Requests for Comment/Close the Websites Wikis

Being with the staff of the Discord server and the subreddit made me realize how little we use the Website wikis due to a couple of reasons:

• The problems they caused due to the userbase and the type of pages we have.
• That in comparison of the Game wikis, the Movie wikis and even the Show wikis, there is little-to-no moderation and a consistent quality and verifiability of pages.
• In comparison of other pieces of media, websites and apps are a lot harder to rate, due to how usually Play Store and App Store's ratings are full of nonsense and the little to no sources we found online, usually all saying the exact same things.
• With some exceptions, all websites had been known for their userbase and not the quality of the site itself. Take for example Reddit, that has some bad users that had caused troubles, but also good subreddits and groups. The same goes for things like DevianArt, Twitter, Discord, Facebook, ect. We can't judge a full website due to the userbase, because that does not represent the entirety of the people that use it.

What I propose is to cut ties with the Websites Wikis and close them. The King of Dice (|||) 15:00, May 23, 2022 (UTC)

Votes

Support

1. Strongest support As the proposer of this RFC. The King of Dice (|||) 15:00, May 23, 2022 (UTC)
2. Support In all honesty, shutting down the website wikis is hardly even a big deal at all, and I barely even visit the wikis myself. JigglypuffGuy04 15:13 May 23, 2022 (UTC)
3. Weak support Closure makes sense to me. Cutting ties however is a bad idea and I explicitly oppose that part of the wording. We cannot run from problematic wikis; only deal with them by closure or improving their content. Support hinges on my belief that the content is beyond reasonably saving, but I will prod them along should the consensus be in favor of keeping them so they do not become a problem again. --Raidarr (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry if I explained myself wrong, but I want to close them. The King of Dice (|||) 15:40, May 23, 2022 (UTC)

4. Support The issue with these wikis is that they're very controversial due to them being initially wikis of political stuff. These wikis also show hypocrisy, for example, they allow Reddit on Fresh Websites despite the toxic community, yet they ban Twitter for the same thing. It does not help the fact that it was also banned on Rotten Websites because most of its issues are related to the userbase, yet the wikis allow websites like Twitch, Instagram and Facebook, which pretty much have the same issues. -CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
5. Strongest support These wikis have devolved into a waste of space. There's not really much activity there to warrant keeping them, websites aren't as easy to aggregate as the other three media in the network, and page quality suffers for that. Closing them would just be one less problem off the table. Marxo Grouch (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Marxo Grouch: Are you sure about that? I'd check the recent changes on that wiki first. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

6. Support I rarely visit these wikis, besides, I found them to be inferior in terms of moderation compared to the mainline ones. Dragonite (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
7. Strongest support Nothing more needs to be said. I tried my best to fix this place, but they should have been closed long ago. The wikis are extremely problematic at best, or have nothing of value at worst. Closing them would mean one less thorn in QP's backside, and I don't even care if we lose users opposing to the closure to the process, it has to be done. TigerBlazer 15:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
8. Strong support: This post I made on the Discord server pretty much says it all: "Ever since all the political content, content about IRL stuff, and content aimed towards users/people/userbases has been deleted, the website wikis have been completely gutted and are now just a shell of their former selves. A lot of websites don't even have a proper form of reception either unless we're talking about notoriously bad sites like IGN or Buzzfeed." --Blazikeye535 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Internet is another media, It is unfair to not have a wiki about it. Template:PituckosTheCockatiel 17:00, May 23, 2022 (GMT+3)

   Wikis are not needed for everything, especially if they can't come up with a clear and consistent way to decide reception. Which is exactly the problem here. The wiki is dead because when it was active it could only focus on things that brought it very close to closure. The current audience is incapable of making it active based on other media. 'internet' is a partisan and varied topic that cannot be shoehorned properly in the way other wikis manage to do. This is why it is a problem, and merits closure. This also applies to you DarkMatterMan (placing here as he edited while I was replying). --Raidarr (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Raidarr: While that can be argued, I've been seeing some form of activity from that wiki. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   "Some", minor activity which does not meaningfully develop content nor actually address the issues I raised in my own reply. Make no mistake, it's not just activity we're talking about - if it was this would be silly and we could just let it die. The problem is a problematic wiki scope (and you know full well of the problematic aspects, the fact Stewards have looked into its closure), its dwindling activity when removing the problematic aspects, and the repeated attempts to find a better future which have failed due to the wiki's issue in both scope and execution. --Raidarr (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose What's the point in doing that anyway? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   the point for closing them are written on the RfC itself, just in case you didn't read them. Yonydesk (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Loading comments...