3 ms·

Fextralife Wikis are an alternative: https://www.wiki.fextralife.com/ https://www.wiki.fextralife.com/ Comments sections on wikis there for e.g. FromSoftware

Fextralife Wikis are an alternative: https://www.wiki.fextralife.com/ https://www.wiki.fextralife.com/ Comments sections on wikis there for e.g. FromSoftware games can tend toward rebarbativity, and the ads can be annoying, but in my recent experience the information troves compiled for big games such as Elden Ring are an indispensable resource.

kimbernator 2y ago
It's not fresh in my memory, but I recall being extremely annoyed at the Elden Ring wiki around the release of the game; not for lack of being filled out, but the site was just not fun to use. Truth be told, it appears that Weird Gloop/mediawiki has a bit of a monopoly on wiki platforms that don't suck.
sigh_again 2y ago
fextralife has the exact same behavior as Fandom: autoplaying their Twitch streams to farm views and displaying ads, at times hiding it in invisible iframes, or making it so small you can't find it, leading to Twitch making rules against embedding autoplays, ads everywhere, shitty AI generated stubs for half the articles, botting and automatically piling on criticism, and fundamentally, it's just plain wrong, everywhere. The initial Dark Souls wikidot was excellent. Fextralife bullied and threatened them into closing down. At this point, people don't move on because of habit, but the quality for the Elden Ring wiki is dramatically bad. Information is outdated, poorly maintained, actual fixes are being reverted by their own, paid editors, other wikis are suspiciously often the target of attacks and deleted content.
- sph 2y ago
  I loved the Dark Souls wikidot. Sad to see the Elden Ring "official" wiki is the Fextralife one.
- michaelsbradley 2y ago
  On a scale of 0 – Good, I would score my overall experience with fextralife as "not great", especially when viewing it on my phone. I don't know the history and controversies re: other sites, I only started reading fextra wikis in 2022/23. But I haven't experienced problems with information in the guides. Off the top of my head: for Elden Ring, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Hollow Knight, I don't recall a single time when the info was flat out wrong. In the case of comments pointing out something incorrect or incomplete, it had already been fixed by the time of my reading.
- barbecue_sauce 2y ago
  Is darksouls.wikidot.com not the initial Dark Souls wikidot page? Was there something else that was closed down?
delecti 2y ago
Every page has a live chat and video stream. The content tends to be better, but it's not mechanically much better than Fandom. It also highlights an important difference between why wikis can be useful. If I want information about Elden Ring as a game, Fextralife is pretty good (with some ublock filters to kill the stupid chat), but it does that at the expense of information about Elden Ring as a fictional world. That's not usually why I'm looking up Elden Ring information, but it sometimes is.

kimbernator 2y ago

It's not fresh in my memory, but I recall being extremely annoyed at the Elden Ring wiki around the release of the game; not for lack of being filled out, but the site was just not fun to use. Truth be told, it appears that Weird Gloop/mediawiki has a bit of a monopoly on wiki platforms that don't suck.

sigh_again 2y ago

fextralife has the exact same behavior as Fandom: autoplaying their Twitch streams to farm views and displaying ads, at times hiding it in invisible iframes, or making it so small you can't find it, leading to Twitch making rules against embedding autoplays, ads everywhere, shitty AI generated stubs for half the articles, botting and automatically piling on criticism, and fundamentally, it's just plain wrong, everywhere. The initial Dark Souls wikidot was excellent. Fextralife bullied and threatened them into closing down. At this point, people don't move on because of habit, but the quality for the Elden Ring wiki is dramatically bad. Information is outdated, poorly maintained, actual fixes are being reverted by their own, paid editors, other wikis are suspiciously often the target of attacks and deleted content.

sph 2y ago
I loved the Dark Souls wikidot. Sad to see the Elden Ring "official" wiki is the Fextralife one.
michaelsbradley 2y ago
On a scale of 0 – Good, I would score my overall experience with fextralife as "not great", especially when viewing it on my phone. I don't know the history and controversies re: other sites, I only started reading fextra wikis in 2022/23. But I haven't experienced problems with information in the guides. Off the top of my head: for Elden Ring, Bloodborne, Sekiro, and Hollow Knight, I don't recall a single time when the info was flat out wrong. In the case of comments pointing out something incorrect or incomplete, it had already been fixed by the time of my reading.
barbecue_sauce 2y ago
Is darksouls.wikidot.com not the initial Dark Souls wikidot page? Was there something else that was closed down?

delecti 2y ago

Every page has a live chat and video stream. The content tends to be better, but it's not mechanically much better than Fandom. It also highlights an important difference between why wikis can be useful. If I want information about Elden Ring as a game, Fextralife is pretty good (with some ublock filters to kill the stupid chat), but it does that at the expense of information about Elden Ring as a fictional world. That's not usually why I'm looking up Elden Ring information, but it sometimes is.