Fandom

WoWWiki

WoWWiki's death blow? Blizzard tacitly endorses Wowpedia

Forum page

104,545pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page

This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index WoWWiki general WoWWiki's death blow? Blizzard tacitly endorses Wowpedia

Go to any item page in the new WoW Battle.net site like Chronicle of Dark Secrets. On the right side you will see a link directly to Wowpedia.

I've been hassling various Wikia staff about what their plan is for WoWWiki. They must be pre-occupied by something else, because in the meantime, Wowpedia is eating WoWWiki for lunch. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10:51 AM PST 4 Dec 2010

More than just item pages, the game guide at http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/game/ and pretty much all it's subpages, plus character rep pages and the item pages you mentioned all link to wowhead and wowpedia. -- Stewart 18:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is endorsing WoWWiki over Wowpedia other than Wikia staff members who lie and claim that people, who do not know about the site as indeed indicated by http://www.wowpedia.org/User_talk:Servian, aren't really just uninformed due to Wikia's policies. Even people who chose to stay here out of protest against Curse have admitted that, as I think Hopper put it, Wikia has "earned this death note."

I'm sure they will lock this thread because the "original message has been conveyed" or something similar, because they are deathly afraid of people knowing the truth. They know their time is limited. Shaponik (talk) 18:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

While i'll admit some people do have something against curse, as far as I know Curse is merely providing hosting to the Wowpedia project which was already well on it's way to leaving at the time. It's not like Curse went and said "we should have a wiki for wow, lets branch WoWWiki and call it ours". It's still run by the people who actually ran WoWWiki here. Anyway this is going off-topic, and to get back on-topic it's good that Blizzard is finally giving their official fansites the proper credit, it is just a shame because it could have been WoWWiki's name up there instead if things had gone a little differently. -- Stewart 18:39, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who finds this ironic since WoWWiki and Wowpedia both datamine Wowhead by for item information. I think Fandyllic hit the real significance on the head. :) Eshtana (talk) 18:42, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
That's true actually. But regarding the placement of Wowpedia over WoWWiki, Wikia shot themselves in the foot by not giving the community more autonomy. I think they might have assumed the Google ranking alone would keep WoWWiki alive and allow it to smother the new site. Shaponik (talk) 18:57, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why, but the EU version of the announcement blog mentions Wowpedia (and Wowhead) directly, but the US version does not. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:16 PM PST 4 Dec 2010
The US did, but it was deleted cuz the blog post itself was added before the new stuff was implemented. Can still find the old on blue tracker tho. [1]Resa1983 (talk) 19:26, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I do have to say one thing in Wikia's defense though. There are clearly people still visiting this site, and even editing it. It reminds me of that New York Times story about how powerful Google rankings can be. WoWWiki may be dead from an encyclopedia point of view, but people are still visiting it and making edits without, apparently, ever even looking at the recent changes feed. Shaponik (talk) 21:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

