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.
• It used to have heavily political biased pages, and even some based on people, which is considered unacceptable and hypocrite.
• 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)
3. Support All bureaucrats here are involved parties and if a closure is done, it should be with as much legitimacy as possible. This would be the ideal way to achieve it. Doug also takes into account the 'native contributors' of a wiki, who bring the votes that should have the most impact on a possible wiki closure. --Raidarr (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
4. Weak support I don't see why not. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
5. Support: It's probably better that you close it when the time comes considering the nature and impact of this RfC. You're the most experienced one here with RfCs. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
6. Support: Probably to know that these wikis should fade away and considering how many years that these website wikis spend, it's time for this wiki to take a good rest for one last time. I think we should all agree on this. Quixolite (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
7. Support As much as I wanted the website wikis to keep going, I am gonna let them go. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
8. Support Meh, you can do it if you want to. --XanManYT (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
9. Strong support I think the deletions are acceptable for the state of the wikis. They're a mess to manage currently and its seems removing them is a better option than keeping it on. Equal One 28 May 2022
10. Support We have so many useless wikis that it is better to merge all of them into a big media wiki. Joekido (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Joekido: This is about letting Dmehus close the RFC, not about closing the website wikis. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

11. Support I agree with others above, Doug can just do it if he wants, no objections from me either. Dragonite (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain I read the website wikis, but if they should be removed. Please put them on the way back machine and/or a document Bowserjrfire21742 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 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 (talk) 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. The Dunkman 10:08, 24 Ma 2022 (UTC)

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

17. Weak support I think wikis are flawed by creation and that nothing can fix them. However, deleting them entirely is… strange to me. I think cutting ties is the best option. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 12:50:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
18. Support I'm sad to say this, but I think we should let them go. It's been too much of a hassle to keep around. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
19. Support I don’t know about you, but I feel that wikis like these are encouraging the creation of more obscure reception wikis, like the Horrible Companies Wiki, the Crappy Software Wiki, and the Worst Networks Wiki, which, by the way, is ridiculous to have. Why can’t those networks just go on the Terrible TV Shows wiki? There are some good pages on these wikis that I do hope we can move to other wikis if this decision goes through, such as the pages about YouTube, which could probably go on Terrible TV Shows. DeadPixel (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

    @DeadPixel:In my opinion, those wikis are necessary, and here's why:

    1. Horrible Companies Wiki exists because of companies that make multiple pieces of media and therefore can't just go on one wiki.
    2. While you may feel it is unnecessary, Crappy Software Wiki exists because of bad software besides games that do not belong on any other wiki.
    3. Worst TV Networks Wiki exists because, in case you didn't know, TV networks and channels are forbidden on Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki, so no, they can't go there.

    FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 04:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

