Talk:Qualitipedia

Raise any issues, suggestions or concerns about Qualitipedia here! You may also create a blog if you prefer. Keep in mind that certain high-profile issues may be directed to a special page or blog to be focused, and that official polls and 'final' discussions may be done on a staff blog.

Feel free to use a local talk page (Discussion tab) to discuss any page or policy in particular. We will catch up to it.

Ilovecorgis8 here, I created a new account because I wanted to have a fresh start, I heard that the wikis are gonna come back, is this true or false?

I feel like it could be false

1. It is true. They are being revived on qualitipedia.cf.
2. It's spelt sites, not sights in this case. Sights is a sight of something, as in, something you see.

I fixed the title.

False, i am no admin, but judging the reception of this closure, it is not coming back for the forseeable future, but you are free to make your own wikis similar to the former wikis

They always do seem to crawl out of the abyss somewhere or another but currently they're trying to become relevant in the form of qualitipedia.cf mentioned above. It's not very functional at the moment.

The wikis are almost certain not to return on Miraheze hosting. Of course, the disdain of hosting providers hasn't stopped fanatics from carrying on before.

Me And My Friend Have Made A Qualitipedia Clone And We're Importing Wikis Right Now. Join Us At meta.qualitipedia.cf

It is no longer accessible. It was a while ago, but not anymore.

Nevermind, it's working now.

How the hell did your fingers not fall off from capitalizing the first letter of every word?

I can't edit. I tried to confirm my email, but I haven't received an email yet. Could you please fix this?

Check Your Spam Folder. I See That You Were Emailed

It has appeared in my spam folder, so I moved it to the inbox, but as I mentioned, the link is not working right now.

This is very good news, because we will still be able to edit pages after 2022 and no one will tell us what to do, and clearly everyone who supported this RfC has left, so no one will know. My nickname is Szczypak64.

Oh crud, this is very bad news.

Maybe for you, but I am pleased with it. You don't want to attend, no one is forcing you, but I'm still interested in Qualitipedia.

Well, if we're going to bring back Qualitipedia, I think we can both agree that a good way to turn down the toxicity amongst the wikis would be to disable commenting on all of its pages for good. That way, less people will be able to show bias towards their favorite or least favorite elements.

That's ridiculous. Comments are an important part of Qualitipedia. All you need to do is warn and block toxic users.

You know, I think it's very fine for QP to move on and be fully independent - it saves Miraheze the misery, lets the people invested in it grow up on their own terms and is something generally easy to ignore by the wider internet.

The only problem is, well, all of the factors I had in mind when I considered and then dismissed doing this myself.

The big questions are accountability and finance - how is this set up? It's a random server proxied with cloudflare with a free domain name. It's clearly not built to be financially viable which is something you might require to actually host a full network with meaningful traffic. Aside from that it is owned and operated by Fred from Nowhere with a questionable grasp on English in conversation, forgive my bluntness. It hands out advanced rights like candy right from the start. It came from nowhere and can just as soon disappear from nowhere if its existence is measured in a trial hosting license. There's nothing resembling privacy policy or attempt to organize: A random server on the internet promising free cand- I mean, free wikis with no model to speak of. That's a problem. Nobody really knows who owns it, and who knows who is going to be staff considering most meaningful staff have long retired and the barrel is literally at the bottom, made clear by Bluba's involvement. There's an arbitrary 'staff' group which pulls the strings of bureaucrats and admins which probably shouldn't be how it works but there it is. Bluba's already slapped in a censorship rule against opinions he doesn't like despite having no rights to speak of there. Gee, wonder how that's going to turn out.

I'd be less caustic if there was evidence of competence but to be honest, this is far from convincing.

When you said "handing out advanced rights like candy," I thought you meant that "candy" was an actual user right. LOL.

Well, it may as well be.

People ignore that Miraheze is not just reception wikis. just look at Real Life Villains Wiki.

I do have to admit, I'm a bit suspicious too. Why was the confirmation email address in my spam folder?

This is not unusual - it often happens when email providers don't recognize a service and qualitipedia.cf (free domain) is as obscure as it gets no matter how legitimate the email is (happens on even larger community websites with good background but settings that get flagged anyway). I would worry about the oversight, the spam flag is likely irrelevant.

