5 ms·

I casually end up on a fandom wiki every now and then. What's the main criticism?

Macha 4y ago
1. Autoplay videos done by fandom editors who may not have read the source material or even their own wiki article inserted at the top of pages just so they have video to justify video ads 2. Large portions of the page dedicated to "engagement bait", e.g. related articles in a permanent sidebar (mixed with ads), piles of random forum discussions/elsewhere on fandom links at the end of the page. 3. Open a fandom page with your adblocker off. Video ads in the header, in a floating overlay, randomly mid article, etc.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  4. On mobile I can't get images to display without disabling my ad blocker. 5. Despite nominally being Wikis the Fandom wikis have effectively zero Wiki-like intrapage or interpage navigation. I remember the likes of Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha before they got Fandomed. They are sad ghosts of what used to be very good fan oriented Wikis. Fandom is a dumpster fire and I wish them nothing but ill fortune.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    #5 is entirely dependent on the wiki itself, which is community-driven. Fandom only provides the infrastructure and platform, which support the feature.
    - PaulHoule 4y ago
      But the platform affects the contributors. The dark patterns must drive many people away completely. You have to fight them every step of the way if you use the site. Who wants to see their creative work featured on such a site for sore eyes? If it paid some people might overcome all that but to do it for free?
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        This is a stretch at best. I get it, Fandom sucks. The rest of the points are completely accurate. But the amount of interlinking isn't their fault.
        Macha 4y ago
        I mean, if they push their GUI editor and their GUI editor makes it hard to interlink, arguably that does make them part of the problem.
        mynameisvlad 4y ago
        I mean, it’s the same VisualEditor that’s used across MediaWiki sites, including as the default on Wikipedia. How is it only a problem on Fandom?
        Macha 4y ago
        I was surprised by this claim, as I didn't remember them being the same. And I checked, as a logged out user, on a wikia site and on wikipedia, and... No, they're not the same by default. Wikia/Fandom defaults to a WYSIWYG editor, linking is a 4-click process. Wikipedia has a toolbar atop a wiki code view. It does offer the option of a WYSIWYG editor, but it is _not_ the default. Linking is [[some article title]]. I'm a logged out user on both sites, so it's not a preference I've set.
        mynameisvlad 4y ago
        I said it’s the same VisualEditor. As in, it’s literally the same extension. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor I never claimed the defaults are the same. VisualEditor will likely become default on Wikipedia at some point in the future, as it’s an opt-in feature. And it can be turned off on Fandom, which I’m sure core contributors are likely to. As a platform, Fandom provides the same visual editor that is provided by MediaWiki. That was the claim.
  - delecti 4y ago
    > 5. Despite nominally being Wikis the Fandom wikis have effectively zero Wiki-like intrapage or interpage navigation. The site mechanically sucks, with all the ads, needless videos, comment sections, "related content", etc, but this one is up to the writers to do. It's not Fandom's fault if writers don't integrate wiki functionality more thoroughly. I personally never even noticed Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha switching to Fandom. They seem about the same as they always have.
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      I should instead say "when Wikia switched to Fandom". Wikia used to be pretty standard MediaWiki instances. Then they moved the format to a more custom layout until they became the absolute trash Fandom layout of today. When Wikia was more standard MediaWiki layout both sites were extremely usable. The Fandom trash styling makes both very difficult to navigate now. They're unusable without an ad blocker.
    - NoGravitas 4y ago
      Really? Because I found the transition of Memory Alpha switching to Fandom extremely jarring. Maybe it will improve after WWIII and First Contact, when profit ceases to be a factor.
      - delecti 4y ago
        I truly can't remember even noticing a difference. I didn't even realize it had ever been hosted anywhere else until this thread.
yifanl 4y ago
On top of being generally worse in terms of content (if only for layout), they also SEO heavily and derank any better wikis. The only two fandoms (ha) that have had their independent wikis consistently rank higher I'm aware of are bulbapedia and fextralife.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
Here's the justifications the Runescape wiki admins used for forking to a new site a few years ago, and things have only gotten worse since then: https://runescape.wiki/w/Forum:Leaving_Wikia#Why%3F https://runescape.wiki/w/Forum:Leaving_Wikia#Why%3F
vkou 4y ago
Ads whose performance brings a dev box to its knees, ads that cause content to jump around as they load, ads that bloat your screen to the point where you have to scroll to see anything of use on the page you're on, and (this is a matter of taste), an atrocious layout. Compare, a few pages on, say, http://poewiki.net http://poewiki.net (the community fork) with http://pathofexile.fandom.com http://pathofexile.fandom.com Compare the loading times. The jank. The layout, that optimizes providing you information, over serving you ads. The usability difference is night and day.

