3 ms·
Anyone who tries to worship Jimmy Wales for Wikipedia should know that if he really have his way, he'd turn it into this horrible mess of Fandom, which he also
by mcmoor 3y ago
Anyone who tries to worship Jimmy Wales for Wikipedia should know that if he really have his way, he'd turn it into this horrible mess of Fandom, which he also founded. Luckily the volunteers rightfully take Wikipedia from him. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-spanish-fork https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-spanish-fork
- ravetcofx 3y agoSurprise surprise the rich aren't our friends
- rendall 3y agoThere have been shenanigans where articles describing fictional lore have been taken down or merged with other articles due to being against Wikipedia policy ("Wikipedia is not a game manual"). e.g. see endless discussion on the Dungeons and Dragons Plane article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plane_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plane_(Dungeons_%26_Drago... For instance, under that policy, this article was taken down https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plane_of_Shadow&oldid=1086521358 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plane_of_Shadow&o... and "merged" (with loss of information) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Plane_of_Shadow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#P... I saw a comment accusing Wales of enforcing this policy in order to direct traffic to Fandom. I thought when I read it that the accusation was uncalled for, but given Fandom's intransigence about taking old wikis down and the money-grubbing quality of its UX, I have wondered. Whatever the merits of this policy, it is applied inconsistently or not at all to topics not likely to be in Fandom.