There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis • Hacker News Board

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#241

Post by jhbadger » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 12:16 PM UTC

mitxela wrote: post #233

jhbadger wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem was in the early days when people were still mocking the idea of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, journalists would snark about how (for example) the article on Captain Kirk was longer than some historical figure. So you can see how fictional content was seen as "embarrassing"

No, that isn't it

It really was. Outside the nerdosphere, articles about fictional people or places in TV, movies or games were widely mocked and seen as "unprofessional" -- people were saying if Wikipedia needed to be more like Britannica if it was going to be taken seriously.

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#242

Post by LoganDark » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #239

LoganDark wrote: post #17

Anyone remember when "Fandom" was called Wikia? It really started going down the gutter when it started TikTokifying itself by trying to act as an entertainment hub. It was supposed to be a neutral resource for people to build community-driven knowledge bases but it turned into some real gamified garbage. I've never really been comfortable with the concept of addressing a "fandom" as one whole anyway, even in general…

I remember backlash against the name change. It seemed like they were trying to usurp the whole concept of a fandom, a sort of evil SEO to trick people into visiting the site. I still call it Wikia on reflex.

Same. I also call Facebook and Google by their true names, even though they tried to get out of their reputation by naming new parent companies.

Oh, and Twitter, even though its new reputation is more deserved than before it got acquired.

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#243

Post by a96 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 1:31 PM UTC

alightsoul wrote: post #212

mitxela wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why people recommend Kagi.

But it's paid. Some people use brave because it's free and not google. More than duckduckgo

Brave is a series scam company.

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#244

Post by nephihaha » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #25

nephihaha wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on which part. It is certainly heading down the same route as Wikipedia with all the problems that entails. You're usually better off on a smaller Fandom wiki as it won't have beeb taken over yet. The James Bond wiki is particularly bad, but Memory Alpha seems to be better run.

> It is certainly heading down the same route as Wikipedia with all the problems that entails. Can you elaborate on what that means? i.e. what aspect of Wikipedia, and in what way Fandom is heading there?

The main issues I have are with the administration. I have noticed:

* Admin enshittifying content that they have no knowledge or interest in. For example, I have witnessed admin trying to get articles about certain rugby union teams deleted, because they were amateur. (Before the 1990s all rugby union was officially amateur, and some notable clubs still are, especially in places like Argentina or Scotland, where professional clubs are not the norm.) They succeed in many cases.

* Administrators may develop a particular dislike for a user, and their decisions may be based on that. I have witnessed personal vendettas and stalking behaviour from them. There are also cliques of friends and other conflicts of interest.

Neither of these are professional if we are thinking purely in terms of content. Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, would get articles cross-checked by people who have an interest or a knowledge of that particular subject. I have seen quotations "corrected" on Wikipedia from their original wording.

As for Fandom, it varies from site to site. Some are better than others. In recent years, Fandom has adopted some community guidelines which are questionable and are being applied across the board. Wikimedia did the same in a top-down power move with no mandate whatsoever. It was a fait accompli. Neither are better for it.

The Broad Scots and Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias both have horrific administration issues, brought on partly by people correcting native speakers. The former created a minor international scandal in the media. The Greenlandic Wikipedia was hijacked by a German who ended up shutting it down. (He deleted other people's articles constantly, instead of improving the content and then wondered why he was the only person left in the room.)

Either way, both remind me of the infinite monkey idea... Except those on the typewriter aren't even getting peanuts unless someone is paying them to write shill articles (and there are many of those.) I'm sure I'll be voted down for making these comments which is why I was reluctant to post earlier.

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#245

Post by jimnotgym » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 4:39 PM UTC

Isofarro wrote: post #238

jimnotgym wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My incentive was merely to catalogue some historical things that were not catalogued elsewhere. Google, Wikipedia etc. LLMs knew only what was on Wikipedia. I don't mind that LLMs will find it....I used a bunch of agents to find sources for them and produce summaries of it, and even to build the site. It took a lot of human research too, but all my notes and snippets were sent to LLMs. I hope this means no more of th…

What a fascinating subject. Nice one! With LLMs replacing Google search results, the incentive for creating website content is changing again. And I'm reaching the same conclusions as you: "In summary, if the incentive is to find things for your own amusement, the incentive is still there!". I think we are reverting back to our original form of the Web. Before the commercialisation of content. Also of the early blog…

Webrings, perhaps?

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#246

Post by xp84 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 11:09 PM UTC

mitxela wrote: post #229

xp84 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-dealing is a bad look no matter how you try to spin it. Being fussy about what is and isn't "encyclopedic" (arguably a self-defining idea anyway though) is fine, until it benefits you to rule a certain way, then people are going to speculate. Also, nobody knows how much money Jimmy Wales took home from selling Fandom to TPG/IMC.

So when Stack Overflow operates Stack Overflow, for programming questions, and Super User, for usage questions, and directs a computer usage question to Super User, that's corruption?

It'd be suspect, if SO was a nonprofit, and SU was a budding commercial enterprise owned in part by Mr. Overflow personally, and Mr. Overflow had used his influence over SO rules to farm content for SU so that he could sell SU to PE and get rich.

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#247

Post by amazingamazing » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 11:33 PM UTC

sph wrote: post #236

amazingamazing wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many are on fandom?

How many are trying desperately to leave it?

Very low percentage. Take a game of year like clair obscur. I will leave it as an exercise for you to see which wiki is biggest and most active.

Re: There's a new "Google Jail" for independent wikis

#248

Post by r3trohack3r » Thu, Sep 10, 2026, 2:10 AM UTC

_carbyau_ wrote: post #232

r3trohack3r wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free isn’t free, you get what you pay for and you’ll pay one way or another

> you get what you pay for I generally agree with your sentiment against trusting free services/things. I agree with paying for Kagi. But I can see why people try to be frugal with their money and use free services. The problem is handing over money guarantees nothing. Money provides the opportunity for the other party to do the right thing by you. But they may take your money and do the shitty thing anyway. Particul…

I also broadly agree with you're sentiment

But re: kagi specifically, for me personally, the delta is obvious and isn't trust based.

When I use Kagi I have a curated search experience that has a relatively high information density - driven in large part by the alignment of incentives and the ability for me to tune my results.

There is a noticeable difference for me when I switch to 'free' alternatives where the content thrown in front of me is mining for attention and CPM - because the cost of 'free' is covered by the value of my attention. The cost of kagi is less than the value of my attention.