Live data from Hacker News

Helping wikis move away from Fandom

weirdgloop.org

371–380 of 503 posts

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is required is not the same as what happens in practice. Visit any wiki.gg site and see what they're doing.

The law is not enforced. The non-enforcement is largely by design/lobby though.

This law hasn't been enforced here but it's not like it has never been enforced; major websites like Google, Facebook and others were forced to add "reject all": https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/21/23035289/google-reject-al...

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#372
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I find interesting about playing video games in modern day is that with the proliferation of Wikis, there is assumed to be some kind of third party guide for every game. Especially in smaller/newer games it seems like developers sometimes don't bother putting necessary information in the game at all because they don't have the person-hours for it. For instance, back when I first played Minecraft in Alpha th…

I don't really know how exploratory most games are compared to old Minecraft. Some games like Stardew Valley have certain things that are much easier to do because of third party wikis but I don't think the same is true of a lot of games in the same way it was for Minecraft.

I picked up Stardew Valley a few months ago for the first time, and consciously chose not to use the wiki. I'm obviously way behind where I would be had I used the wiki, but it's been fun figuring out what works by myself.

One game I recently got which has great exploratory potential is Shapez 2. The in-game help is amazing.

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#373
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is already the case: > The GDPR is specific that consent must be as 'easy to withdraw as to give', meaning that a reject-all button must be as easy to access in terms of clicks and visibility as an 'accept all' button. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directiv...

what is required is not the same as what happens in practice. Visit any wiki.gg site and see what they're doing.

When visiting a wiki.gg website from the EU I'm seeing an "Allow essential cookies" button next to "Accept all". This seems compliant with the EU laws - the laws are against non-essential cookies only; same source as in grandparent comment:

> European law requires that all websites targeting European Union member states gain "informed consent" from users before storing non-essential cookies on their device.

But yes, this is not the case on fandom wikis - in practice these are not compliant.

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#374
And of course "Weird Gloop" super duper promises not to enshittify, even though they are a free product that will eventually need advertiser funding. Bottom line is, this will keep happening until internet users realise that this model breeds this outcome. If you want nice things you must be willing to pay.

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#375
post #254

As the person ultimately responsible for the Minecraft Wiki ending up in the hands of Fandom, it is great to see what Weird Gloop (and similar) are achieving. At the time of selling out, the Minecraft Wiki and Minecraft Forum cost tens of thousands of dollars per month to run and so it didn't feel too much like selling out, because we needed money to survive[1]. 15 years later, the internet is a different place, and…

One thing I find interesting about playing video games in modern day is that with the proliferation of Wikis, there is assumed to be some kind of third party guide for every game. Especially in smaller/newer games it seems like developers sometimes don't bother putting necessary information in the game at all because they don't have the person-hours for it. For instance, back when I first played Minecraft in Alpha th…

> One thing I find interesting about playing video games in modern day is that with the proliferation of Wikis, there is assumed to be some kind of third party guide for every game. Especially in smaller/newer games it seems like developers sometimes don't bother putting necessary information in the game at all because they don't have the person-hours for it.

While this may have become more of a norm in recent years, online communities with community-supported guides have definitely been around since before wikis were common in the gaming community: most notably at gamefaqs.com. To this day you can still find plaintext walkthroughs for thousands of games, written 25 years ago by pseudonymous authors.

Which isn't exactly to dispute your point, just waxing nostalgic about the good ol' days. The RPG Maker 2000 forum was basically my introduction to programming, waaay back in the day.

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#376
post #232
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was approached about a decade ago to combine The Infosphere with then Wikia's Futurama wiki. I asked it was possible to do a no-ads version of the wiki, and while initially they seemed like that might be possible, they eventually said no, and so we said no. So now there are two Futurama wikis online. I still host The Infosphere, haven't checked the Fandom one in years. Fortunately for me, Futurama isn't as popular…

A bit of a follow up to this; after a bit of thought, I am considering reaching out to Weird Gloop. I do not feel I am able to give The Infosphere the care that it deserves. And with Futurama back on Hulu, we are naturally seeing an uptick in activity. We have a very restrictive sign up in place, because I don't have time to moderate it anymore. It keeps the spam down, yes, but also new users away. Note: The reason I…

What kind of costs are associated with something like this, and what sort of visitors are you getting? I'm wondering what kind of infrastructure you need.

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#377

This illustrates a problem that I wish more people would see. People, usually businesspeople, consider adding some craptastic thing such as intrusive ads, to make more money. Who doesn't like more money? They add the thing, and revenue goes up! What they don't see is the effect that comes when fewer people visit the site because they're too annoyed to come back over time. They see and take credit for the small increa…

I’ve wondered about this wrt public transportation. They keep raising prices, making it less affordable for people. Eventually basically no one is riding, so they … raise prices. It seems needlessly expensive to me to run empty busses. I’d like to see if cheaper transportation can actually make more money.

does public transport even work without heavy subsidies?

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#378
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the Wikipedia content arguably belongs more to the Wikipedia community than to the Wikimedia Foundation... Of course it is hardly possible to gain the approval of a majority of editors. > But like all problems in PoE, PoE2 will fix it. ;) Isn't that the game for which Sannikov came up with his new global illumination algorithm? [1] (Apparently yes) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3so7xdZHKxw

it already belongs to the Wikipedia community, but it's licensed under a copyleft licence. Ditto for Wikia. Anyone can fork it if they give proper attribution.

Good point

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny that people are now looking back at wikia fondly because at the time most folks thought it was full of ads and shit. To the point where Curse/Gamepedia managed to get serious market share by not screwing with the community in the same way at the time. Funny how they somehow managed to make it worse.

How did Curse end up making money?

I assume they didn't, which is why they were bought by Twitch.

Re: Helping wikis move away from Fandom

#380

This illustrates a problem that I wish more people would see. People, usually businesspeople, consider adding some craptastic thing such as intrusive ads, to make more money. Who doesn't like more money? They add the thing, and revenue goes up! What they don't see is the effect that comes when fewer people visit the site because they're too annoyed to come back over time. They see and take credit for the small increa…

They know what they are doing, they can burn an unpriced asset for short term gain, looks good on their balance sheet while they have screwed over the commons (their internal commons).
Post reply on HN