I have confirmed my email address now and everything's fine it appears, but it's still suspicious.

The literature wikis have been imported to this new server. Crappy Games Wiki and Greatest Movies Wiki have also been important, but are taking longer to develop. The other Qualitipedia have not been imported, but might be in the near future.

( The other Qualitipedia was meant to have “ wikis “ at the end. Sorry. )

i’m gonna request making the pages less like a deviantart rant and more like a wiki article than anything if the wiki pages work out again...

That will be a massive uphill battle, but good luck. The key is that you're not going to get anywhere requesting it. Nobody will be arsed to do it unless they planned to do it already. You will have to put up what you want to see happen. Your request should merely compliment what you intend to do to make it happen.

These wikis are down.

They're still accessible, they're just often glitchy. Try typing in the full URL (including the https) or accessing them on mobile editor.

Looks like qualitipedia.cf is being vandalized.

P.S. I'm still retired from QP, BTW; it's just that I was looking at the cf version of it, and saw that there's a troll there causing mayhem and nobody seems to have noticed yet.

Is there a specific wiki that's being vandalized?

Qualitipedia Meta. The cf version of it.

I meant like the Movies Wikis, or the TV Wikis, or the Games Wikis; that type of stuff.

Just the Meta, as far as I know.

One of the rules mentions COPPA, which is in the United States, despite Miraheze being based in the United Kingdom. Miraheze does require users to be 13 or older when they sign up.

Thanks for the notice, I've purged it on all mentioned wikis.

The rules on each of them are largely obsolete and read like rants - unfortunately this has been by the wayside to fix for a while now.

To be honest, I changed them to reduce people's hatred of these wikis, and yet because of that, you were unnecessarily causing drama that you yourself said contributed to the downfall of this place.

Title, I was confused why he did this.

That's strange. I may have to take a look into this and reprimand the user if need be.

I haven't heard anything about this.

This happened in April, check his contribs

There's a rule change I'd like to propose on the Terrible TV Shows Wiki, but I'm wondering if that's something that only admins can do.

You're free to make an RfC. No need to be an admin, but you should probably make it on the local wiki where it's most relevant rather than the central wiki which covers the whole of QP.

All you need to do to become an admin is be really active, make lots of positive contributions, have been on the wikis for at least 2 months since your account creation, and gain a lot of respect and trust from other users, including admins. An RfC isn't required to have such a permission.

He's not asking to have it, only if he has to be an admin to make an RfC.

He does not. Nor does he need to be to suggest rules, or changes to them. Naturally there will need to be agreement among other users/admins for it to come into effect.

Anybody else kind of bored because there's currently no real activity on this wiki besides the CWW RFC?

don't you have something else to do?

I do, but still...

This isn't supposed to be active until it's needed, as an administrative wiki. It needs some reorganization anyway, I'd rather not see it too heavily used for what it is until that's done.

This is my unblock request that I previously put on Awful Movies Wiki. The unblock request begins as "@SuperStreetKombat Please unblock my account on some Wikis, these are Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki. I will not be rude to anyone, including AkihitoZero5454. I will not harass anyone anymore. I will not do any mistakes anymore, if I did them. I have learned to not argue with others for differing opinions. I will read the Code of Conduct and will not violate it. I will only do useful contributions, after I got unblocked on all those Wikis. I will learn to respect opinions. See, my article about Miracle Star on Terrible TV Shows Wiki made it more useful than before. I will not be a brat anymore, if I was one. Please unblock my account on Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki.". See, I want to be unblocked in these Wikis. I was blocked for harassing other users. I know that harassment is wrong and I refrained from it. I want to be unblocked and want to do only useful contributions.

Dude, you just said the exact same thing and you still continued to spread your flawed ideology across various wikis.

at this point i think more mods need to look into this lol

I hate calling my ideology a flawed ideology, it's a personal opinion. But I will not say the same thing over and over again. Because, my best friend, Raidarr told me to to upload my unblock request which was on Awful Movies Wiki on Qualitipedia central.

