-reference hatnote. IMO, there is no problem to have two pages about Wikia: Wikia (in the main namespace) and Wikipedia:Wikia (in the project namespace) since have Wikipedia (in the main namespace) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia (in the project namespace). 16@r (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And now you see why I wanted to use distinguish. Prodego talk 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In most cases, disambiguation and self-reference are separable, in this case, let's try not to mix them. 16@r (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fine to have two pages about Wikia. But the page in project space should not be presented as encyclopedic information, because it isn't. The hatnote on Wikipedia clearly states "non-encyclopedic introduction"; it doesn't say "for information about how Wikipedia is X, click here". -Amarkov moo! 07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's try a different sentence. Are you OK with my new hatnote? 16@r (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I still don't think that putting in a hatnote for that kind of stuff is a good idea. I mean, it's nice that it is now presented as WMF's opinion. But we would never have a note like that for any other organization, so why do Wikia and Wikimedia get special treatment? -Amarkov moo! 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe because Wikia's founders also work for the Wikimedia Foundation... 16@r (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Worth noting Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia where prominent placement of just such an "official" statement was roundly rejected by the community. Granted that this is a far more subtle notice, and I appreciate the effort, but it still brings up some of the same concerns. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to be a neutral encyclopedia, then we can't give any organization special treatment, no matter how close they are to Wikipedia. If the goal has changed from being a neutral encyclopedia to something else, please tell me; I didn't notice that happening. -Amarkov moo! 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is for the encyclopedic content

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)".

Hatnote using the template {{selfref}} that you can see before the article, is not part of the article..., it is part of the Wikipedia project. What has to be written in a NPOV is the articles not the self-references or the template messages. In case of fork, these self-references and messages are very likely to be disabled. That's what {{selfref}} is for, and that's why it produces a special style (left margin and italic). As for {{Wikia is not Wikipedia}}, I also think it was a bad idea because it's a self-reference, for which we already have the template selfref... If you think the current style produced by the template doesn't allow to clearly see the difference between the encyclopedic content and the self-references, you might want you to suggest some changes. I don't know, a different colour, or a frame as on the Italian Wikipedia (see Luna for example) or making the message collapsible or a even why not a new tab (has already been proposed, see WT:Self-references to avoid#A new way of handling self references?). 16@r (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen a single policy, guideline, discussion, or even widely supported statement or sentiment that disambiguation notices are in any way exempt from NPOV or other content policies. Since you're arguing for such an exemption, it seems clear you agree (even if subconsciously) that the current notice is not remotely neutral. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I make a difference between selfref and disambiguation notices (by the way selfref doesn't use the class "dablink"). Here I don't talk about disambiguation link like {{otheruses}} but about {{selfref}}. And I call tell you fully consciously that indeed the current self-reference is not NPOV. And it's not difficult to notice that, "For Wikimedia Foundation's statements", it's WMF's POV. Selfref are not an exempt, it's just that it belong to the Wikipedia project and we don't write our policies and guidelines for our own project but for the encyclopedic content.
"The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself" WP:SELF.
selfref are WP's POV (or WMF's POV), that's why they are disabled in case of forking 16@r (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You've now openly admitted the selfref is not NPOV. On that basis alone, I'm removing it. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of being open, I've posted to the village pump asking if this interpretation is supported by the community. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia for Deleted Articles?

I think it would be worth discussing the possibility of changing non-notability deletion policies to include the step of transplanting information not suitable for wikipedia to a suitable wiki if it exists. One could argue that outright deletion is little better than book burning. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterhawk (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about wikia, it's not a place to discuss the usefulness of wikia - you want to try and find a policy page to dicuss this on. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is already done unofficially in some cases, e.g. furry fandom articles to WikiFur, Star Trek articles to Memory Alpha, Star Wars to Wookieepedia. (Article deletion also spurs the creation of such wikis.) Often the target wikis already have articles on the topic, but not always, and Wikipedia's may be superior in some areas. GreenReaper (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
MyWikiBiz.com is requesting that articles that are deleted here for COI type reasons to be made available to be moved there. It would be useful to move deleted articles into the user space of the creator of the article whenever reasonable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer

See history and TFD for background. There's been some back-and-forth on whether or not to include a disclaimer of a relationship between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation in the top of the article. I think this needs wider input from the community, so I am starting this RFC. —Random832 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the much-commented TFD, I think #Disambiguation and #Self-reference above are both helpful reading. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An outside, neutral opinion on the COI.

