Uhm wth wikia?

[Seraph]

It does not, and you know it doesn't.

I'll admit, my entire ending paragraph there was just an excuse to post the humorous and mostly inapplicable disclaimer in the next post.

[Kirschy]

Actually when VZX created that page he included a link at the bottom, and later fixed it when there was a forum issue that disrupted the link. Later on, someone came along and just deleted it lol

Hit Rate - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more

Wow -_- It's one thing if the source wasn't included when the page was created, but to just delete the link later on... thats cold ~.~

[TummieGaruda]

Wow -_- It's one thing if the source wasn't included when the page was created, but to just delete the link later on... thats cold ~.~

That's the problem with wiki or any wiki's for that matter. You can put information in and create a link citing your source, but if someone comes in and reads it and doesn't agree with it, they can edit it or have it removed. I think sources should be included always because then it gives credit for one, and also allows to the reader to see the original post/data/test and see for themselves and possibly challenge what was written.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not including 'operating costs' when I make the claim someone is 'making money' I am implying strictly profit. If BG is actually pulling a profit from the ads they display, I will be seriously impressed. I'm going to go on a hunch here and assume they aren't.

FFXIwiki was losing money before their sale to Wikia. Do they get a pass on everything that occurred prior to the switchover?

Furthermore, if BG is losing money, shouldn't that give them even more incentive to try to drive up ad revenue (at least to the break-even point)?

If you are implying that wiki doesn't have profit in mind as one of their goals (and therefore, influences) when they make decisions, I think YOU are really being absurd.

So I'm supposed to believe that FFXIwiki's admins (the people actually administering the FFXIwiki, not the bean counters at Wikia) are driven strictly by profit and numbers, but the admins of BG care not for such base concerns, and are concerned only with The Community?

If you want to claim that hosting ads makes you a slave to page impressions, fine, but at least be consistent about it.

So again, why is it a problem to hold wiki admins, and even users, to a higher standard of quality?

I've answered this question like three times already.

The problem is that you attempt to hold FFXIwiki's admins to a high standard of quality, yet you dutifully ignore when those same standards are not upheld here. If you were consistent about it, that would be one thing, but as is, it smacks of a vendetta.

Also, just a historical heads up, BG wiki wasn't founded just because Wikia failed to cite their information. I think I can actually literally use the word 'steal' now.

If you think it's possible to steal money that someone donated to you, sure.

[ringthree]

Also, just a historical heads up, BG wiki wasn't founded just because Wikia failed to cite their information. I think I can actually literally use the word 'steal' now.

No, it was founded out of angsty teenager-like rage, and the god-like worship of a script kiddie.

[ringthree]

Wow -_- It's one thing if the source wasn't included when the page was created, but to just delete the link later on... thats cold ~.~

You can go back and look at the changes that were made and determine why it was removed. It could have been because of another broken link, which is just site clean-up. I am just playing devil's advocate, I have no idea why it was removed.

Then again removing a link to more information from a wiki is completely counter productive.

[Izzy]

If you think it's possible to steal money that someone donated to you, sure.

I'm an accountant for an extremely large non-for-profit agency that gets millions and millions of dollars in donations a year. I can tell you for a fact that using donated money for things other than what it was donated for is quite illegal. If people donated money to pay for the wiki servers, then Ganiman spent it on baby supplies, that's pretty much stealing.

This argument has been beaten to fucking death. Doing this shit again isn't going to influence anyone to not go to Wikia. You can really only hate the fuckshits that were outspoken douchebags about the whole thing (Ganiman/Charitwo). Wikia didn't do anything wrong.

[ringthree]

FFXIwiki was losing money before their sale to Wikia. Do they get a pass on everything that occurred prior to the switchover?

Furthermore, if BG is losing money, shouldn't that give them even more incentive to try to drive up ad revenue (at least to the break-even point)?


So I'm supposed to believe that FFXIwiki's admins (the people actually administering the FFXIwiki, not the bean counters at Wikia) are driven strictly by profit and numbers, but the admins of BG care not for such base concerns, and are concerned only with The Community?

If you want to claim that hosting ads makes you a slave to page impressions, fine, but at least be consistent about it.


I've answered this question like three times already.

The problem is that you attempt to hold FFXIwiki's admins to a high standard of quality, yet you dutifully ignore when those same standards are not upheld here. If you were consistent about it, that would be one thing, but as is, it smacks of a vendetta.


If you think it's possible to steal money that someone donated to you, sure.

