> Wikia Annex vs. Wikipedia

KStreetSlave

Was browsing around and I came upon this interesting discussion. It's almost 2 weeks old, but I didn't find any discussion of it here, so I figured I'd post about it. Please delete this if it's a repost of something I missed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...mp_%28policy%29

QUOTE(Wikipedia:Village_pump)

"Wikia has announced the Annex. This is described as "This Wikia hopes to be a place where Wikipedia fiction articles that are too detailed for Wikipedia can be kept until they find a new home." The Annex has features like "Getting a Wikipedia Article into the Annex" and "Bringing Many Wikipedia Articles at Once". On Wikipedia, at WP:FICT, the use of this Wikia feature is suggested as a way to move articles out of Wikipedia: "Fictional material unsuited or too detailed for Wikipedia can be transwikied to the appropriate Wikia, such as Final Fantasy Wikia and Wookieepedia. Other sites, such as Gaming Wiki, may also accept material. Transwikied material should be edited to meet the guidelines of specific wikias; do not just copy and paste. The Wikia Annex is a staging area for transwikied material and a place for non-notable fictional material that does not have another home; the original Wikipedia versions will also be stored there."

This is a clear statement of affiliation between Wikia and Wikipedia. It explicitly establishes a mechanism by which Wikia directly benefits from its connection to Wikipedia. Enough of one to put Wikipedia's tax-exempt status at risk. When the same people are involved in the management of both a nonprofit and a profit making organization, US tax law prohibits the nonprofit from taking actions that directly benefit the profit-making organization. See IRS publication 1023, part V. --John Nagle (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)"

thekohser

They're just trying to make my head explode, aren't they?

Robster

QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 14th January 2008, 1:18am)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...mp_%28policy%29

QUOTE(Wikipedia:Village_pump)

"Wikia has announced the Annex. This is described as "This Wikia hopes to be a place where Wikipedia fiction articles that are too detailed for Wikipedia can be kept until they find a new home."

Too detailed... for the sum of human knowledge?

Ummm.... yeah.

Nya

QUOTE(Robster @ Mon 14th January 2008, 7:56am)

QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 14th January 2008, 1:18am)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...mp_%28policy%29

QUOTE(Wikipedia:Village_pump)

"Wikia has announced the Annex. This is described as "This Wikia hopes to be a place where Wikipedia fiction articles that are too detailed for Wikipedia can be kept until they find a new home."

Too detailed... for the sum of human knowledge?

Ummm.... yeah.

More like the garbled abstract of human knowledge.

Moulton

Should false and defamatory BLPs that are more yellow-tainted flights of fancy by axe-grinding would-be biographers than factual accounts also be migrated to the Annex?

badlydrawnjeff

And people poo-poohed me when I predicted this a year ago.

thekohser

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Mon 14th January 2008, 12:53pm)

And people poo-poohed me when I predicted this a year ago.

I never did, Jeff. This was something that you and I agreed on perfectly.

Note how such similar voices of concern have both been driven from the project that refuses to hear them?

Greg

Achromatic

They're getting great value from their in-house counsel, that's for sure. -cough-

Jimmy is really just skating around from whatever idea floats into his head without even bothering to think, just playing the hippy "Web 2.0, it's all good, man, folksonomy, not taxonomy, mimbo jimbo, badsites, new way of thinking" clown.

That is a gaping hole that needs to be dealt with somehow.*

* "that" being the Wiki/Wikipedia "relationship" not Jimbo's mouth. Well, not /just/.

WhispersOfWisdom

I do not think the investors in Wikia are going to get very much for their money. It appears to be a failure across the board. The spark and sizzle of the "dream" to make it big off of Wikipedia will not work unless / until Wikipedia itself is part of the package. If that does not happen soon, the Wikia thing will wither away. Look at their "forum." The search thing is almost comical.
Scratch that, no, it is comical.

The idea of everyone changing things at will is great for the MySpace crowd; not serious journalism people. Google with Microsoft, will be the real thing soon.

Moulton

The problem with expanding an idea is that some things don't scale well.

Like, for example, corrupt administrative practices.

Somey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 14th January 2008, 12:00pm)

QUOTE(badlydrawnjeff @ Mon 14th January 2008, 12:53pm)

And people poo-poohed me when I predicted this a year ago.

I never did, Jeff. This was something that you and I agreed on perfectly.

Well, I'd just like to take this opportunity to poo-pooh the people who poo-poohed Mr. Jeff originally, and to also poo-pooh those who poo-poohed me when I myself refused to poo-pooh him at the time.

I'm not so sure I see this as a bad thing, though, content-wise. If it leads to a general breakup of WP administratively, that would actually be good, at least from a human perspective. It may not lead to that, of course... Also, I've never subscribed to the idea that WP and Wikia were independent entities anyway - after all, I wouldn't even be here if that were really true in any meaningful sense.