To clarify my neutrality:

  • I post over at Wikipedia Review
  • I wrote the essay Anti-Wikipedianism
  • Jimmy Wales himself has called me a troll. [1]
  • Despite the above, I'm not going to argue here that Anthere is in the wrong, because I don't think she is, not entirely.

There seem to be two sides here:

  • One group (largely likely from Wikipedia Review and just general Wiki-haters) trying to subtly put forth the conspiracy theory "Wikipedia = Wikia tax shelter"
  • Members of the Foundation attempting to remove such suggestions, out of obvious self-interest

The edits by members of the Foundation seem to be a COI, but I don't blame them. Wouldn't you do the same thing in their situation? You actually expect the chairman of Wikimedia to put herself at legal risk, simply for the sake of adhering literally to a particular policy, on a website they have legal control over? The fact that they haven't banned you all, set this revision to the revision they want, and hidden your revisions are strong (and verifiable!) evidence itself of how this is a conspiracy theory.

And even if conflicts-of-interest are against the rules, if any rule hurts Wikipedia, it should be ignored. There isn't enough evidence to suggest that Wikipedia is a tax shelter, so the mob that is subtly pushing such conspiracy theories here are not acting in accordance with WP:V because they are engaging in synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, not to mention putting Wikipedia at legal risk, out of a bizarre crusade to take down Wikipedia, and thus they should be ignored.

There may also be some who aren't necessarily pushing conspiracy theories, but are simply pedantic followers of policy who will follow policy completely literally and plainly, as if it were the Bible, and they're basically encouraging this trolling.

With that said, "Verifiability, not truth" isn't stupid but that meme is stupid because there is little or no emphasis on rational and objective verification which should lead to the most reliable ascertainment of the truth.

Verification makes sense, because we could argue over "truth" all day long and we'd get nowhere. On the other hand, though, if articles weren't intended to have substantial truth to them, they wouldn't be "encyclopedic." So, we don't write articles based on our personal beliefs about the truth, but we do objectively verify in such a way that we are working towards achieving the most reliable ascertainment of the truth.

So, the wiki process involves verification, but another core principle of Wikipedia (one that's often forgotten on English Wikipedia) is that it is an encyclopedia, which means it is intended to be a reliable compendium of knowledge, of matters of fact.

In this case, I think some compromise should be in order that would lead to a better article. I haven't seen any version that I think is completely neutral, but I think the attacks on Anthere are somewhat unwarranted. I could try to edit the article myself, but before I do that it'd probably be best to wait to see what people here say about it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been two days and nobody says anything, so there are one of three possibilities here, logically:

  • I'm correct and nobody objects to my statements above ("Silence equals consensus").
  • People disagree with me but they're too lazy to respond or they think it wouldn't accomplish anything.
    Forcing people to choose between two sides oversimplifies the issue. GreenReaper (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody's really watching this talkpage, because it isn't in the mainspace.

No matter what, I'm working on revising it now.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I made changes here. [2] Most likely, they will be reverted in full by a first-time anon editor who is unwilling to discuss their changes but completely willing to edit war, and with the edit summary, "revert vandalism." Nevertheless, it was fun to actually attempt to make this article NPOV. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in your edit immediately jumps out at me as problematic, I'd say. Kudos for taking a shot at it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks I was right, mostly.

This sentence was tagged as OR by an anon:

Despite this, their management teams and finances are separate, and their offices are in different cities.

Then User:Discombobulator (who claims on their user page that they founded Wikipedia) removed it as OR.

I've re-included the sentence. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. So, you have somebody removing a fairly reasonable claim which isn't sourced [3] (but it's illogical to remove on the claim that it "isn't sourced", because Wikia and Wikipedia both mention the office locations of both groups -- if this isn't a "sourced" claim, why doesn't he remove the info from both articles?)
Then, on the other hand, you have somebody who just removed a sentence which was pretty well-sourced [4], not based on what the source actually says, but by his interpretation of what the article is intended to be for? Baffling.
Neither of these two people (or the anon above) have any rational justification for their changes and neither have commented on the talkpage here about their edits. And so, yes, as expected from the outset, I didn't accomplish anything. But it was fun. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the phrase that's appropriate here is Interlocking directorate. --John Nagle (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)