If my ideology is a flawed ideology, then I will not spread it anymore.

I requested that it be posted here.

I don't get what 'ideology' is supposed to be involved here and frankly, I'll go by your followup response: don't be spreading ideologies. Just express opinions in a civil way and if they're too problematic to add to pages, add them to comments or blogs. Depending what others say here if they see anything interesting, I'll look into how contentious your edits are per-wiki and adjust blocks accordingly, either by setting an appropriate expiration time or removing them if they don't hold up for the wiki. In particular the character wikis are partially independent, so if you didn't do anything serious on them in particular a block for some other reason won't apply there period.

Hey, Raidarr, my best friend, are you an admin on Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki? I don't know if you are an admin on those Wikis.

I agree with you, Raidarr, my best friend! But, one thing. I got blocked from Loathsome Characters Wiki for harassment.

Please check my contributions pages on Best TV Shows Wiki, Terrible TV Shows Wiki, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Crappy Games Wiki.

Recently, I've been noticing that people have been removing videos from pages to reduce lag such as this edit and this one too. This got me thinking: should we define a maximum number of videos that can be in a page?

I always thought that 25-30 is a good maximum number. My phone has no problem loading around 30 videos, but when it gets to around 40, that's when problems start to occur.

Sounds like a good idea. Not too many, and not too few.

or maybe put the videos on a collapse section?

I once tried doing that, but it didn’t work.

I'd encourage people to be a little more conservative with videos in the first place, though understandably this is just a pain to enforce. Ie, focusing on videos directly supporting the topic, keeping down videos that say the exact same things, and so forth.

Some pages like Hong Kong 97 can take up over 100 MB of memory while loading, and significantly more if you load a video. Although the Hong Kong 97 page only has 15 videos.

I agree with limiting video to a maximum of like 25

Can someone in charge of Qualitipedia list all reasons on why politics should not be allowed? Because in the event of something political affects something in a negative way, then that's when it can matter. I know for a fact that China for example, has banned violent video games, and that is a political issue.

I've been contemplating making an RfC to ban political matters from Qualitipedia unless they actively damage something's quality in a certain way (ie preachiness, double standards, propaganda, etc.), but I have yet to effectively articulate what I want out of such an RfC.

How come are you not listing the reasons? That's important.

The staff probably hasn't gotten around to it yet.

The main reason such political stuff are now forbidden is that they are generally a very messy subject to tackle among the wikis. Given their previous anti-SJW background such pages with those kinds of pointers will generally revolve around their quality being based around what part of the political spectrum they affiliate with, which won't look professional as a result. Along with that having pages about political-based media &/or similar pointers are incredibly hard to back up to make it seem like fair critisism of a side without feeling like generally bashing one side. It's really the case of politics in general being such a touchy and controversial subject that warrants these pointers getting removed often nowadays. Only some rare cases such as the Battlefield V controversy that deliberately led to a part something's failure (In that case, removing historical accuracy to be more inclusive) could they be seen as acceptable and reliable enough. Given the wiki's previous flak from having such things, this is preferably something that should be moved away from for the sake of being reliable and less biased.

Besides, wikis are not about being biased and critical, and that's why I am sceptical of Qualitipedia as a whole. To be fair, there should be internet platforms for explaining and detailing why something sucks, and why something is good, but people are also allowed to comment on them as well. Wikis have no place for being biased and candid to or against something, and quite frankly, Qualitipedia as a whole, is about being critical and biased, which betrays everything on how a wiki is meant to operate.

I invite you to respond to the points I mentioned in particular. To respond to this bit, wikis have the right to be critical (or indeed take any form that they wish as there is no one universal definition, only an impression that is dominated by Wikipedia), but I agree that bias should be minimized. This is an obviously incomplete, yet ongoing effort. You can only contribute to it by addressing the problems directly, especially through examples and more specific points than expressing an overall distaste as you do here.

I do intend to publish a blog soon that more generally addresses points that hold up against Qualitipedia, and how the network intends to consider them including politics. Politics in particular I intend to treat through the lens of the below post.

Again, it is less about politics, the word as a whole, and more their role dominating the wikis in the past, including with the very bias you mention.

