5 ms·
I remember reading the Minecraft wiki back in the early 2010s, back when Fandom was still Wikia. It would have been much more appealing at the time than it is t
by ryukoposting 2y ago
I remember reading the Minecraft wiki back in the early 2010s, back when Fandom was still Wikia. It would have been much more appealing at the time than it is today - not just for the reasons you list, but because Wikia actually kicked ass in the early 2010s. It was sleek, modern, and easy to use. And today, it isn't.
- epiccoleman 2y agoEvery time I wind up on some garbage Fandom page I reminisce about the good old days of Wikia. I remember many a fun night trawling through pages while playing Fallout or Skyrim or whatever - all the information you could ever need, right there at your fingertips. It's an ethos you don't see so much on the modern net.
- iamacyborg 2y agoIt’s funny that people are now looking back at wikia fondly because at the time most folks thought it was full of ads and shit. To the point where Curse/Gamepedia managed to get serious market share by not screwing with the community in the same way at the time. Funny how they somehow managed to make it worse.
- hinkley 2y agoHow did Curse end up making money?
- iamacyborg 2y agoLots of ads across their wiki and other community websites and D&D Beyond was remarkably successful.
- yifanl 2y agoI assume they didn't, which is why they were bought by Twitch.
- Aeolun 2y agoI remember thinking that wikia sucked at the time, but at least it didn’t actively hinder me from finding what I was looking for. I just don’t open fandom pages because it locks up my phone.
- ogurechny 2y agoAnd before that, Wikipedia itself was Wikia, with lists of cheat-codes for games or paragraphs of inspired “original research” in articles. Or the complete plot of “Harry Potter”, as seen in this 20 year old artifact: https://harryfansowned.ytmnd.com/ https://harryfansowned.ytmnd.com/
- mossTechnician 2y agoWikia is a great example of enshittification - provide great value to users, then take it away from users and hand it to other businesses (eg advertisers), then take it away from businesses too. Will Weird Gloop inevitably suffer the same fate? I hope not.
- diggan 2y ago> Will Weird Gloop inevitably suffer the same fate? I hope not. Unless explicitly structured to prevent it, my bet is it will. If it's backed by a for-profit entity, it'll eventually need to turn a profit somehow, and users/visitors are the first to lose their experience at that point. However, if Weird Gloop is a properly registered non-profit with shared ownership between multiple individuals, I'll be much more likely to bet it won't suffer the same fate. I skimmed around a bit on the website to try to get an answer to if it is an non-profit, but didn't find anything obvious that says yes/no.
- cookmeplox 2y agoWe're already turning a profit! And there are no third-party investors (or debt) – it's all controlled by wiki people[1] [1] https://meta.weirdgloop.org/w/Weird_Gloop_Limited https://meta.weirdgloop.org/w/Weird_Gloop_Limited
- diggan 2y agoAw, I take that as it is in fact a for-profit company already. Regardless, I wish you luck for the future! May you not go down the almost inevitable enshittification hole.
- cinntaile 2y agoIf it started that way, I'd say it's less likely to end up "bad". Compared to non-profit websites that get sold to ad businesses.
- robotnikman 2y ago