Wikia as the for-profit arm of Wikipedia

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:26 pm

I have made numerous attempts to show how Wikia, Inc. deliberately profits off the back of non-profit Wikipedia.

Here is another example, if Jimbo is unable to check this content-siphon and shut it down.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:29 pm

thekohser wrote:I have made numerous attempts to show how Wikia, Inc. deliberately profits off the back of non-profit Wikipedia.

Here is another example, if Jimbo is unable to check this content-siphon and shut it down.

I think Wikia tries to profit off of Wikipedia. However, they have been phenomenally unsuccessful; I very much doubt that Wikia has ever shown a profit, and certainly not at the level that Wikia's investors would have preferred to see. Honestly I suspect much of the reason Jimmy left San Fran is because he had become persona non grata in Silly Valley for his abject failure to deliver value to Wikia's investors.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:33 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
thekohser wrote:I have made numerous attempts to show how Wikia, Inc. deliberately profits off the back of non-profit Wikipedia.

Here is another example, if Jimbo is unable to check this content-siphon and shut it down.
I think Wikia tries to profit off of Wikipedia. However, they have been phenomenally unsuccessful; I very much doubt that Wikia has ever shown a profit, and certainly not at the level that Wikia's investors would have preferred to see. Honestly I suspect much of the reason Jimmy left San Fran is because he had become persona non grata in Silly Valley for his abject failure to deliver value to Wikia's investors.

And too many of the smart money people had met him.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:30 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:Honestly I suspect much of the reason Jimmy left San Fran is because he had become persona non grata in Silly Valley for his abject failure to deliver value to Wikia's investors.

Now, if only those smart, tough investors would just TALK about his failure. If only more of them would publicly
criticize Wales for his blatant failures. But no, they operate like the Mafia (or like Wikipedia): all information goes in,
none comes out. Code of silence. Keep outsiders like mushrooms; in the dark, fed shit.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:34 pm

EricBarbour wrote:But no, they operate like the Mafia (or like Wikipedia): all information goes in, none comes out. Code of silence. Keep outsiders like mushrooms; in the dark, fed shit.

But of course. These people, perhaps more than anyone, know that knowledge has value, and typically also being greedy capitalists to the core, aren't going to give up something of value without receiving fair compensation for it. I'm sure they'd be glad to sell you what they know about Jimmy Wales for an appropriate price.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:06 pm

thekohser wrote:Here is another example, if Jimbo is unable to check this content-siphon and shut it down.

Looks like that "Speedy Deletion Wikia" is still up and running, going strong. Despite Jimbo's promise that he would "look into it", and despite Newyorkbrad being "concerned". I can see why Wikia wants to keep it -- there is some excellent material housed in that wiki; and those are just 3 examples from the "Most Popular" pages list.

In other news, helping us to define how Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are "completely separate" entities, it's interesting that out of 19 monthly WMF office visitor logs, six months are logged with Wikia employees visiting the WMF headquarters. Nearly every third month, Wikia's dropping in on WMF to see how things are going. Does that sound like a "completely separate" company?

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:26 pm

thekohser wrote:I can see why Wikia wants to keep it -- there is some excellent material housed in that wiki; and those are just 3 examples from the "Most Popular" pages list.

Those may be NSFW for some people.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:39 pm

Hex wrote:
thekohser wrote:I can see why Wikia wants to keep it -- there is some excellent material housed in that wiki; and those are just 3 examples from the "Most Popular" pages list.
Those may be NSFW for some people.

WHAT? Are you saying that Jimmy Wales co-founded a porn site, or something???

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:24 pm

thekohser wrote: WHAT? Are you saying that Jimmy Wales co-founded a porn site, or something???