I mean, the Qualitipedia domains may have their place, but as long as they are handled in an objective, non-derogatory, and unbiased manner like what all wikis are, they should be fine to keep around. For example, in the case of the Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, the name could've been non-derogatory, especially the approach of the wiki itself.

That wiki is rightly closed, as are most others of their type. I don't care for the way reception wikis are named in general outside of that, but it's a concession that may as well be kept (ie, I don't think 'crappy games' is a very constructive start especially when traditionally just normal average games have been placed on it).

Then how are people going to have to easily know why if most of the YouTubers happen to be unpleasant and awful? If I were to recreate the "Atrocious YouTubers Wiki," I will not only change the title to a non-derogatory form, but also change the culture and rules of the domain, such as no longer using derogatory and biased language, instead explain the points objectively on why people think someone/the channel is poorly received. Because wikis are meant to be about knowledge and learning, and also being neutral, not about criticising and being opinionated. With all due respect, to say that wikis have the right to be critical, is simply false. Same goes with Encyclopedia books.

This is why I have said earlier, there should be a new, type of separate internet platform (let alone wikis) for listing reasons for acclaiming to criticising people and among other things, but balancing it out with comment sections. Why can't all of you in charge, do that instead?

Sounds like a review site, of which there are already many. If the users of QP want to make another, by all means. The rest is your opinion, which you are of course free to have.

I disagree, it can be a different type of critique site that lists all reasons according to a mass's opinions of something, on why something is well, or not well received. Because at the end of the day, the fact remains, that encyclopedias and wikis, are not invented under the purpose of criticising things, because that's what review sites are for.

Wikis, especially as defined by general purpose wiki farms like Fandom and Miraheze, are whatever they want to be within the boundaries of each platform's content policy. Thus they are invented for the purpose they are used for, and I've already long agreed that how they are practically used in the case of reception wikis is at best a flawed formula in need of change.

Frankly I saw this on mobile not long after it was posted and it simply was not a priority, nor does it entail an unprecedented response within three hours, nor indeed is Qualitipedia staffed in a way that a large but not emergency topic should be expected to be answered by 'top brass' within three hours as the thread's third message implied.

TigerBlazer offers the main gist. From my part it's not a question of politics, as a whole - it is not an issue for pedantry. It is an issue of a long reputation with the wikis being politically partisan in nature, obsessed with SJWs and anti SJWs in manners distracting completely from productive topics and better grounded reasons. That is the content that is unwelcome. Tactful, non-central references to various politics as reasoning is not necessarily bad to me. What Marxco suggests for an RfC is what should be the case already, where the political inclinations should offer an active and verifiable draw from the content's quality - at least as people think of it.

Thus political points should be clear, relevant, and as Tiger also indicates, notable in the media's reception. Even if the reasoning isn't perfect I would welcome a neutrally written point that brings up political controversy as something that harmed the reception of certain media, especially if properly sourced. However, such politics should be at a minimum outside of where they are relevant to a given wiki's objective. If you have an example where this principle was inconsistently or just not applied at all, please link to it.

Politics are overall way too divisive and controversial to talk about, especially due to how divided politics are nowadays.

If that's the case, then by all means, there can be a (good) politics wiki, and a (bad) politics wiki, and that way, all sides are happy.

A reception wiki around politics is actually a terrible idea.

Agreed.

Having a politically biased wiki breaks Miraheze's Content Policy and Terms of Use.

@King Dice That’s a valid point.

Political bias is not explicitly against Content Policy and has nothing to do with the Terms of Use.

That said, on basic credibility and really anywhere I think of the idea, creating wikis that are entirely dedicated to politics in the reception wiki formula does sound like an awful idea.

That would be me, but I do think Qualitipedia should talk about politics in articles a little less, as some people might get offended about a certain political topic.

that's just a typical thing of life DMM. in theory, anything you say can offend someone. there's things that offends more people (like hate speech) but if you're not bigoted on the grand scale, then having huge anxiety about everything you say or do to not offend everyone or over having a good look for everyone is silly.

I will suggest that Qualitipedia should be politically neutral and religiously neutral.