1. Autoplay videos done by fandom editors who may not have read the source material or even their own wiki article inserted at the top of pages just so they have video to justify video ads 2. Large portions of the page dedicated to "engagement bait", e.g. related articles in a permanent sidebar (mixed with ads), piles of random forum discussions/elsewhere on fandom links at the end of the page. 3. Open a fandom page with your adblocker off. Video ads in the header, in a floating overlay, randomly mid article, etc.

giantrobot 4y ago
4. On mobile I can't get images to display without disabling my ad blocker. 5. Despite nominally being Wikis the Fandom wikis have effectively zero Wiki-like intrapage or interpage navigation. I remember the likes of Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha before they got Fandomed. They are sad ghosts of what used to be very good fan oriented Wikis. Fandom is a dumpster fire and I wish them nothing but ill fortune.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  #5 is entirely dependent on the wiki itself, which is community-driven. Fandom only provides the infrastructure and platform, which support the feature.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    But the platform affects the contributors. The dark patterns must drive many people away completely. You have to fight them every step of the way if you use the site. Who wants to see their creative work featured on such a site for sore eyes? If it paid some people might overcome all that but to do it for free?
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      This is a stretch at best. I get it, Fandom sucks. The rest of the points are completely accurate. But the amount of interlinking isn't their fault.
      - Macha 4y ago
        I mean, if they push their GUI editor and their GUI editor makes it hard to interlink, arguably that does make them part of the problem.
        mynameisvlad 4y ago
        I mean, it’s the same VisualEditor that’s used across MediaWiki sites, including as the default on Wikipedia. How is it only a problem on Fandom?
        Macha 4y ago
        I was surprised by this claim, as I didn't remember them being the same. And I checked, as a logged out user, on a wikia site and on wikipedia, and... No, they're not the same by default. Wikia/Fandom defaults to a WYSIWYG editor, linking is a 4-click process. Wikipedia has a toolbar atop a wiki code view. It does offer the option of a WYSIWYG editor, but it is _not_ the default. Linking is [[some article title]]. I'm a logged out user on both sites, so it's not a preference I've set.
        mynameisvlad 4y ago
        I said it’s the same VisualEditor. As in, it’s literally the same extension. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor I never claimed the defaults are the same. VisualEditor will likely become default on Wikipedia at some point in the future, as it’s an opt-in feature. And it can be turned off on Fandom, which I’m sure core contributors are likely to. As a platform, Fandom provides the same visual editor that is provided by MediaWiki. That was the claim.
- delecti 4y ago
  > 5. Despite nominally being Wikis the Fandom wikis have effectively zero Wiki-like intrapage or interpage navigation. The site mechanically sucks, with all the ads, needless videos, comment sections, "related content", etc, but this one is up to the writers to do. It's not Fandom's fault if writers don't integrate wiki functionality more thoroughly. I personally never even noticed Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha switching to Fandom. They seem about the same as they always have.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    I should instead say "when Wikia switched to Fandom". Wikia used to be pretty standard MediaWiki instances. Then they moved the format to a more custom layout until they became the absolute trash Fandom layout of today. When Wikia was more standard MediaWiki layout both sites were extremely usable. The Fandom trash styling makes both very difficult to navigate now. They're unusable without an ad blocker.
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    Really? Because I found the transition of Memory Alpha switching to Fandom extremely jarring. Maybe it will improve after WWIII and First Contact, when profit ceases to be a factor.
    - delecti 4y ago
      I truly can't remember even noticing a difference. I didn't even realize it had ever been hosted anywhere else until this thread.

yifanl 4y ago

On top of being generally worse in terms of content (if only for layout), they also SEO heavily and derank any better wikis. The only two fandoms (ha) that have had their independent wikis consistently rank higher I'm aware of are bulbapedia and fextralife.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

Here's the justifications the Runescape wiki admins used for forking to a new site a few years ago, and things have only gotten worse since then: https://runescape.wiki/w/Forum:Leaving_Wikia#Why%3F https://runescape.wiki/w/Forum:Leaving_Wikia#Why%3F

vkou 4y ago

Ads whose performance brings a dev box to its knees, ads that cause content to jump around as they load, ads that bloat your screen to the point where you have to scroll to see anything of use on the page you're on, and (this is a matter of taste), an atrocious layout. Compare, a few pages on, say, http://poewiki.net http://poewiki.net (the community fork) with http://pathofexile.fandom.com http://pathofexile.fandom.com Compare the loading times. The jank. The layout, that optimizes providing you information, over serving you ads. The usability difference is night and day.