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:03 am

Recently published email from Sue to one time Google employee Sheryl Sandberg

One heavily redacted email thread offers some insight into the relationship between Google, Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia, of all things, and even mentions child labor magnate Jimmy Wales (this was before the hiring of Wikimedia’s tech industry lobbyists in 2012). This exchange is from 2008, and may well have been the cornerstone of the lobbying partnership between Google and Wikimedia that blossomed in 2012. (The email exchange has the unfortunate distinction of being from Exhibit 666 in the litigation.)
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/20 ... ia-dipute/

Apparently at the time (2008) Google were looking to Wales to ditch Wikia search which they considered a rival to Google search. Wikia search was abandoned in 2009, and as we know search on wikipedia is crap. There may be a reason why Mediawiki software is crap. A friend of mine once worked on the Iran nuclear program in the 1980s as a civilian contractor for the US Navy. He says that his job was to make sure that it never worked.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:51 pm

lilburne wrote:Apparently at the time (2008) Google were looking to Wales to ditch Wikia search which they considered a rival to Google search. Wikia search was abandoned in 2009, and as we know search on wikipedia is crap. There may be a reason why Mediawiki software is crap. A friend of mine once worked on the Iran nuclear program in the 1980s as a civilian contractor for the US Navy. He says that his job was to make sure that it never worked.

I'd have to say MediaWiki was crap before 2008, though they've always done a good job of throughput-optimizing their way around its various shortcomings. But as you've implied, this probably does explain why the "Wikia Search" site was taken down so quickly. Jimbo & Co. could have just left it there, perhaps indefinitely, in the hopes that it might eventually take off despite the initial unfavorable reviews. But I guess if you're in an interdependent symbiotic relationship, little needles and pin-pricks are ultimately felt by both sides.

Obviously it was almost totally disingenuous of Sue Gardner to tell them Jimbo was the "only thing shared" between Wikia and Wikimedia - where did she think Wikia's users all got started, ferchrissakes? - but to her credit, I believe she's done a bit less of that since then. Maybe someone pointed out to her that such claims only made her look silly, if not actually dishonest.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:47 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Obviously it was almost totally disingenuous of Sue Gardner to tell them Jimbo was the "only thing shared" between Wikia and Wikimedia - where did she think Wikia's users all got started, ferchrissakes? - but to her credit, I believe she's done a bit less of that since then. Maybe someone pointed out to her that such claims only made her look silly, if not actually dishonest.

Maybe it's simply because the relationship between Wikia and the WMF only increased after her e-mail to Sandberg?

In August 2008, the English Wikipedia hosted over 12,500 backlinks to Wikia.com sites. Just a few months after that e-mail, Sue Gardner would publicly explain why the Wikimedia Foundation would begin renting office space from Wikia, even though they weren’t the most cost-effective bidder. Then, one year later in August 2009, Matt Halprin, Partner of the Omidyar Network, was asked to join the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. Halprin was responsible for an Omidyar team that “pursues investments in Social Media”, and Omidyar invested part of $4 million into Wikia, Inc. in 2006. So, his company would succeed if Wikia made a nice return on investment. It looks very fishy to have a new Wikimedia Foundation board member who’s a partner at a firm that invested some portion of $4 million into the privately-held firm of the “Emeritus ‘Jimbo’ Chair” of the Foundation. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to explain how this is just a coincidence, being that there were probably more than a thousand other equally-qualified stars of social media who could have been selected, who had not a single tie back to funding Wikia, Inc. What are the odds? At the Wikimedia Foundation, the double-dealing simply defies the laws of probability.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:43 pm

One can't use Wikia to host a wiki that's critical of Wikipedia. Wikia staff will censor information. One of the pages that staff tried to delete was entitled "Honor and reputation attacks". Here was the information on that page prior to the deletion attempt. "OMG! A page with excepts from public mailing lists, public images from Commons, and public names. Collecting such information is an outrage! Wikia, delete this at once! Publicizing my wrongdoings is simply evil and wrong. I want to be able to say whatever the fuck I want to say on a public mailing list without people drawing attention to it or associating what I say with my image or name." Wikipedians ought to be proud of what they say or not say it at all. As an independent company, Wikia ought to have the same anti-censorship guts that Google has, but no, Wikia is too attached to Wikipedia and Wikipedians, and Wikia will appease Wikipedia and Wikipedians.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:47 pm

Wikia hosts many wikis that consist solely of copyrighted material, such as video game guides.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:49 am

I think its pretty obvious that Wikia profits off of Wikipedia, but that profit comes more from indirect advertising in my opinion that anything else.