Ideally, this is the intention and partisan pointers should be removed on sight, along with a clear enough edit summary as to why of course. Articles entirely built on political, or indeed religious grounds should be reported. While it'll be rather busy today I hope to look into the ones you have referenced by the end of today or in the course of tomorrow.

Here's such a page that, even if I tried to make it less political, I'm still iffy on having.

I have considered marking it for deletion.

Actually, I think that page could stay if it was more sourced and had some obvious improvements (ex. removing the unnecessary capitalization), because the whole concept of black characters having to be played by black actors is one of the few political arguments we shouldn't remove, because it is ignoring the fact that it is acting. The only real problem is that they could be stereotypical, which really, is a different problem.

To be honest, I am getting this overwhelming sense, that while Qualitipedia has no problem being politically incorrect about things, it is being politically correct in regards to politics, which is not only hypocritical and pathetic, but it's also making it out to be a taboo subject, when really, it goes against freedom of speech.

Miraheze itself is not necessarily an outlet that permits absolute free speech anyways as well as encourages local wikis to develop a sense of where the limits are for speech that actually benefits wiki content, so ironic pedantry aside yes, you indeed have a point. Certain incorrectness causes less trouble than others.

Honestly, it's better that these wikis move away from politics, whether they're SJW-related or anti-SJW-related, 'cause stuff like that can seriously divide a lot of people.

Here we can debate, criticize, and praise politics as long as the SJW subject is strictly distanced. But at the same time, it is important to understand that social justice is not a bad term because of how positive it is, its just that some demagogues/rabble-rousers had been seeking to distort this term for years to shut down what people thinks. They have zero profession in defining words, zero. And that's how dangerous social media really is.

that's my main gist on it. both social justice and gamergate are/were campaigns with well-intended goals but mostly awful actors that justify malign stuff done to reach their goals.

How about calling them politically correct scumbags? How does that sound? Defining them as social justice warriors is just totally unprofessional in terms of trying to define them, and its abusing 'defining words.'

"politically correct" still falls under political bias territory IMO, especially with "scumbags". opposing someone based on their politic beliefs implies you have your political beliefs too.

With all due respect, there is such thing as being rightfully biased, and being wrongfully biased. PC is pretty much the latter. But the point is, why bother defining a group of people if some people are going to abuse defining? Unless you have a profession in defining words, then don't do it. Defining individuals as SJWs in a negative way is utterly unprofessional, and it's very disingenuous and divisive to define positive words as negative ones. Only a demagogue would do such a thing, and I have zero respect for them.

calling someone PC has never stopped other people from whining anyway, even if it's more tolerated than SJW. you see someone doing a small and innocent LGBTQ+ gesture, you call it PC, that someone will 70% not take it lightly. i have problems trying to understand your "defining words" argument but, wouldn't its logic apply to PC too?

"you see someone doing a small and innocent LGBTQ+ gesture, you call it PC, that someone will 70% not take it lightly."

That's totally not how I am interpreting it, because that's being an intolerant bigot against LGBTQ+ people, as well as possibly being a regressive leftist. That's the point. I'm sorry to say, but defining negative things under positive sounding words, is not just contradictory, but its totally stupid, reckless, unprofessional, and disingenuous. Only fraudulent fools think that this is for real.

At least I have nothing against the LGBTQ+ community.

Calling either side "scumbags" in a grey situation like this is bias. Even if our aim is to document the reception of works, we should still try to avoid being subjective in terms of political matters.

To be fair, you can also call them "political correctness warriors" as a non-derogatory term.

Being the biggest elephant in the room, there should be less talking about politics, and more focus on the problems based on personal bias of most people or whatnot.

Honestly about the "politics wiki" idea, I actually thought of the idea of making a negative reception wiki about politics and laws (not laws as in, the "laws" side of the wiki will be mainly criticising laws, it will mainly be stuff related to laws and when pages are about laws, it will probably only be old laws and won't be subjective or controversial [ex. anti-LGBTQ+ laws]), but it wasn't going to be like "our political views are [insert political views here] and if you don't agree with us, you're wrong", I was thinking of just talking about politicians that are proven to have done the wrong thing. However, if you don't think that's a good idea either, then fair enough.