20. Support I think we should close them. There's limited activity compared to their sister sites. Also, the political bias is still there even though it's been toned down from last year. CrazySpruiker2001 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
21. Strongest support I'm going to have to agree with DarkMatterMan4500. --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 11:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Additional comments that I added later: The wikis are a waste of our time. We have tried to improve them but nothing has really happened. --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 13:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
22. Strongest support Given the current state of the wiki. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
23. Support I have a point, in the time when DuchessTheSponge claimed to me that these wikis are out of trust, I disagreed to him because one of my pages of a website from 2012 was in Fresh Websites Wiki, after the restoration was done, things became normal again, but incase to talk about these wiki's problems, I understand it's premise:
    • Beyond the purpose of the wikis, it's intended to talk about not just websites, but any type of social interaction, since most of the world's population in the 2020s became unaware, I don't think these wikis caused the problem, despite thousands of people who relates criticism don't know or ever heard of these wikis due the search algorithm and target topic for browsers and communities. I have three reasons why these wikis should've failed in its lifetime:
      • For this reasoning, 75% of the wiki content are feeden from social communities, even the whole point of the website is focused on that objective, @TigerBlazer has a reason that contributing pages targeted at random people is not a good idea, because it counterfeits that critical people is not attempting to create drama, not a whole meaning of this argument is anti-free speech, but it begs the question of targeting a uncivil community and also being a uncivil group targeting the foe, there's no other workarounds to solve the Content Policy issue depending the writer's maturity and mindset.
      • I know you guys are internet nerds, but most pages lack any purpose to point out the state of the websites become or turned, to not talk about obscure content in the wikis, I had to look up the pages that are featured in the main page, many pages consider inconsistent due the different writing style of many users, you don't need to expand text length if you don't have much knowledge for a website or topic depending how many content needs to talk about, as it's just necessary filler like Allistayrian thought this is crucial for the reception wikis. Some pages have just 5 simple reasons while surrounded large chunks of information and source links.
      • Due to my contribution shiftness to tech sharing and internet freedom, I longer manage the wikis. These wikis really need a new direction for people that professionalize technical communication, majority of the userbase are young people between the early and mid 10s, based on the last-year's managing state, many people don't know to take care or understand what they're doing for, as why Qualitipedia downhill so heavily during early and mid 2021, every aspect needs to be balanced or controlled just like most Stewards do with their jobs.
    • That's what my point with the state of these wikis, I wouldn't consider myself a jerk who someone disagrees me, but these wikis died for its trust for a long time, as to say, kill it with imminent glory. - AlvaroNovaes-BR (talk • contribs • global • rights) 20:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
24. Strong support If the YouTube article, the first article that the website was founded on, gets to still both exist and be featured five years later when it's filled with both blatant anti-left political bias and unsourced claims, it can be reasonably deduced from that example that these issues within the wiki are both rooted in its very nature and too laborious to fix into something better. It'd be less effort to nuke the content and try again, but with intellectual honesty and at least an attempt at leaving personal bias out of the articles. MOPthestreets (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
25. Support I don't even remember the last time I visited one of the website wikis. I think it was around the time the whole "unsourced" drama began. Honestly, a majority of the wiki is just bland in my opinion. But I do have to say I feel it's too unnescary to get rid of the website wikis entirely. A better decision is to separate them from Qualitipedia and be less permissive with them, as with Loathsome Characters wiki. A long with that, I feel that MANY pages should be gone from the wiki, especially ones that focus on too little information or are just very much unneeded. So whilst I wouldn't fully say to close the wikis, I suggest to work them out better, because they should not be an official Qualitipedia wiki. - Reviweing97Shows (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Reviweing97Shows: Not to be judgemental about how you vote but for the record, if you don't think they should be closed then you should abstain, as support votes don't include "I think they should be handed off to elsewhere" arguments as far as I know. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    @FatBurn0000: I'm not really what I'd call "mixed" at the moment. In fact, I update it: The website wikis probably should be closed, since I investigated more, and mnay pages there are mediocre, the activity there is limited, and once again, the whole "unsourced" drama did not put the website in a good stance. - Reviweing97Shows (talk) (UTC)

26. Support This website wiki needs to die as its is causing drama to other users and I am moving on from this wiki after all of this. - CrusaderPrime (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongest oppose Internet is another media, It is unfair to not have a wiki about it. 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)

   @PituckosTheCockatiel: What do you mean by unfair? --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 15:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

   Strong oppose What's the point in doing that anyway? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Striking my vote and will put this on support instead. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 25 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)

2. Strongest 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)

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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)

   except they have already failed to work as such, a reliable source. for years. the making of this RfC is a consequence of said failure. and besides we're not the only people in the internet that calls out companies anyway (not like most of them care more about user voices over money and power). there's no denying the concept could be started again in the future though; most of QP's failures are not only adminship-side, but community-side too. current community couldn't handle such responsibilities, and i hope the natural evolution in the future brings more capable people. Yonydesk (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

   'we' have proven countless times that this is not the platform to distribute reliable information that will actually educate the internet. Such lofty goals are well beyond QP's design and it would be at worst pretentious to assume it would. I do invite everyone in the opposition to share ideas for how the wikis could be improved in scope and management, and I intend to solicit all relevant opposes for this especially should the vote fail to be successful. I believe at this point it depends on the ratio of core contributors vs non contributors. --Raidarr (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Raidarr: Still, there should be reliable sources proving claims. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

   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)

6. 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)
7. Strongest 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 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Sofaking we todd it:You sure you don't mean "media" and not "medium"? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

8. Oppose While I agree that there is little moderation, There is little vandalism. The wikis are a type of media and should stay. Bowserjrfire21742 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Bowserjrfire21742:As much as I want these wikis to stay, having a lack of vandalism and being a piece of media are not really good enough arguments - having a lack of vandalism and being a piece of media does not make them a good idea nor necessary. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

9. Oppose Although there are some problems with the website wikis, they aren't numerous enough or significant enough to warrant their closure. Tali64³ (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
10. Strongest oppose Although the Wikis are pretty much inactive, people have spent a lot of time and effort into making it look good and fill out the pages. I don't think it's a good idea to delete all that. Most people don't know about this place, but for people like me I really enjoy my time spent here. QuirkyInTheEdge 17:40, 24 May 2022 PT