For example, they both run out of the same building, same clusters of servers; they share development dollars with much of the development of Wikia, coming from donation dollars to Wikipedia. Wikipedia acts as a sort of test wiki fro Wikia updates, Visual Editor and Mediawiki updates are good examples of it. They release them on Wikipedia first, find the bugs through volunteer unpaid efforts and then when its safe, they release it on Wikia. Also, they both run on MediaWiki, so Wikipedia is a good advertising example of how to use the software although Wikia uses a more modified version of it, its really mostly a skin update with a few extras like badges chat and a few other things. Wikia even "donates" to "Keep Wikipedia running". Which can be seen on the page of the donators. Also, most of the toolserver/WMFLabs tools work at Wikia (not sure if everyone knows that though). And anyone who says their developers don't talk and actively work together is a lier, just look at Visual editor as a prime example. Plus I have been there a couple times and have seen it with mein own eyes!

With regard to the speedy delete wiki. Some are copyvios but it depends on how you define Copyvio. Wikipedia has a very narrow view but other sites like Facebook don't and copywritten content is eagerly "shared". So a lot of the content depends on point of view. With that said, that wiki is also a useful one to have because it keeps articles that the deletion nazi's on Wikipedia would be glad to be rid of based on their narrow view of "notability".

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:11 am

thekohser wrote:I have made numerous attempts to show how Wikia, Inc. deliberately profits off the back of non-profit Wikipedia.

Here is another example, if Jimbo is unable to check this content-siphon and shut it down.

Now Greg — why the FUCK would Jimmy Wales want to shut down the Wikipedia-Wikia parasitic tethering?

Just watch how much money he makes when he cashes in those chips... Will it start with an M or a B, that is the question...

RfB

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:33 pm

I bet Wikia and the WMF are easily worth a couple billion to the right person and as much as Jimmy might want people to see him as philanthropic, if Google or Microsoft or Facbook offered him 3 billion for them I can promise he woudl take it.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:18 pm

Kumioko wrote:I bet Wikia and the WMF are easily worth a couple billion to the right person and as much as Jimmy might want people to see him as philanthropic, if Google or Microsoft or Facbook offered him 3 billion for them I can promise he woudl take it.

If Facebook takes over Wikia and WMF, I would quit Wikipedia in a heartbeat, since it would lead to much more paid editing, much more BLP issues, and definitely much more vandalism, both subtle and blatant. Oh, and Wiktionary would be full of ads like dictionary.com.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:52 pm

Kumioko wrote:I bet Wikia and the WMF are easily worth a couple billion to the right person and as much as Jimmy might want people to see him as philanthropic, if Google or Microsoft or Facbook offered him 3 billion for them I can promise he woudl take it.

Keep in mind, according to his Pinellas County divorce judgment, if Jimbo cashes in on Wikia stock, he immediately owes his ex-wife (the second one, not the first one) a contingent termination sum of $2,300,000. (But at least then he is free from any further alimony payments.)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:57 pm

Might also point out: it appears that Angela Beesley Starling, cofounder of Wikia and the one person who did more to force-feed Wikipedia traffic to Wikia than anyone else, is apparently out of the picture at Wikia. She moved to Australia in 2012, hasn't done anything on Wikia's site since August 2013, and is now running her own company.

