Forum:Moving to a better host?

Forums: Index → War Room → Moving to a better host?

Continuing Forum:New wiki policies proposal.

Looking at current state of Wikia I think that we should leave Wikia and move to a better, independent host. Wikia's updates break usability and editing and lower quality of wiki content.

Things like image upload forms and WYSIWYG editors make me sad. Due to their "simplified editing tools" this wiki became a complete mess without any standards. There must be a "skill gate" even in simple things. If you don't know what to edit or how to edit, don't edit.

Wikia puts alot of advertisements everywhere, even inside content, breaking usability.

And, we must not have blogs since we misuse them.

And, the main thing. Wikia has "community over content" direction instead of "community for content" idea of wikis.

Thoughts? SiPlus 15:32, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

No. We don't pay to use Wikia's service, so we are subject to their changes to their own sites. There are no better wiki farms out there.      15:34, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

there is a wiki farm out there called wikii it is nowhere near as greedy as wikia. why not move there?-mastercrazyhand 11:10 AM 11/14/11

What are you trying to do here exactly? Pierogi^Talk 15:34, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, get a reliable host, and then get Wikia to delete this wiki and redirect the url to the new one. 1358 ^(Talk) 15:36, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia will not delete this wiki. This wiki will be left as it was before movement and will continue to live (but more likely to die since Wikia gets worse and worse) along with the new wiki. SiPlus 15:40, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I want to improve quality of content. SiPlus 15:40, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

s/improve the quality/lose all our visitors 1358 ^(Talk) 15:42, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Not a chance. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 15:36, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

3,497 pages on this wiki, 21,627 photos on this wiki, coding already in place, seems like a fun afternoon for a new site. - Crazy Sam10 ^{Talk Poll}File:ShadowAttackSmallAni.gif 15:38, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't Combine Overwiki, we don't need to move....File:AdvancedRookieSig2.png 15:41, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Or Halopedia. Phillycj 15:43, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a new one. No way. FireBird- 15:48, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Also, the only things I've seen that annoys us is the change to the talk pages and the chat failing. So unless your basicly saying "Oh no, my chat broke and the talk pages are ugly, lets start a new site to get away!" I don't see what's wrong with the current standing. - Crazy Sam10 ^{Talk Poll}File:ShadowAttackSmallAni.gif 15:49, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Continuing from the other proposal, no. REDSKIN-2615:51, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

SiPlus, you're being a bit arrogant with your "skill gate" reasoning. The entire point of the wiki is to create the best Call of Duty encyclopedia on the web and we accomplish that by attracting editors. If you don't like the way Wikia is doing things, feel free to leave. I frankly don't think you're in the best position to propose such an ultra-conservative wiki-wide change after having just been blocked and I'm not sure you realize just how radical you are coming off as. There are certainly problems with the way Wikia is handling certain things but they are by no means dire and will not destroy the validity of the wiki as a whole, nor will they affect editing and its procedures in the slightest. I know not a single user other than you that sincerely believes we need defect from Wikia for such bogas, unbacked reasons; I do not condone your actions in this proposal because I know you know it'll never go through. I didn't expect such foolishness from you, of all people. Shotrocket6 17:08, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

We should attract good editors. SiPlus 15:15, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

You relinquish the fact that many of your "good editors" may not want to edit here. I don't think you actually understand what a wiki should be. Shotrocket6 15:35, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

And how do you think editors become good editors, SiPlus? They start off as newby editors, then they gradually get better at it with practice. Sgt. S.S. 16:25, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

People should really be grateful for looking at the wiki and that we have done all of this for them, so a few decide to repay the favour by staying (more recently, Redskin and the effort he's put in) but most just don't care. I think that's what you're getting at, and that's the point I want to add to your little squabble. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK  17:05, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, new editors should practice and get experience with wikitext, not sidebar buttons generating bad, navigation- and usability-obstructive buttons. As MLG said, "if you're a total nub at any mark-up codes, that's why Wikia offers you help". SiPlus 07:10, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to want to take the time out of their lives to learn anything about wikitext if they haven't any prior experience. The "flash" wikia has been going for is to attract new users that might ultimately help the wiki. Shotrocket6 22:22, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Per SR6. Sgt. S.S. 14:21, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so, not to toot my own horn, but, I'm probably the only person here who could set up a new host, manage the servers, and basically be the SysAdmin for the entire wiki. I don't have the money to do that, and I'm not going to get it from anyone. If you want to pay me... at least $1000 for startup fees, be my guest, but we are not moving. User:Sactage/s.js 17:10, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Meh, if wikia wants to screw up, let them screw up. We're here to give quality info about Call of Duty related material. If something that Wikia does prevents us from doing that (which, I must say, is our main objective), then, I'll be considering moving, but that ain't the case, seeing as Wikia is targeting changes on community based overlays. TL;DR vers.: Not need to change.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}17:24, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

We're here to give quality info, Wikia prevents us from giving quality info. SiPlus 07:36, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Proof? From what I've seen of several FA, we are htting on target. Unless wikia removes editing, which would be stupid to say the less, then it would be a good reason to move.-Diegox223 ^{Zed's dead, baby.}00:06, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. I don't think the community's views on the matter have changed since then. Sgt. S.S. 20:37, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

What is this, I don't even. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q}22:21, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Those simplified editing tools are useful. I wouldn't be editing today if it wasn't there, do to the fact that no one knows any of the coding when they first start editing. The simplified editing tools are useful for new users. And why the the hell would we leave wiki? It's too much money, to difficult ad wouldn't be very helpful. File:Ireland flag.gifCoaZ^TalkFile:Ireland flag.gif 00:03, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... New editors still managed to edit MediaWiki markup before the Rich Text Editor was introduced, they still managed to work out what markup was needed for what. (Unless you're talking about moving from markup to HTML, in that case disregard this; all wiki farms which use MediaWiki software use markup as source.) Smuff^{[citation provided]} 15:55, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not possible for new users to learn how to edits, but it's easer with the RTE. File:Ireland flag.gifCoaZ^TalkFile:Ireland flag.gif 01:54, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you for real? This is the most preposterous idea out there. I would think that if a user is this dissatisfied with the wiki he could very well just leave and create another fannon site himself and then ask if any other users want to join in. I can almost guarantee it will fail miserably. To propose that we all pack up our shit and leave to set up somewhere else is just dumb. This wiki is well established and well known by editors and non-editors alike. There are countless editors out there who have put countless hours of work into this wiki. To do what this forum suggests is to spit in the face of every user who has ever edited here. And to that end I must say NO! File:20PX SIG.gif Talk 05:59, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

How much Wikia paid you for this argument? SiPlus 07:21, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia did not solicit nor pay me to put up this argument in any way shape or form. LOL File:20PX SIG.gif Talk 08:51, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you were joking, SiPlus... Sgt. S.S. 11:07, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Si ever heard of COD:DBAD? Pierogi^Talk 20:03, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

The principle of the suggestion is wrong. A wiki is a community where anyone can edit. Requiring a "skill gate" to filter good editors from bad ones is contradictory to the aims of a wiki -- and therefore our aims. The wiki functions well as it is, and while I'm open for ideas for improvements, this one makes no rational sense. --Scottie theNerd 07:12, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the title of this in the first place I facepalmed. This has been discussed before. However, since you probably didn't read it that well, I'll give you a lovely little list of why forking is a fucking stupid idea: (Sorry about the amount of talk about WoWWiki here, but it's the best example.)

1. We wouldn't move to another host, we'd fork; this current version of the wiki would remain in place and Wikia would attempt to promote new users to edit here/ban users who try to promote the forked site. In short, Wikia would try to compete for views, a classic example being WoWWiki, Wowpedia's Wikia hosted competitor. Before the majority of editors decided to create and move to Wowpedia, WoWWiki got 400,000 views per day. After they forked, WoWWiki still retains 250,000 of those daily page views; anyone caught advertising Wowpedia is banned by VegaDark, a Wikia staff member who edits there as it is against Wikia's ToU. Forking is bad for both sites as it reduces the amount of traffic each site recieves, we don't need to compete with ourselves.
2. Wikia is a free service and the best wiki farm out there, and although they make some of the shittiest updates ever (*cough* AdminDashboard *cough*), though you may not think it, technical support provided by Wikia is second to none. If we were to host ourselves, we'd have to provide our funds and support; that would cost a fuckton of cash. On the subject of Monaco, there's no way that'd ever be coming back one way or another, if we were to move to ShoutWiki like most of the rebel wikis did during the AWA's formation, we'd have to pay a premium to use the Monaco skin. Though you could argue we could try and get a site like Curse to host us, as it is not a dedicated wiki farm, we'd most likely have to reign in how we run the site, which would most likely end with the deletion of thousands of personal pages and images and blogs. As most sites also have to pay for traffic, we'd be in a pretty tight spot considering our 300,000 thousand views this week alone. When Modern Warfare 3 comes out, that's just going to get bigger.
3. Wikia generates more views for us. If you look at Wikia's landing page, our giveaway, generously funded by Wikia, is the first thing featured. If you look at the ads on the bottom/right hand side of gaming wikis, you'll notice we're generally there. Wikia are also very high in Google's search listings; if you look up a gun in a Call of Duty game or a subject about Call of Duty, it's pretty much certain we'll be listed on page 1. The best way to demonstrate what would happen is to search for the upcoming World of Warcraft expansion, Mists of Pandaria, on Google. WoWWiki's page is on the first search page, yet you won't even find Wowpedia's at all.
4. Wikia has a community. All the wikis are in one way or another interlinked by the farm, this means that there's a good flow of editors. If you look at shoutwiki, there is no community there.
5. The Wikia skin (formally known as Oasis) actually looks decent, if we were to move to another farm or host ourselves we'd likely end up having to use the less aesthetically pleasing Monobook/Vector skins which, although can look decent with heavy customisation, generally looks like shit, especially where monobook is involved. (This is what our wiki currently looks like when using Monobook.)

In short, with our size and traffic, Wikia > everything else. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 15:38, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikia cares about SEO and attracting new visitors. But only because they have tons of advertisements. Wikia doesn't care about content, navigation, style, usability and everything else. Wikia cares only about their money. Wikia uses you, readers and editors. We have alot of editors, we can move (fork, of course) to a private hosting supplied by donations instead of obstructive advertisements and updates. SiPlus 07:17, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

It costs thousands of dollars to set up a site like this. How would we get that sort of money? elmo's ramblings 07:28, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Thousands? Maybe 30$ per month. A wiki is not that expensive. It's not Google or Yahoo, it's just a wiki. SiPlus 12:00, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you are pulling these sums from, but if you want a server that supports actual traffic, then $30 won't be nearly enough. If it's your personal site, then maybe $30 would be enough, but a wiki with almost a million views certainly needs a server with huge bandwidth. 1358 ^(Talk) 14:53, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

30 or 1000. Who would want to give money to something that is already very good and is costless? If you want, you give the money but I'm not paying it. Besides, can't you understand the trouble making a complete new wiki? This wiki came here in 4 years and making a new wiki just means 4 years of effort in the rubbish bin File:MW Weapon AK47.png AK47 lover ^Talk 19:47, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

So what if Wikia is "using" us? That's their business model. In return, we get free hosting, support and access to tools for us to edit and maintain a wiki for one of the most popular games in the market. While we don't have full control over the features, it's not exactly harming us either. In comparison, while we have hundreds of editors, less than a handful would be willing to financially contribute and donations are hugely problematic if we don't consistently get enough -- and a $30 server will not function with the traffic we get. --Scottie theNerd 12:08, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one that likes the look of monobook? It's simple and easy to use in my opinion. File:BOofficialicon.jpgPoketape^Talk 05:57, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Although I use Oasis, you're not the only one. DarkMetroid567 00:04, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

I third that. Monobook FTW. Sgt. S.S. 17:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well if we want to get technical, the Halo Wiki started out as a separate site, merged with the Halo Wikia site, and then split off again when Oasis was forced upon us. What website do they use to host their wiki and does it cost them anything? File:BOofficialicon.jpgPoketape^Talk 04:09, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Any hosting will cost money, whether it is self hosting or using a hosting service. Domains cost money, and so do machines to upkeep the site. There's no point in paying for something we get for free here.      08:45, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

It costs them money, Poketape, and trust me, you do not want to have someone else host the site for us. Wikia is the best chance we can get. User:Sactage/s.js 11:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Who the hell would pay for the Wiki anyways? Would it have to be like a subscription website? DarkMetroid567 04:24, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

This would be a nightmare. First of all, even if Wikia screwed up, I don't know any better hosts. Second, it's free. Hosts cost money. Third, moving all of our content would be insane. Finally, the moving would cause confusion witn new users and returning users. DarkMetroid567 17:13, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Since this proposal has been up for almost three weeks, I think it's time we took it to a vote. Sgt. S.S. 11:28, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Strong Oppose — With Wikia, we have a community, free hosting, excellent technical support, and no worries about competing with forks. I think that the occasional crappy update is a small price to pay for that. Sgt. S.S. 11:28, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Vehement Oppose — This is why we can't have nice things. Blackout^{I'm back!} 12:02, November 19, 2011 (UTC)