I hope you can go back over the idea, consider the community/material involved and see for yourself the incredible issues with a wiki circled around politics no matter how much you try to gate them.

I do see how it could be problematic, but I'm still considering at least giving it a try.

Yeah, and besides, it is indeed hypocritical that whilst Qualitipedia has no problem being politcally incorrect, it is being politically correct in regards to politics. In other words, too scared to allow politics. The only reasonable exception, is religion.

It doesn't matter if you think it's scared or not. The boundaries are based on areas which have been the most problematic for the majority.

Well think of yourself this, is it reasonable to criticize religion and things relating to politics? What do you think?

In the right time and place, certainly.

In terms of Miraheze disallowing politics and religion, if that's Miraheze's problem, that's their own fault, because that way they are not only controlling people on what to do in terms of freedom of choice and speech, but also being hypocritical in the sense of allowing people to be politically incorrect about anything else, but are against people being politically incorrect about religion and politics. The very point about freedom of expression is that all of us should be able to have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, what Miraheze is doing, is censorship, and that's a bad sign.

Besides, what we all need to understand, is that by all means, we can debate/oppose the opinions in whatever way we want, but censorship goes against freedom of expression, even if the opinions are terrible, and that is far reasonable. Censorship is not reasonable, and it interplays with controlling how people should think.

Plus, it also needs to be understood that no matter what the negative opinion are, there are always going to be some people could have an unreasonable reaction, no matter what thing it is, so it's stupid and narrow-minded to say, that politics and religion are the only ones. There's a thing called give and take, and that's something that also needs to be understood. By all means, opinions can be opposed, but there is also such thing as objectively bad or good, which is where opinion is left out of the equation.

I made a topic with him asking him to be more respectful with what an admin adds or removes from a page so that he could appeal his block sentence, but he just continues adding toxic comments, and I tried to end the discussion, because it was going nowhere, but he re-opened it and continued his behavior, and so far, no one else but me is saying or doing anything about this, and I don't even know why: https://awesomegames.miraheze.org/wiki/Topic:Wxh6xpjqi98er82s

If there's anyone, ANYONE on Qualitipedia who's brave enough to make a single response to that topic, now would be the best possible time, because I really need backup, and we admins and other users should unite and help each in times like this.

To anyone with enough courage to do anything about this: please, please, please, help me out.

Ok, I'll take over on him when I've finished a few other things.

Thanks. I really could use some support.

And I'm barely getting any for no reason.

Stop baiting Lukas with replies and you won't get burned, especially when you could have let it be him only who would be warned for disregarding the opening post. I laid out specifically how it was supposed to go in my opening message and if you decide to ignore it by diving into the mud then there is nobody who can support you.

I did try to respond to you, and you alone, Raidarr, which explains why I made that reply to you, but Lukaaa decided to turn it into a conversation between me and him and nobody else.

I've deleted two messages which both missed the point. Either of you can stop. The one who stops will look better for it. Your message is noted and right now it's all I need until I get an on-topic response from Luka.

I just replied to your recent comment clarifying the whole Xbox's lack of exclusivity thing, and I thought it was very well-written and well-elaborated on. It also makes me feel a little bit better now, and because of that, I think I'll stop taking part in that topic after my last comment. Thanks.

It's not out of the woods yet, and I think I see Luka's point. It's worth working out and making clear since like it or not, the availability of exclusives on console platforms ultimately does contribute to how they are taken, and if one is lagging behind in competition then that is something that's going to be seen as inferior. I was misunderstanding him initially.

Also, I feel kinda bad for harshly blocking him the way I did. Normally, I'd apologize to him, but now, if I say anything to him, no matter how polite I am, he'll leave an angry comment towards me. You don't think it's impossible for me to earn back his trust, do you?

Lukaaa640 shouldn't have made those unnecessary angry comments anyway.

I think if you put a show of good faith via apology it will help not only you with him, but outside observers who saw how the whole affair was handled. The principle matteras as much as what Luka might say. If Luka throws it in your face it becomes entirely his problem and I will rebuke him as such, just as long as an apology is not backhanded or digs up what caused the problem in the first place.