I bet Wikia isn't worth a plugged nickel. The signs are indirect but quite disturbing.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:00 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Might also point out: it appears that Angela Beesley Starling, cofounder of Wikia and the one person who did more to force-feed Wikipedia traffic to Wikia than anyone else, is apparently out of the picture at Wikia. She moved to Australia in 2012, hasn't done anything on Wikia's site since August 2013, and is now running her own company.

I bet Wikia isn't worth a plugged nickel. The signs are indirect but quite disturbing.

The only thing keeping Wikia around at all are a few of its flagship sites, mainly Memory Alpha (Star Trek) and Wookieepedia (Star Wars), which generate enough traffic and revenue to keep it from completely sinking. Take those away and Wikia withers in months.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:03 am

It is hard to believe Wikia is the 88th most popular website in the United States at one point (see here: viewtopic.php?p=86126#p86126).

Wikia is still much more popular than the likes of Kickstarter even.

I bet that Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia have a friendly rivalry between the two.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:22 am

Strange how when Wikia opens a "Fan Studio" to shove video game marketing even further down the throats of "the community", the Reuters article about it mentions Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation three times. I thought Wikia was "completely separate" from Wikipedia and the WMF?

Wikipedia founder and Chairman of Wikia.com Jimmy Wales, wearing his second,
now-obsolete wedding band, speaks during a news conference in Tokyo March 8, 2007.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:17 pm

thekohser wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I bet Wikia and the WMF are easily worth a couple billion to the right person and as much as Jimmy might want people to see him as philanthropic, if Google or Microsoft or Facbook offered him 3 billion for them I can promise he woudl take it.
Keep in mind, according to his Pinellas County divorce judgment, if Jimbo cashes in on Wikia stock, he immediately owes his ex-wife (the second one, not the first one) a contingent termination sum of $2,300,000. (But at least then he is free from any further alimony payments.)

Well if its up to him then he probably wouldn't sell, although it might be worth it, I don't personally know or care what he is paying in Alimony.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:20 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Might also point out: it appears that Angela Beesley Starling, cofounder of Wikia and the one person who did more to force-feed Wikipedia traffic to Wikia than anyone else, is apparently out of the picture at Wikia. She moved to Australia in 2012, hasn't done anything on Wikia's site since August 2013, and is now running her own company.

I bet Wikia isn't worth a plugged nickel. The signs are indirect but quite disturbing.
The only thing keeping Wikia around at all are a few of its flagship sites, mainly Memory Alpha (Star Trek) and Wookieepedia (Star Wars), which generate enough traffic and revenue to keep it from completely sinking. Take those away and Wikia withers in months.

I agree completely on this. There are probably a dozen fairly active projects that draw most of the traffic. As I mentioned in another thread though, Wikia has the potential to be very profitable but the folks running it don't know what they are doing. At least from a marketting and sales standpoint. Plus the layout for their skin is horrible. Its fine that it allows each subsiki some flexibility and look and feel but generally its atrocious.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:36 pm

Look what I just got from Wikia today, via e-mail:

Welcome to Wikia's first email newsletter

Wikia <communications@mailing.wikia.com>

Hello, Wikia Superfans!

The Social Universe for Fans, By Fans

Welcome to Wikia's debut newsletter from The Social Universe for Fans, by Fans.

Every month, we're going to promote and feature your fan chronicles, offering you a quick resource for everything that's happening in fandom, from movies, TV, games, comics, lifestyle, books and music.

If you're not interested in receiving this fandom-filled newsletter each month, you can change your email preferences at the bottom of this email.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:07 pm

Yeah I got one of those too. The down side is that its mostly a bunch of crap Wiki's so all the newsletter is going to be about is video games, some boy bands and maybe some anime mixed in.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:26 pm

I got one of those eight days ago. Thanks, Jimmy, I love being subscribed to mailing lists without giving my permission.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:32 pm

Hex wrote:I got one of those eight days ago. Thanks, Jimmy, I love being subscribed to mailing lists without giving my permission.