Dan, using Polearm on SAM is useless.

Jesus, man, you made me say that. I completely agree with everything you have said in this thread and it was just bugging me, so I had to do something to fix the situation. LOL

But again, great post, and back in the day I had this same discussion about the donated money and the false rage associated with it.

[ringthree]

I'm an accountant for an extremely large non-for-profit agency that gets millions and millions of dollars in donations a year. I can tell you for a fact that using donated money for things other than what it was donated for is quite illegal. If people donated money to pay for the wiki servers, then Ganiman spent it on baby supplies, that's pretty much stealing.

This argument has been beaten to fucking death. Doing this shit again isn't going to influence anyone to not go to Wikia. You can really only hate the fuckshits that were outspoken douchebags about the whole thing (Ganiman/Charitwo). Wikia didn't do anything wrong.

If you don't like the discussion or you think it's dead, that's cool, don't click it. But there is a civil discussion going on, so let it be.

[Sonomaa]

BG will not break even close to even as far as the ads are concerned. Ads are also optional, with the Opt-In program that people VOLUNTEER to do themselves. Only unregistered users see the full brunt of ads.

If your seeing them, then you CHOOSE to see them, we arent forcing you to do dick.

[Sonomaa]

I'm still convinced that this:

File:Ravin Raven.jpg - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more

is just a photoshop of this:

Image:Ravin.jpg - BGWiki

...which back in the hay-day of the wiki split I specifically said BGwiki could use, and Otherwiki couldn't. Oh sure, they took my original down (which they just yoinked without asking), and then pasted their edited copy of it so I couldn't bitch. It's seriously the Ebaums World of FFXI. People who think that the 'BG elite' has their head up their own asses just does not comprehend the completely higher tier of asshole that describes the antics that Otherwiki pulled in the past. They couldn't even be bothered to put a citation on there, and one of their fucking admins is the one who originally posted it, and then reposted it 7 days later. You can't blame 'users' for that.

that is your picture, charitwo photoshopped the elvaan out of it after he took it from BG website. It was removed by request from the person who took it after you expressed not wanting it posted on otherwiki. Charitwo put it back after a very long argument I had with him regarding it and posting allowances. He photoshopped it and it was reposted. The original article had referances to BG and the thread it was posted in, as well as all relevant information. This was removed by other admins who were "going over his head" Revision history of "Ravin Raven" - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more
shows that another admin continually removed BG sourcing because we were not a relevant source. Im not sure if an agreement was ever made to allow the use of the picture, but I know charitwo did photoshop it and did make a half-hearted attempt to defend us, but he was continually shot down.

Im not sure if this was before or after the DOITFAGGOT.jpg incident but I know there was a large thread on BG about it where the information was first posted.

[Ashira]

If you don't like the discussion or you think it's dead, that's cool, don't click it. But there is a civil discussion going on, so let it be.

Except Izzy was pointing out a major flaw in the arguments about the funds, not contributing to the "civil discussion," which at this point just feels civil because you're just chiming in with the people that agree with you.

[Spider-Dan]

BG will not break even close to even as far as the ads are concerned. Ads are also optional, with the Opt-In program that people VOLUNTEER to do themselves. Only unregistered users see the full brunt of ads.

If your seeing them, then you CHOOSE to see them, we arent forcing you to do dick.

Keeping in mind my previous statement (web hosting doesn't magically pay for itself), a look at the front page indicates that there are 480 members and 465 guests viewing the forums (at the time of this post; I'm not sure how that tracks "invisible" users). So roughly half of the people viewing the site are seeing the "full brunt," as it were.

Now, I don't personally subscribe to this theory, but if one was to adopt the position that a site that hosts ads is going to be slavishly devoted to increasing ad revenue above all else, it seems that BG's forums would still be subject to such a mindset.

TBH, the idea that the act of hosting ads will immediately shelve all other concerns in favor of profit margin is completely ridiculous, but if we're going with that premise, BG (and KI, and FFXIAH, etc.) are just as bad as FFXIwiki.

[Yugl]

Anyone remember back when KI had that RMT banner at the bottom of the forum and everyone was like "omg no!". That was an awesome banner, since so many jokes came from it. What did it say again? "Play at the next level" or something to that effect.

