Comment by nephihaha
8 hours ago
It depends on which part. It is certainly heading down the same route as Wikipedia with all the problems that entails. You're usually better off on a smaller Fandom wiki as it won't have beeb taken over yet.
The James Bond wiki is particularly bad, but Memory Alpha seems to be better run.
Well at least Wikipedia doesn't pester you with tons of ads that sometimes make it hard to even find the content (except for the occasional donation banner, but that's a minor annoyance compared to what Fandom does).
There were memes ridiculing Wales and all that annual effort regarding supporting Wikipedia - probably that did the job
> except for the occasional donation banner, but that's a minor annoyance compared to what Fandom does
Well, I guess that's true.
It's worth noting, though, that wikipedia's donation demands cover more than the entire screen on a phone.
It's also worth noting that both Wikipedia and Fandom were co-founded by Jimmy Wales.
1 reply →
> Memory Alpha seems to be better run.
Some few months ago I couldn't find actors credits for particular roles they had in Star Trek franchise. For whatever reasons these bits were removed but still were present within Wayback Machine.
Then again, in the past I've seen hostile take-overs of fan made wikis into wikia/fandom "infrastructure". In one case wiki was copied, in time articles were slightly edited and new content was added containing... unsolicited fan theories.
The other case: wiki was copied 1:1 due to some inside disagreements, then incorporated into fandom and in approx. 2 years abandoned. The original died as well but someone managed to restore it from Wayback - this time in read-only mode
> It is certainly heading down the same route as Wikipedia with all the problems that entails.
Can you elaborate on what that means? i.e. what aspect of Wikipedia, and in what way Fandom is heading there?