As with everything at wikipedia, you are merely a means to an end.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:54 pm

In a way this is actually good, in that it strongly suggests that Wikia is no longer pretending they're a free-hosting site for serious specialized informational content, like they did in the past. It's been obvious for some time now that their only real draw is fanboy stuff, but because some of the more socially-useful sites like the Lyrics Wikia, Recipes Wikia, and Uncyclopedia are still going fairly strong, there's probably been a lot of reluctance internally to just come out and admit it.

Jimbo used to refer to Wikia as "the rest of the library," when it's actually more like a bunch of magazines you'd find strewn around in your basement. So if they're finally now OK with being a bunch of magazines in the basement, who knows, maybe that will help to further open up a niche for serious scholarship on the web that isn't part of the Wikimedia orbit.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:07 pm

Kumioko wrote:The down side is that its mostly a bunch of crap Wiki's so all the newsletter is going to be about is video games, some boy bands and maybe some anime mixed in.

You're also describing Wikipedia itself, albeit by accident.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:42 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The down side is that its mostly a bunch of crap Wiki's so all the newsletter is going to be about is video games, some boy bands and maybe some anime mixed in.
You're also describing Wikipedia itself, albeit by accident.

Yoru absolutely right, although I will say that Wikipedia does a somewhat better job of it, probably because they have been doing it longer.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:12 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:some of the more socially-useful sites like ... Uncyclopedia

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:08 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Jimbo used to refer to Wikia as "the rest of the library," when it's actually more like a bunch of magazines you'd find strewn around in your basement.

Evidence of this is here:

http://mywikibiz.com/File:Compete_-_Wik ... omains.jpg

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:40 pm

It should be noted that Wikia does have quite a few active and large Wiki's such as Wookipedia and it has quite a strong fan base on a number of others such as the ones supporting Roblox, Minecraft and most other major games and movies. So although it could be argued that Wikia certainly doesn't have the same scope and guidelines as Wikipedia, it does have some appeal to a number of users.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:45 pm

I am very confused. How could a non-profit organization that goes to the extent of issuing a "transparency report" (Monkey selfies aside), be so non-transparent about its relationship with Wikia?http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi ... ncy_Report

Other disclosure reports are not helpful as well. For example, the monthly WHF reports lists visits by Wikia to WMF HQ (e.g., in April 2014, Owen Davis and Mike Schwartz are listed as visitors, but the extent of the business conducted and whether WMF employees visited Wikia are not disclosed.) Such limited disclosures are meaningless.

How about a complete and full disclosure of any and all relationships between WMF and Wikia? I am sure this was a big issue about 3 years ago. However, as the participation drops on both Wikia and Wikipedia, this becomes less and less of a widely-held concern.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:36 pm

eagle wrote:I am very confused. How could a non-profit organization that goes to the extent of issuing a "transparency report" (Monkey selfies aside), be so non-transparent about its relationship with Wikia?http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi ... ncy_Report

Other disclosure reports are not helpful as well. For example, the monthly WHF reports lists visits by Wikia to WMF HQ (e.g., in April 2014, Owen Davis and Mike Schwartz are listed as visitors, but the extent of the business conducted and whether WMF employees visited Wikia are not disclosed.) Such limited disclosures are meaningless.

How about a complete and full disclosure of any and all relationships between WMF and Wikia? I am sure this was a big issue about 3 years ago. However, as the participation drops on both Wikia and Wikipedia, this becomes less and less of a widely-held concern.

General Electric employees had to submit reports if they interacted with competing firms. They also had to purchase from such firms as plain customers, not at discount.

Wikipedia rents offices from Jimmy Wales's Wikia,
Wikipedia develops software for Wikia,
Wikipedia tests software for Wikia, and
Wikipedia after being mobilized by Jimmy Wales had a blackout to protect the economic interests of Wikia, when SOPA was considered.

This must be a violation of the tax laws on not-for-profits and perhaps a violation of antitrust laws.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:00 am

Kumioko wrote:It should be noted that Wikia does have quite a few active and large Wiki's such as Wookipedia and it has quite a strong fan base on a number of others such as the ones supporting Roblox, Minecraft and most other major games and movies. So although it could be argued that Wikia certainly doesn't have the same scope and guidelines as Wikipedia, it does have some appeal to a number of users.

Support which it is rapidly losing. For example, nearly all of the Minecraft-related Wikia sites have been obsoleted in favor of wikis hosted elsewhere. Wikia's Minecraft wiki is crap compared to the one at gamepedia.com, and for sites for Minecraft mods, the only one where the Wikia site is even close to the best-available source is Tinker's Construct, and even then you'll probably get better info from the FTB wiki (independently hosted). In some cases, the Wikia sites were created first and then abandoned because the editors got tired of dealing with Wikia's annoyances (e.g. random interference by Wikia staff, Wikia trying to steer people off your wiki and onto other wikis with higher CPM rates, and Wikia's noxious advertising policies). In others, the Wikia wiki was started by someone who was peeved with the administrators of a preexisting non-Wikia wiki as an attempted fork. The long and short of it, though, is that Wikia is a crap place to try to run a topical wiki and the assistance their staff gives you is not worth the annoyance. Most people will get better milage in the end simply by using another, less intrusive, wiki hosting solution (either self-hosting or a topical hosting solution like gamepedia.com), depending on the sort of content they are hoping to publish.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:48 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:This must be a violation of the tax laws on not-for-profits and perhaps a violation of antitrust laws.

Not to mention that the WMF board in its early days was 60% composed of key employees of Wikia.

Regardless, the IRS has never shown any real interest in pursuing the self-dealing that went on between Wales, the WMF, and Wikia, even though it was formally reported to them. I will grant that the situation is much improved now, compared to 2007-2011.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:09 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:It should be noted that Wikia does have quite a few active and large Wiki's such as Wookipedia and it has quite a strong fan base on a number of others such as the ones supporting Roblox, Minecraft and most other major games and movies. So although it could be argued that Wikia certainly doesn't have the same scope and guidelines as Wikipedia, it does have some appeal to a number of users.
Support which it is rapidly losing. For example, nearly all of the Minecraft-related Wikia sites have been obsoleted in favor of wikis hosted elsewhere. Wikia's Minecraft wiki is crap compared to the one at gamepedia.com, and for sites for Minecraft mods, the only one where the Wikia site is even close to the best-available source is Tinker's Construct, and even then you'll probably get better info from the FTB wiki (independently hosted). In some cases, the Wikia sites were created first and then abandoned because the editors got tired of dealing with Wikia's annoyances (e.g. random interference by Wikia staff, Wikia trying to steer people off your wiki and onto other wikis with higher CPM rates, and Wikia's noxious advertising policies). In others, the Wikia wiki was started by someone who was peeved with the administrators of a preexisting non-Wikia wiki as an attempted fork. The long and short of it, though, is that Wikia is a crap place to try to run a topical wiki and the assistance their staff gives you is not worth the annoyance. Most people will get better milage in the end simply by using another, less intrusive, wiki hosting solution (either self-hosting or a topical hosting solution like gamepedia.com), depending on the sort of content they are hoping to publish.

I pretty much agree with all of that. The Wikia skin is a perfect example of how horrible Wikia is and how its managed. Their implementatin of Visual editor is terrible too and it just confuses most editors who try and use it. I also agree that the "staff" aren't very useful. Most of the help I ever received were from other users.

I do think Wikia has potential but its so mismanaged that it would take a while to turn it around and they need to drop that ugly and unfunctional Wikia skin for a more basic one like the one used in Wikipedia. Its ok to modify it to get something better, but the one they have is ugly and horrible to use.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:20 am

From Quora:

How much is Wikia's revenue?
Wikia has over 50 million unique visitors every month. Half of the traffic is on its gaming wikis. How profitable is that niche in terms of ad $$? How much revenue does Wikia generate?

JIMMY'S ANSWER

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder and Wikia co... (more)
7 upvotes by Garrick Saito, Quora User, Quora User, (more)

Wikia does not release revenue numbers.

Written 30 Dec, 2012. Asked to answer by Richard Heigl.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:24 am

Given that Wikia is mostly a site for gamers, it is perhaps no surprise that Wales treads carefully around GamerGate:

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:07 pm

Wikia is now "Fandom, powered by Wikia".

And, I think just as many of us predicted, Wikia, co-founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley, is now "Launched in 2006 by founder Jimmy Wales, Wikia Inc. is a global digital media company".

Send Nikki Flynn an e-mail about that, if it bothers you.

nflynn@fandom.com

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:05 pm

thekohser wrote:Wikia is now "Fandom, powered by Wikia".

We probably should have expected something like that - "fandom.com" is a better domain name by far, and that's basically all anybody goes there for at this point. Still, they could have used a better term than "powered" - something like "held back," "made more irritating," or even just "ruined" would have been far more accurate.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:13 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
thekohser wrote:Wikia is now "Fandom, powered by Wikia".
We probably should have expected something like that - "fandom.com" is a better domain name by far, and that's basically all anybody goes there for at this point. Still, they could have used a better term than "powered" - something like "held back," "made more irritating," or even just "ruined" would have been far more accurate.

"Fandom, entirely the fault of Wikia"

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:39 pm

I noticed this announcement last March.

Wikia Launches New LA Video Studio for Original and Branded Entertainment Content
Company Invests in Video; Industry Veteran Anthony Cava Named Head of Video

SAN FRANCISCO, March 29, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Wikia, the largest entertainment fan site in the world with 190 million global monthly uniques*, today expanded its video capabilities with the launch of a dedicated Content Studio in Los Angeles, as the company further establishes its original content and programming for entertainment fans. The new studio, charged with developing video content to run across Wikia's newest media property, Fandom, which offers passionate entertainment fans comprehensive coverage on their favorite movies, television shows and games, will be led by industry veteran Anthony Cava who will serve as Head of Video.

As Head of Video, Cava will expand video production from one studio in San Francisco to two dedicated studios, adding a new studio in Los Angeles, to grow video branded content capabilities and lead new fan engagement opportunities. The studio will be fully equipped to host talent interviews, original video programming, and unique branded content.

Mr. Cava's LInkedin profile makes no mention of being employed by Wikia, though.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:26 pm

Bleacher Report general manager Dorth Raphaely left that company (or, more likely, was fired from it) in March 2016. Nine months later, he's found a new home at "Fandom" (the super-cool new name for Wikia).

Reportedly, Bleacher Report's staff were sharply divided between those who were "original" Bleacher Reporters, versus those who were brought on by Turner Sports upon their 2012 acquisition. According to one GlassDoor critic of Bleacher Report, "GM Dorth Raphaely appear[ed] to have no concern for changing company's awful culture."

Good luck at Wikia, Dorth.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:21 pm

thekohser wrote:"GM Dorth Raphaely appear[ed] to have no concern for changing company's awful culture."

Good luck at Wikia, Dorth.

He sounds an ideal candidate to be head of the WMF. They wouldn't want anyone messing up their nice culture.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:13 pm

Wikia-UK Ltd is an English company owned by Wikia International, with Bud Austin and Craig Palmer as directors. Its 2014 accounts show a loss of £95K and net liabilities of £83K. It is late filing its 2015 accounts, due on 30 September 2016, and was threatened by the registrar with being dissolved. See https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08898792 Perhaps the US company is doing better.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:03 am

Can someone explain to me what is going on at this page (other than a weird plagiarism of the Walt Disney Company)?