    Judging by your global account info, did you seriously create an account here on Miraheze just to oppose this RfC? The same thing can also be applied to the previous two opposes as well as they're also two completely unknown users who arrived seemingly out of nowhere solely to oppose this one RfC. In my eyes, these three opposes are invalid. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Blazikeye535: User:Tali64³ is far from an unknown user, maybe to you, but they have been around since September 24, 2019, and according to their CentralAuth, they have made 102 edits to TSEW. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

11. Strong oppose While the website wikis do need a huge cleanup and therefore they probably don't belong in Qualitipedia (or at least, for now), there are a lot of websites that have been criticised for bad quality or praised for good quality. Examples of places where you can find criticism (and possibly praise) for a website include YouTube, which can often have videos criticising websites and Sitejabber, which has reviews for websites. Examples in a limited number of cases can also include websites that are partially from a different type of media, such as news magazines and newspapers (which can be criticised and exposed by others), apps intended to be a website (which have reviews on the App Store, and yes that can be unreliable, but we don't always have to use them) and streaming services (which are even more likely to have videos related to them than regular websites). A website can also qualify to be on these wikis if it is bad for less subjective reasons (ex. it being biased, it ripping off another website, it being a provable scam). FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
12. Strongest oppose This would be completely unnecessary. BookFandumb1 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

    Care to explain why it's "unnecessary"? --Blazikeye535 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

13. Strongest oppose Maybe I'm just active contributing to RWW and less active on the others, which are one of my personal reasons of keeping it. However, there are things that I really think we should continue to cover like YouTube, Common Sense Media, Non-fungible token, etc. As for verifiability, we could start requiring sources like on CGW, but with some leniency on what's acceptable (maybe a Reddit post with lots of upvotes and comments can be considered as enough evidence to be true). If we want to cut ties with RWW, I think we should hand off ownership to someone interested in keeping it. Put it up for adoption. ᗩᖶᓍᘻᓰᑢSᖶᗩᖇ - 03:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
14. Oppose They're fine. So why do that? User:Kramirez0113 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

    Do you have any proof that they're "fine" as you put it? Marxo Grouch (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

15. Oppose There is a lot of effort put in to those wikis, and internet is a mainstream thing along with games, shows, and movies. Also, I think the political bias has been toned down in the past year or so. The media is excessively biased towards liberals, I don't want Qualtipedia to become that. User:TehGamerOne18 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

    Except removing the political bias is what caused activity on the website wikis to deteriorate to the point where the wikis are now shells of what they used to be, so there isn't really a middle ground here, and how exactly would closing the wikis be pandering towards liberals? Marxo Grouch (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

16. Strongest oppose Wikis exist for people to read them, not to edit them. NoNameNoFace (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    @NoNameNoFace:I think you got that wrong pal. See, wikis can't be read if they aren't edited first. Still though, how does that qualify as an oppose to the request? Can you defend your statement? 10:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    If wikis exist to be read rather than edited, then that would mean everyone here is wasting their time doing something that they supposedly shouldn't be doing. Also, that is probably the stupidest opposition argument I have ever heard. Next time, think of an actual reason that is relevant to your point. Marxo Grouch (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    Some wikis don't deserve to be read. --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 13:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

17. Strongest oppose I feel like the website wikis need to be open because it will just shrink our coverage. Also, internet is a large thing to focus on. JrStudios (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

    First of all, Qualitipedia does not need to cover every single form of media in existence. Having a small amount of wikis, each with much clearer standards for placement than websites, is just fine. Secondly, while the internet is large, we now only cover websites and events. The larger whole of the internet like the people on it (ie 70% of the wikis) have been removed from the wikis. Without them, the wikis have essentially lost a good chunk of their userbase and become a shell of their former selves. Marxo Grouch (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

18. Strongest oppose It is easy to moderate a wiki, look at the "recent changes" section, see the comments log and ban those users who do bad things, also there are good pages in those wikis, those wikis should not close since they have good pages, everyone can add sources to the pages and the moderators can spent more time into moderating those pages and revert malicious edits. HeavenSmile (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Barely anything you said excuses the larger scale issues behind the wiki. There is a problematic scope for what kind of content can go on there, and removing problematic content has caused activity to deteriorate significantly. Attempts at giving these wikis a better future have been futile, with recent changes not really showing anything meaningful towards improvement, and even the stewards have looked into closing it in the past. Marxo Grouch (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

    Have you moderated a wiki before? It's still a decent amount of work even without lots of activity on it. --Zeus (talk|contribs|accounts|email|Board) 08:12, 3 June 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...