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. 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)

   Raidarr's responses to you and Pituckos in the below section apply to your response here. Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
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)
9. Strongest support I 100% agree with TigerBlazer and Blazikeye's points. Although I never visit the Website wikis, I find their uselessness very obvious in comparison to the more reknown subsidiaries of the network. King's reasoning sums it up well. 16:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
10. Support: The Fresh and Rotten Websites Wikis are pointless and could potentially slander the web developers who are trying their hardest to make their websites good. There I say, close them. - Awsworthy (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2022 (BST)
11. Weak support While it is understandable why they should be closed, there are some pages on those wikis that are more about the quality then the users themselves. Take YouTube for an example. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
12. Support: Close them. They were completely pointless wikis that were infested with unnecessary politics about "those damn SJWs" and full of shit bias articles. Also, a website can't receive reception the same way a movie or video game can. SkullcrawlerBuddyOfficial (talk) 21:34, 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)

3. Oppose They should not get deleted and if they do, I will make an RFC about reopening them. MarioBobFan (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   You say you want them open, but you don't give any reason why. Please explain. Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   I want then to not be closed, since we need wikis for websites, I visit them a lot, and edit a lot there (especially the Rotten Websites Wiki. MarioBobFan (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   That doesn't really satisfy my question because you still haven't given a real reason why Qualitipedia needs the wikis. Marxo Grouch (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   MarioBobFan, your habit of making edits purely to spoof your count to appear as a contributor (egregiously visible here) will be noted when supports and opposes are weighed in this RfC. Edit: I should also add that if the next RfC doesn't add any new points to merit a reopen, that RfC will simply be closed on the spot. --Raidarr (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

4. Strongest oppose Some of these websites are actually pretty bad over the years, and besides if you end up removing them then people will end up leaving the wikis and move back to other wiki platforms to bring back the wiki. The best option is to keep the wiki, or move the content somewhere else. --Nidoking (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   If someone wants to move it to another platform, I'll be happy to give them an XML dump of the last state of the wiki. --Raidarr (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

5. Strongest oppose I oppose that because we spend years/months creating/editing so much articles in these wikis and that would be a waste if we close them. FrankInHD2010 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   Nearly half of the content on RWW was deleted least year, while FWW barely ever had any content to begin with. A good portion of the content there is either not worth saving, or can be moved to one of the other wikis of it fits the respective theme (i.e.: moving a page about a gaming website to CGW). We won't be losing much. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

6. Weak oppose I believe that the closure of these wikis will be a dark light in the history of the internet. Whenever a website has corrupt motives (i.e. Facebook & Google) or promotes disgusting content (i.e. 4chan, Jesus-is-savior, & Parler), they deserve to be called out for their practices. It can also be used to inform of paltry acts that have been done (i.e. the repeal of Net Neutrality), and potentially encourage users to fight for change. Having a website for good websites can also inspire change for the better and lay out what to strive for. However, what gives it weak support for my end is that these websites seriously need reform, as most of the articles are of poor quality, and should be reformed. The website hasn't evolved much and, for the most part, has been a relic of the Gamergate era. It needs to be reformed so that it can hold a candle to the wikis for video games, movies, TV shows, and (arguably) books. Awildderperappears (talk) 21:51 23 May 2022 (UTC)

   what relevancy in internet history is there in a barely known wiki? most of the internet doesn't know about qualitipedia in general. removing the website wikis will only affect its idk, 1000 people audience, while the massive rest of the internet will keep surfing. if the voice of these wikis is not heard, then having them gone will not affect the greater internet either. Yonydesk (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Loading comments...