This will reinforce the idea that they can't be considered independent "content entities," as in websites, but proving some sort of direct financial symbiosis is still likely to be problematic, at least for the purpose of demonstrating that WP donors are putting money right into Wikia's pockets.

dtobias

Too much poo-pooh around here... this place is starting to stink!

privatemusings

be careful what you pooh pooh - we'll end up with pooh pooh everywhere. (and this was being typed whilst Dan snuck in there first.... damn it!)

With regard to Wikia and Wikipedia - I really agree with Whispers above, that Wikia's really just a little cleaner fish in comparison;

FORUM Image

I don't think it'll engender any kind of change really........

guy

I wnder how many people appreciate the difference between Wikipedia and Wikia.

Peter Damian

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 15th January 2008, 11:08am)

I wnder how many people appreciate the difference between Wikipedia and Wikia.

A good point. Could someone enlighten me? What is Wikia?

Moulton

The difference between Wikia and Wikipedia is the same as the difference between Jimbo Wales and Jimbo Wales.

badlydrawnjeff

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 15th January 2008, 2:07am)

I'm not so sure I see this as a bad thing, though, content-wise. If it leads to a general breakup of WP administratively, that would actually be good, at least from a human perspective. It may not lead to that, of course... Also, I've never subscribed to the idea that WP and Wikia were independent entities anyway - after all, I wouldn't even be here if that were really true in any meaningful sense.

I wouldn't have agreed with you on 15 January 2007, but seeing how things have panned out moving into 2008, I can't say this wouldn't be a bad thing if only to drive the monopoly of collaborative editing away from Wikipedia - those Wikipedians who get forced off due to the fact that their input has not been deemed "worthy" anymore surely aren't going to bring their skills to a site that's run by the same people.

thekohser

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 15th January 2008, 6:22am)

A good point. Could someone enlighten me? What is Wikia?

Peter, I would have thought you were joking, but I suppose you're not. You really only need to read two things about Wikia:

A watered-down version of the truth.

And, the truth.

Happy learnin'.

thekohser

Well, the Wikia Annex is already adopting the way o' the Wikipedia.

QUOTE

View source
From Annex
for Talk:Main Page
Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Quinsareth. The reason given is vandal.

Start of block: 00:07, 16 January 2008
Expiry of block: infinite
Intended blockee: Thekohser
You can contact Quinsareth or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is foo.bar.foo.bar, and the block ID is #1. Please include either or both of these in any queries.

I guess I'll just have to file my complaints with the IRS surrounding WMF's Form 1023 problems without sharing notice with the appropriate Wikia community.

Greg

Jonny Cache

QUOTE(KStreetSlave @ Mon 14th January 2008, 1:18am)

Was browsing around and I came upon this interesting discussion. It's almost 2 weeks old, but I didn't find any discussion of it here, so I figured I'd post about it. Please delete this if it's a repost of something I missed.

Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy)

QUOTE('Wikipedia:Village Pump')

"Wikia has announced the Annex. This is described as "This Wikia hopes to be a place where Wikipedia fiction articles that are too detailed for Wikipedia can be kept until they find a new home." The Annex has features like "Getting a Wikipedia Article into the Annex" and "Bringing Many Wikipedia Articles at Once". On Wikipedia, at WP:FICT, the use of this Wikia feature is suggested as a way to move articles out of Wikipedia: "Fictional material unsuited or too detailed for Wikipedia can be transwikied to the appropriate Wikia, such as Final Fantasy Wikia and Wookieepedia. Other sites, such as Gaming Wiki, may also accept material. Transwikied material should be edited to meet the guidelines of specific wikias; do not just copy and paste. The Wikia Annex is a staging area for transwikied material and a place for non-notable fictional material that does not have another home; the original Wikipedia versions will also be stored there."

This is a clear statement of affiliation between Wikia and Wikipedia. It explicitly establishes a mechanism by which Wikia directly benefits from its connection to Wikipedia. Enough of one to put Wikipedia's tax-exempt status at risk. When the same people are involved in the management of both a nonprofit and a profit making organization, US tax law prohibits the nonprofit from taking actions that directly benefit the profit-making organization. See IRS publication 1023, part V. --John Nagle (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please give static links or diffs for stuff like this, as it's too much work finding the locus 2 weeks later.

Gratia In Futuro,

Jonny

P.S. I think this must be the place.

Achromatic

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 17th January 2008, 1:01pm)

and the block ID is #1.

Do you mean, Greg, that you have the honor of being the very first person blocked from Wikia?

Or did you sanitize?

EternalIdealist

QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 14th January 2008, 8:53am)

Should false and defamatory BLPs that are more yellow-tainted flights of fancy by axe-grinding would-be biographers than factual accounts also be migrated to the Annex?

One would think that the rational solution would be to actually enforce a rational and ethical BLP policy instead of wielding a broken policy like a sword when convenient for the elites. One can think a lot of foolish things I suppose.

Moulton

Probably the only way to ensure accurate, fair, and ethical construction of articles and BLPs is to only admit into the project editors who have successfully demonstrated both an understanding of and a commitment to such journalistic standards. That's how it's done in real life. In Fantasy Land, one can dream up anything at all, as long as it makes no claim to be a biographical portrayal of any person, alive or dead.