[Seraph]

that is your picture, charitwo photoshopped the elvaan out of it after he took it from BG website. It was removed by request from the person who took it after you expressed not wanting it posted on otherwiki. Charitwo put it back after a very long argument I had with him regarding it and posting allowances. He photoshopped it and it was reposted. The original article had referances to BG and the thread it was posted in, as well as all relevant information. This was removed by other admins who were "going over his head" Revision history of "Ravin Raven" - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more
shows that another admin continually removed BG sourcing because we were not a relevant source. Im not sure if an agreement was ever made to allow the use of the picture, but I know charitwo did photoshop it and did make a half-hearted attempt to defend us, but he was continually shot down.

Im not sure if this was before or after the DOITFAGGOT.jpg incident but I know there was a large thread on BG about it where the information was first posted.

I'm well aware, since I took the original photo and supplied it to the person who uploaded it to BGwiki. I just could never 100% prove it was a photoshop without the insider knowledge (I always secretly wished that someone out of spite went to the insane lengths to get the same legit photo, but that is just absurd). I'm well past the point of caring, but it's the concrete example I'll always drag up as one of the many reasons the now Wikia wiki (and all wikis) should have better citing enforcement.

I also (not so) secretly demand that we cite MSPaint as the rightful cite to that image, for the lulz. Photoshop I guess if we have to be more realistically accurate, and not as funny.

[Seraph]

Now, I don't personally subscribe to this theory, but if one was to adopt the position that a site that hosts ads is going to be slavishly devoted to increasing ad revenue above all else, it seems that BG's forums would still be subject to such a mindset.

TBH, the idea that the act of hosting ads will immediately shelve all other concerns in favor of profit margin is completely ridiculous, but if we're going with that premise, BG (and KI, and FFXIAH, etc.) are just as bad as FFXIwiki.

I didn't say it was their ONLY driving force, I just said it definitely was one. Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

And I quote:

If you are implying that wiki doesn't have profit in mind as one of their goals (and therefore, influences) when they make decisions, I think YOU are really being absurd.

I still feel this quote holds very true.

[Spider-Dan]

I still feel this quote holds very true.

...but not for BG? Or FFXIAH?

It is either so inclusive as to be meaningless, or so arbitrary ("ad income is only a motivating force if you're already in the black") as to be... well, meaningless.

edit: while we're quoting your statements on the subject:

And I'm not suggesting people stop posting their findings, I'm suggesting that both wikis need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to citing information, and respecting the wishes of those who would rather their work wasn't published. In the end, I can't really see Otherwiki bothering to do this, because enforcing it does nothing to increase their profit margin, which is the entire point of the site; to attract as much traffic as possible.

You will forgive me for thinking that you claimed that profit (via increased traffic) is their sole motivator after you said that it's "the entire point of the site."

[Seraph]

...but not for BG? Or FFXIAH?

It is either so inclusive as to be meaningless, or so arbitrary ("ad income is only a motivating force if you're already in the black") as to be... well, meaningless.

edit: while we're quoting your statements on the subject:


You will forgive me for thinking that you claimed that profit (via increased traffic) is their sole motivator after you said that it's "the entire point of the site."

I'm not really sure what you are arguing for anyone, besides trying to catch me with a somewhat poorly worded post. Profit is the obvious primary focus, I'm sure there are other focuses too depending on which employee/user you are referring to. I'm really not interested in arguing about the hypothetical driving forces in the Wikia world...

This is all still just a division of my original point of 'What is wrong with holding wikis to a higher standard?' anyway. You cant answer the question obviously. I know its not 'fair', but that was the entire point. FFXI established information databases would have better quality control than the the conversations that happen on any given site all the time. I see literally no reason why that would be a bad thing.

Once the wikis were all set, you could just link there all the time from FFXIAH or BG or whatever. That's just a distraction though, since the main draw of FFXIAH was the pricing system (not the item comments) and BG is more for FFXI and non FFXI discussion.

[ringthree]

Except Izzy was pointing out a major flaw in the arguments about the funds, not contributing to the "civil discussion," which at this point just feels civil because you're just chiming in with the people that agree with you.

Actually, he was just tossing in another bomb. And while I agree with Dan on this shockingly enough, Seraph very much disagrees.

[Spider-Dan]

This is all still just a division of my original point of 'What is wrong with holding wikis to a higher standard?' anyway. You cant answer the question obviously. I know its not 'fair', but that was the entire point.

So if your point is really just an abstract observation on "why can't the FFXI community as a whole just show its work?" that just happens to be placed in a thread full of bitching about FFXIwiki, then... um, sure, it would be great if everyone cited their work everywhere. While we are idly wishing, it would also be great if everyone had a pony.

But it sure seems like you are specifically singling out FFXIwiki.