The number of quality edits on WoWWiki is a fraction of those on Wowpedia, though. Wowwiki could be behind Wowpedia as soon as year's end on Google rankings. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:06 PM PST 4 Dec 2010
WoWWiki is already sometimes behind Wowpedia on google search rankings for new content introduced since the fork, simply because it is being introduced on Wowpedia faster than it is here. If Wikia has a plan, they need to come forward with it very soon. Wowpedia looks better positioned than WoWWiki is for next Tuesday when Cataclysm-related google searches will take off. ddcorkum (talk) 22:40, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Bellocois seems to think this site should be an RP/fanfic site, but I don't know. Taking the time to try and involve people like User:Conthus1997 feels artificial if it's done by people who want to be rid of the original WoWWiki, kind of like the thread about moving to WoW@Wikia. Plus the Wikia minders will come along and say it's spam. They already tried to remove it when I suggested to someone who was having trouble creating new pages that the Wowpedia folks might be able to help him... Shaponik (talk) 22:53, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Shaponik: Its because they don't want to lose the viewers & what few editors remain. Viewers = ad impressions = $$$ for them = Gil (CEO of Wikia) being able to pay back the investors who funded Wikia to get it off the ground. Wikia's now getting desperate since the wow community has moved on as Wowwiki was its main revenue source. Resa1983 (talk) 01:13, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I know why they're doing it. My original point was that, if not for the vigilance of certain users, they would be able to succeed in snuffing out the newer version of the site with brute Google force because the pages are identical and WoWWiki's version is older. For certain pages (boss fights in particular) this is still the case. We will see how it goes once Cataclysm hits.Shaponik (talk) 03:00, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Some of the pages are identical. Many and most new ones are not. Lots of pages need to be updated with Cataclysm (and the Shattering). I randomly check and compare pages of the same name on WoWWiki and Wowpedia just to get an idea of the edit quality and content type from recent changes. Many pages with the same name on Wowpedia have better formatted info with more content and better grammar/spelling. New WoWWiki users are less likely to get help and less likely to know an experienced editor. This is both a fact of how the fork happened and a worsening trend for WoWWiki. The links from Battle.net will just accelerate the differences. The admins at WoWWiki are also less experienced. Just today I had to tell Raylan13 about the {{protected}} template and yesterday I asked Deadlykris to update {{cost}} with the new point types (Conquest, Valor, and Justice), but instead he just unlocked it and asked me to do it (which I did, because I'm cool that way Winky). --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:23 PM PST 4 Dec 2010
I just double checked with some major topics and upcoming bosses though. As far as Google is concerned the Wowpedia pages for those don't (yet) exist. In the worst cases, this can end up like the person on Talk:Darkshore, which I'd be willing to take a checkuser test to prove it was not a straw man/sock puppet.
On a related note Fandyllic, I'd like to say I think you've handled this whole situation in a... well, classier way than some of the (now former) admins. You know who and what I'm talking about. Shaponik (talk) 06:07, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Shaponik. I will say, I have time to be "classier" than the admins who are busy maintaining Wowpedia, but I'm not an admin because, lets just say, I've had disagreements with how WoWWiki was being run and how it treated some of its good faith users. If I trusted Wikia, I would volunteer to be an admin again at WoWWiki, but we're not there yet, unfortunately. Also, I'm not an admin at Wowpedia either, because despite the current admins trying to say there is no "bad blood" between us... --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:49 AM PST 5 Dec 2010
I've always been sort of curious about that, but to ask here really would be completely irrelevant to the topic of the forum thread. So yes, it's obvious which direction the tide is going. And I may have spoken too soon about the boss pages: someone's been busy, which will hopefully alert Google to the discrepancy. Shaponik (talk) 23:54, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to leave too. I'd be wasting my time here. Sorry guys. Good luck. Selma Voss 16:40, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah all the edits being made are just people updating things that have already been changed on Wowpedia... I feel bad for those people... I almost fell for the same scam. Nice try Wikia! --Espantish (talk) 03:37, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
It's not a scam, but it is sad how Wikia under-valued WoWWiki. They are making very little effort to compete with Wowpedia. I even tried to prod them into something by asking some Wikia staff what their plans are. Besides some luke-warm responses from Kirkburn, they've pretty much ignored me. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:52 PM PST 5 Dec 2010
What exactly can they do? Shaponik (talk) 07:54, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why does anyone who switched to Wowpedia care what happens to WoWWiki? Logard 22:50, 1 January 2011

Perhaps you can explain it. You posted here. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:37 AM PST 2 Jan 2011

What can Wikia do to revive WoWWiki?

This section has been moved to What can be done to revive WoWWiki?. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:08 PM PST 10 Dec 2010

Why I'm still at WoWWiki

These are just my personal reasons, but it would be interesting to hear other people's reasons.

  • I put alot of work into WoWWiki and I'd like to see it live on, if at all possible.
  • I do a bulk of my contributing to Wowpedia now, but I like to follow the situation at WoWWiki, just to see if Wikia has any true intention of trying to keep it alive.
  • If WoWWiki manages to get somewhat or more revived, it will provide competition to keep Wowpedia from getting complacent.
  • To help WoWWiki users, but still occasional remind them that their time is probably better spent at Wowpedia until Wikia gets their act together.
  • I see WoWWiki as a potential bellweather of where Wikia is going. If they can't save WoWWiki, it means that they may abandon any large, revenue-generating wiki in the gaming segment if they face some competition. Any others that grow under the Wikia umbrella should be wary.

--Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:44 AM PST 7 Dec 2010

  • Your work lives on in Wowpedia. The only way I could see your first point being applicable is if you put a lot of work into the new Wikia skins, in which case, kudos.
  • I think the situation is like a car wreck at this point: none of us can look away.
  • Was there a point in the past where WoWWiki/Wowpedia was "complacent" and it became an issue? I'm curious now. Also, I don't think the nature of what the site offers is conducive to competition.
  • That's the best thing you can do at this point: help them make an informed decision.
  • The question here is not competition per se. It is a question of the site deciding to leave Wikia, and Wikia attempting to prevent that by forcing it to be created as a "fork" and thus cause Google to ignore it. Your last point isn't really valid. Astranath (talk) 22:42, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
There's only one reason for me to do anything at WoWWiki at this point: it is still servicing the community. I have no loyalties to Wikia or the WoWWiki project. The former is a greedy corporation that never did anything for me, and the latter is dead. But my contributions to WoWWiki were never for the benefit of WoWWiki, nor are my recent contributions to Wowpedia for the benefit of Wowpedia. I contribute with the aim of assisting the community at large.
That is something I would disagree with Pcj's earlier comments on. Sure, the editing community moved to Wowpedia, but contributers don't contribute for the sake of editors. Perhaps they interact with other contributers, but they don't contribute to them. Contributions to WoWWiki/Wowpedia, or any wiki in general, is for the reading community, of which the editors are truly a small fraction.
Are people who contribute here wasting their time? Probably. But that attitude isn't what made WoWWiki/Wowpedia the premier wiki on the subject in the first place. If someone contributes to WoWWiki, or Wowpedia, I applaud them! Whether they do so aware or unaware of recent events, their motives are the same. It is volunteer work, and deserving of praise.
In the mean time, Wikia's lack of interest on this subject is telling. And if they can't be bothered to give WoWWiki some serious attention, then I find myself questioning why I should either. You pointed out a lot of good things that Wikia could be doing, Fandyllic, but for each day that Wikia ignores your suggestions it will take a month to recover. I try to be helpful to others whenever I can, but Wikia needs to take the next step and help themselves. The ball is in their court. Already, I don't think a recovery will be "complete" until at least next expansion, if ever. ddcorkum (talk) 23:48, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Why I probably won't be at WoWWiki

  • Issues with the skin - everyone knows these.
  • Making watched pages public is not something I like at all. Am I just being a Luddite?
  • This nonsense about reverting legitimate messages letting people know. Seriously, should we make a policy proposal that says you can tell people Wowpedia exists or something? Hiding behind the aegis of anti-spam policies is rather dumb. I could respect their point of view (not wanting people to leave) if they weren't being childish about this and would simply have an actual site notice that people saw. (Not even all the admins knew, apparently.)
  • As mentioned above, there is no support here. Deadlykris is the only person still with the site listed on WoWWiki:Administrators, and he's just doing it as a favor. The idea that they're trying to astroturf the site with a paid contractor is also rather disturbing.
  • The point where WoWWiki is unusable versus Wowpeda is fast approaching if you look at the recent changes of the two sites.
  • Related to the above point, literally every single editor has left who knows it exists. This is the one they can't take away or change. Astranath (talk) 00:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Also, are they blacklisting wowpedia.org now? Astranath (talk) 01:18, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

A couple remarks:

  1. I think you can hide your watched pages. Not 100% sure on that.
  2. A favor, yes, but not a favor to Wikia; rather, to the WoW community who comes here in search of answers.
  3. I left a message on Sannse's talk page about the removal of that link. If they're trying to alienate the rest of the editors of this wiki, that's a good start. --Kris talk 02:20, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
It's possible that particular edit was a well-intentioned housekeeping move since the link to the Wowpedia forum post was kept intact. On the other hand, they've conveniently airbrushed the Wowpedia announcement off the front page version of the news, protected it so people couldn't add it back (or add the topic of this post for that matter), and past actions pretty much negate AGF. Astranath (talk) 03:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
According to Sannse's talk page, she "thought that was one that showed on the main page" - which makes it somehow better apparently. Scrubbing it off there is okay. Mehhh. Astranath (talk) 19:50, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
Wikia seems to be operating in reactionary mode right now. The poor reception of the new skin has put them on the defensive and they are reacting and not thinking. I wouldn't read too much into what various Wikia staff members have been doing. Wikia is still a young and apparently immature organization. I'm sure they like to think of how they operate as "agile", but you can be agile and disciplined. They are more just unpredictable.
If you want to continue to contribute to WoWWiki, please do. If you don't, don't. WoWWiki needs to survive on its own merits or not. If Wikia thinks suppressing Wowpedia links on WoWWiki is going to make a difference, I just feel sorry for them. That is the act of a desperate organization. If they want to make a business on parasiting off the work of volunteers, they need to remember that they can't just do anything they want. The harsh realities will educate them. Perhaps WoWWiki dying will be part of that process, but hopefully not.
If this sounds preachy... it is, but unless you can show me how I'm wrong, my words stand. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:18 PM PST 8 Dec 2010
Reactionary is a charitable word for the notion that any mention of Wowpedia, or even directing users to a discussion about trying to improve WoWWiki, is unacceptable. Pathetic is more like it. How is there supposed to be a WoWWiki community if people can't even be told about recent events? Astranath (talk) 00:38, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well apparently that one revision was an error, according to Sannse, after I posted on her talk page, and looking at her edits leading up to it, it's believable with reasonable doubt. She reverted the edit at least, so that's something. --Kris talk 11:11, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Forum:Regarding Policies is an un-subtle, sneak attack way of suppressing links to Wowpedia. Users will feel the threat of being banned based on vague notions of being "tendentious" or appearing to make "attempts to get editors to leave the site". Wikia has been collecting the money from WoWWiki, but doesn't really appear to understand how it was built. It was built on discussion with the community and not dictating policy from on high. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:28 AM PST 9 Dec 2010

A disinterested take on Wowpedia versus WoWWiki

First, I want to say I can see both sides of this 'spam' issue. On the one hand, if you're not going to contribute to WoWWiki - as appears to be the case with essentially everyone here - go away. Begone. Stop giving them traffic. On the other hand, based on my research on these forums, Wikia has been entirely two-faced about acknowledging the new site's existence. They appear to have put a notice up that no one saw thanks to their skin, claiming people already knew and were consciously choosing WoWWiki, even in the face of ample evidence that this was not the case. And why was Wowpedia expunged from the news portion of the main page despite being on the version that requires clicking?

While some efforts to inform the public are questionable at best (I noticed in User:Sannse's contributions she was removing notices put up by a bot), it seems clear that the only reason people are still editing here is ignorance. I can only conclude, per previous posters, that Wikia is indeed 'deathly afraid' these people will come across something acknowledging Wowpedia's very existence. As someone with a background in mathematics, the way I would put it is that as the level of clue increases, e.g. bothering to read these forums, the chance that the person has already left approaches 1. Did anyone ever find that evasive WoWWiki user who chose to edit here over Wowpedia?

I won't pretend that I plan to contribute significantly to either site, and as such, feel free to ban me for not contributing 'positively' here. But as a lay user with no stake in either site, I want to express my disappointment in the duplicitous and heavy-handed tactics employed by Wikia. I do hope the 'powers that be' read this and realize just how damaging the situation is to their company's reputation. Is it really worth it? Google rankings based upon older content may allow you to squeeze a few extra dollars out, but within a content patch or two you will be buried under the weight of your own failures as Wowpedia continues to grow and WoWWiki viewers continue to come across people on the forums who say, as someone recently did to me, "WoWWiki is dead noob! Use Wowpedia now!"

