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)

Nomination of Doug as closer

Hi all. Raidarr mentioned this Qualitipedia wiki RfC to me, and that I may be asked to close this RfC after a few week's time. I'm happy to do that. I am an uninvolved Qualitipedia moderator and editor, but I'm also an experienced Steward with plenty of closes under my belt. Dmehus (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I don't see the problem. You can do it if you want :D The King of Dice (|||) 03:52, 24 May, 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Reasonable suggestion. No objections from me. Marxo Grouch (talk) 02:54, 24 May 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)
13. Strongest support: Even though I'm not very active on these websites wiki that much, it's arguably that these websites shouldn't exist as most of these sites treats popular opinions as facts and nearly any article except for some of them on any other wikis are quite biased, and the community has been going downhill since there are a ton of drama going on through these wikis. I always believe that this wiki tries it's best to improve over through the problem, but anything from these wikis barely improves or doesn't seen to have their guts against one thing or another. Hell, they even took one product that they hate to extreme by adding or editing either article which kinda makes my mind blow up in the seconds, and not to mention about that the entire sites is filled with nothing but politics, I know it's understandable that the community can be a bit harsh a times, but I don't want any drama coming through this wiki, and to top that all off, I think these websites are kinda pointless and shouldn't exist, I say I support this as everything through this wiki has been going downhill recently and there are barely any improvements on it. I was planning to make a logo or even a favicon for this site but I scrapped it. While I'm barely a contributer or an admin on this site, I would say close them. Quixolite (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
14. Support They were slowing down in terms of activity. I don't see much of a future for these two wikis due to the lack of activity. I think it's better if we did something like internet history & scams wiki. Some of the pages like internet scams, survey to download sites, and various tropes like network decay (which is the actual name for bad updates by the way) do make sense. We had to do so many purges on user-focused pages, and it's gotten too bloated to the point where it's likely better to put them out of their misery. Dorothy Nightingale (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
15. Support: The internet wikis while in good concept is just not feeling right for Qualitipedia at the moment, they are quite different from the network. The main wikis media (Films, games, books and shows) are easy and consistent, while website ones are too broad (It caters to the internet and apps in general) to maintain consistency and harder to review and write pages especially with Fresh websites. Maybe the wikis can be given by other community or they have to start fresh, independent of the network (probably like the character/gameplay wikis or slightly original wiki). Deletion is kinda likely, there are decent pages in those wikis but they can be moved to those proposed wiki. - Equal One 23 May 2022
16. Strongest support I highly agree, the users are atrocious, and are like the users from The Outcast Network, so I agree that they should be shut down immediately.

Don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongest 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 points 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) 20:51 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)

   That's where we come in. We can use this as a resource to educate users of different websites perhaps to start some sort of movement that will eventually corner the big tech oligarchies into respecting our privacy and not selling our lives. We can also hold them accountable for their many other sins on a larger level if we can spread the pages. Awildderperappears 23:45 23 May 2022 (UTC)

7. Oppose I would be fine if the wiki rights were given to someone rather than closing. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 00:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose On one hand, these wikis do not have much traffic. On the other hand, they were included in the rebrand, and the last thing we need is to go back to the Triangle. Also, they do provide interesting facts, so even if we cut them from the network we should still leave them open. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose Websites are a type of medium. The wikis are a source of information that interested users can read all in one network and even contribute if they have new information that they want to add. I don't see a reason why it should be shut down. The wikis can be a good source for documenting information that isn't well known or being obscured. Sofaking we todd it 04:14, 24 May, 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain I think they should be handed off to another person, but not closed entirely. --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Loading comments...