This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
What is going to happen if I place File:Wikia Block User.jpg? And, articles should be filled with Images, right? Can anybody reply to me? DipankanIn the woods? 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my edit summary, the image is not noteworthy, nor indeed specific to Wikia (being a screenshot of MediaWiki software). There may also be copyright implications. For what reason should the image be included? What does it add to the article? — Manticore 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for removing large parts of the controversy section without discussion, but the claims that Wikia made changes "against contributors' wishes" and many of its wikis revolted because of that seem contrived, and the only sources that back these statements up are wikis, which are naturally unreliable. If anyone can find a real source to prove that there's been criticism as a direct result of these changes, I'd be glad to keep the information intact, but we should keep it out until then to avoid hurting the company's reputation. ~jcm 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
They aren't all wikis. References 53-58 are news references. I think you'd be better off taking this in chunks rather than trying to attack the entire controversies section at once. RyanVeseyReview me! 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I had taken those into account during my edit, and I simply modified the paragraphs that were adequately sourced to better reflect those sources. The part I mostly have a problem with is everything under Domain and skin assimilation, since that's where most of the bad sourcing comes in. ~jcm 20:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I agree with you there; however, I feel the information is very useful (if not a little longer than necessary) and should be kept if it can be supported by more reliable sources. What would you think of either hiding the content or moving it to the talk page for it to be worked on? RyanVeseyReview me! 20:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll fully support whichever option you think works best. I agree with what you said about the information being useful, and with a little cleaning up and more verification, it would fit into the article nicely. ~jcm 20:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the material to the talk page. So it can be supported by more reliable and/or third party sources. RyanVeseyReview me! 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If you follow some of the links you will find they also have sources, and while in some cases not meeting Wikipedia's sense of a reliable source, they are still ones more permanent than wiki articles. The best example I can give is http://doomwiki.org/wiki/Doom_Wiki:Departure_from_Wikia - as a member of the team that worked for nine whole months on migrating this wiki off Wikia for all of the below mentioned reasons, I can assure you that the outrage was both very real and very widespread. The majority of the wikis listed below wouldn't exist if Wikia hadn't forced migration to their horrible new "Wikia" skin against widespread objections. The now-defunct Anti-Wikia-Alliance was formed on Wikia's own admin area, until it was kicked out by hostile mods. Wikia's reputation doesn't need any help becoming bad, they ruined it long ago with their own profit-minded actions. Follow my link and you will find, for example, a link to a news post on doomworld.com referencing the wiki move and the reason for it. --QuasarTE (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The Anti-Wikia alliance still exists at http://awa.shoutwiki.com and there is an earlier archive of Wikia-specific issues at http://complaintwiki.org which dates from the first batch of forced reskins in 2008. The article also needs to mention the Russian (2010) and English (2013) Uncyclopedias have left Wikia. K7L (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikia has merged separately founded wikis, such as Uncyclopedia, to subdomains of wikia.com against contributors' wishes, citing a need to boost its attractiveness to advertisers. The company intended to merge Memory Alpha, WoWWiki, and Zelda Wiki in a similar fashion; the proposal was successfully opposed by users of all three sites. Zelda Wiki is still an independent wiki, while WoWWiki and Memory Alpha were merged but allowed to keep their domain names.
In June 2008, Wikia adopted a new skin, Monaco, intending to implement it as the default on almost all hosted wikis. The skin had an uneven reception, with issues over the prominent branding, in-content format-altering ads, and the mandatory nature of the change. Many wiki users felt the choice of skin default should remain their own. The switch went ahead, but some wikis retained Monobook as their default. In September 2008, the Transformers Wikia moved content to their own server, citing the format-altering ads and mandatory changes as reasons for their departure. WikiFur moved likewise in August 2009.
In May 2009, Wikia removed the ability of individual users to choose a skin other than Monaco or Monobook, claiming a testing burden and relative lack of features. Soon after, Wikia removed the option to set the default skin to Monobook, with the exception of certain large wikis, namely, Uncyclopedia.
Why Wikipedia comparing to Wikia is so overwhelmingly overbloated with its rules? Wikia rule is simpler. As long as you do not gibberish and do not adulterish, as long it's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't the place for policy discussion. Wikia allows individual wikis to create most of their own policies. Thus you'll find that many wikis there are lax and some are more restrictive. Even different language editions of Wikipedia have different sets of polices, so it isn't really fair to compare the English Wikipedia to an entire collection of wikis. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)