Thanks to the way you have handled this situation, I plan to leave and never return to another Wikia-run site. Sorry for the long-winded post. I hope maybe, maybe someone takes something away from it. Best of luck Wowpedia. Sauronite (talk) 20:47, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. Unfortunately, Wikia has probably heard alot of messages and seen alot of posts like this and so far their reaction has been to just thicken their skin and march onward. I'm currently teetering on the edge of abandoning WoWWiki. However, given the right kind of cooperation by Wikia I could come back full time and try to champion WoWWiki as an alternative to Wowpedia (which will make the Wowpedia folks a little mad I suspect, but generally I think they don't care). So far, Wikia has chosen only to speak with me through Raylan13, although I've tried to get in touch with both Kirkburn (who was mildly responsive and has paid his WoWWiki dues, so I cut him lots of slack) and JoePlay (who is supposed to be Category Manager of the Wikia Gaming team). JoePlay is either on vacation or choosing to ignore me. Prospects so far are not great, but I'll give it a month or so. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:35 PM PST 9 Dec 2010
I'm still confused about why you would do such a thing other than the past issues with Wowpedia's admins. Other than the repurposing that's been suggested elsewhere, what's the point? As soon as they start asking questions about the high turnover rate among editors, you've lost them. Shaponik (talk) 23:13, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
There are some things that would just take too long to explain. My issues with some former WoWWiki admins, now Wowpedia admins, are things like that. If I can recruit a new crop of admins that are smart, with good attitudes, and hard working, it will be much easier to be on WoWWiki than to have to avoid fighting the same battles over again. Does that make sense?
Don't get me wrong, Wowpedia is a great site and currently has several advantages over WoWWiki, but it could be even better. I'm willing to give WoWWiki a chance. Apparently you, Shaponik, are not, so I think it's more confusing why you keep commenting. I wouldn't ban you, but you do seem to be just hanging around to stir up trouble. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:19 PM PST 9 Dec 2010

You know, I wasn't planning on posting here again, but I want to say something... This post did more to sum up the situation than rest of the forum combined. If I had to pick a single comment I could make Jimmy Wales read, this would be it. It succinctly explains the mysterious lack of community involvement in policy proposals and the opinion of the WoW community (at least on other forums) towards Wikia without resorting to things like calling Wikia the AOL of wiki hosts. Kudos to the author. And Fandyllic, here's hoping you come to your senses soon. Anatasla (talk) 06:33, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you care so much about what I do? Also, I would be shocked if Jimmy Wales even does anything day-to-day or makes any major decisions at Wikia. He's the classic absentee landlord. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:52 AM PST 24 Dec 2010
I'm sure you're right about Wales. As for you, it doesn't bother me one way or another. I think I understand better now though. Anatasla (talk) 05:04, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

WoWWiki closure

Do you think we could do a fundraiser to buy out the domain name? How much do you think they would want for it? I didn't know where else to put this, but Fandyllic mentioned new ideas. --Alaine S (talk) 22:43, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

WoWWiki is a significant chunk of Wikia's business. It makes no sence from a corporate standpoint to give up such an asset in the foreseeable future. Also, even if Wikia were willing to sell, it would be utterly useless to continue wowwiki without Wikia involvement, because then it would truly be dead. All of the advantages that WoWWiki has over Wowpedia would finally be erroded. ddcorkum (talk) 23:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Also, who is we? If it is the Wowpedia community, then you're asking at the wrong place. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:13 PM PST 13 Dec 2010
"We" is people like you who are frustrated with the situation and ready to give up. What doesn't make sense from a business standpoint is keeping the site open. That's all I was saying. (And what essentially everyone else has said. I also found someone else had brought up the domain purchase idea, so sorry for mentioning it.) --Alaine S (talk) 01:27, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not part of "we" then. You haven't even remotely made a good case for your point. Try harder. Assertions without evidence are not convincing.
I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to be straightforward. I get how you feel, but I think you're speaking more out of frustration than out of reasoned analysis. I do give you credit for continuing to discuss the issue, but I'd feel better if you actually did something concrete to try to make WoWWiki better than just complaining and suggestions. --Gengar orange 22x22Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:27 PM PST 13 Dec 2010
Wikia has explicitly said that WoWWiki(.com) is not for sale. --Havenstrom (talk) 10:00, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
That's too bad. I wonder how much it would be worth if it was for sale. No doubt the hypothetical value is diminishing by the day though. --Alaine S (talk) 21:21, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:WoWWiki%27s_death_blow%3F_Blizzard_tacitly_endorses_Wowpedia
wowwiki.wikia.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-44
164409
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:GMO6PDI4SKNXRHXRHRD4QL6BIJSDI22N
<urn:uuid:b11c01ae-aa4e-4895-9df2-158a9ebea87e>
2016-10-22T08:59:51Z
23.235.33.194
sha1:K54WTZYI6LJXV6XVLWH3CQ7S73GFAADQ
<urn:uuid:12c7f2bc-820d-4531-992f-a21452356e4a>
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:WoWWiki%27s_death_blow%3F_Blizzard_tacitly_endorses_Wowpedia
response
<urn:uuid:7eaf7b8b-ca5c-4757-82d4-a2bc12a3f767>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-6-4.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-44
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf