Talk:Wiki/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 February 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Wikipedia

Are the misspellings in the Wikipedia section deliberate? I don't want to 'correct' them if they're supposed to be humourous.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably, yes? No. I fixed. Thank you. ħuman 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the examples & put them in a more logical order. Does it make silver? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, but not terribly mission is it? 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

New Conservapedia

It isn't appropriate to the article, being tiny, very young and not at all entertaining to read. Evil stupid Hoover! 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikia

Host of multiple small wikis (some have only 2-3 participants) should be mentioned - including the new layout that makes even Conservapedia look good. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Added - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF does this "it was formed to work like early Wikipedia but on more subjects." even mean? I trimmed it down a bit and edited it a bit... also, this "almost all of which are for media fans" needs some clarification. Or rewording. "media fans"? People who love watercolour? ħuman 06:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It means they wanted to turn the energy they saw in Wikipedia when it was small to areas that weren't really about education. They were anticipating people who were really into the formation of wikis. "Media" there means "TV, movies, games, etc., etc" - nerdly pursuits of the non-written form. I figured it was a sufficient abbreviation as it's the same term, used in the same sense, used to distinguish fans of TV science fiction from fans of the written equivalent (the latter taking care to maintain a class distinction, the former picking up books only in small numbers) - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First, again, you done it again - answered the talk page question far more clearly than writ. But that is the awesomeness of wikis, and why I quoted what I deleted here. "they wanted to turn the energy they saw in Wikipedia when it was small to areas that weren't really about education. They were anticipating people who were really into the formation of wikis." is much clearer, just needs a brief copyedit. Second, the trouble with "media" is it also includes the printed word by default. Even if it's worth including, mentioning "fans of TV, movies, games, etc., etc" is a bit broad and pointless, I think. ħuman 08:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki use goes beyond that "media" thing, which I think is too broad. It's right "games" and "movies" are a subset of "media", but it's not a good word for what actually goes on - it immediately conjures up the news for a start. The Star Wars expanded universe, for example, goes beyond that simple and broad descriptor IMHO. Also, many use it for collaborative project writing. At least one person is writing a thesis on wiki software, I use wikis to organise several University societies and when I beat my supervisor around the head for a new server I'll probably run MediaWiki on it rather than WordPress. ^{d hominem} 12:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"fiction and games" probably covers it simply and clearly - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Assorted narked wiki-communities are leaving or considering leaving Wikia - disliking the design and other aspects. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's already mentioned in this very article. -- Nx / talk 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The lunatic points system should also be mentioned (no indication of how it works, what things to work towards etc) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Found this

the Internet Nobody Database looks like another ED wannabe. --PsyGremlinSprich! 19:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like all that goes on there according to the RC is one guy blocking user after user. Sam ^Tally-ho! 19:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism wiki

I'd never been to this wiki before, but the reason I moved it is that it reads like CP - cept on the other side. There is virtually nothing serious about it, and I am unclear why it's being given a position with well know, popular sites. Of course, I've been informed that I'm really a Christian in disguise, so maybe I am just doing this to further my Christian agenda. ;-) --GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 21:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're persecuting Proxima, just like the Romans. Peter ^HFB2 22:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Atheism Wiki, Liberapedia or Pharyngula Wiki should have sections here. They're just examples of small-scale wikis hosted on Wikia, of which there are hundreds. Let's not pretend they're more notable than they are. If they're worth mentioning at all, they can be covered within the Wikia section. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Тy^talk 01:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's literally just a copy-paste of Liberapedia's articles that involve atheism and religion. Take any AW article, look up its title on LP, and they'll both be exactly the same- with very few exceptions. It mostly went nowhere, and only Proxima and a small handful of editors still remain active on there- and they still plagiarize LP. Also, its mission only seems to encompass the views of liberal American Atheism Plus-lovers rather than the atheist world at large. We should just ignore it; it's just a fork of LP, which is already a lost cause. _{Watch me}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See my experiments} 21:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

TalkHistoricity

This might be worth watching, if it gets anywhere: James McGrath ([1]) has started twin wikia wikis with the aim of debunking the claim that Jesus never existed talkorigins style, and present a positive case for his existence. It's early days yet though. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 01:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Secular Wiki

A kid started Secular Wiki, it's not mine. Gastornisguy Weasel, please check before edit warring. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you've been repeatedly reverting content about yourself after being told this is unacceptable, the charge of edit warring lies with you more than me. A kid started Secular Wiki. So you keep saying, & guess what: nobody cares. Nobody said that you started the wiki, but since you've made three or four times as many edits as that kid, it appears to be at least as much your wiki as his. But since you seem to have such a massive complex about this, & since it's a wiki of zero consequence or interest, I'm just gonna remove mention of it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri

It seems like the whole point of that paragraph is to rag on somebody who -- with all due respect. Ms. Centauri -- is just a hobbyist running a couple of very tiny wikis. We already have an article on Liberapedia which critiques without getting nasty. Is this section really needed? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more the remnant of some other sections that got merged down. I don't think there was much point keeping it. Peter ^mqzp 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather than edit wars, do we really need to make fun of someone in our actual articles? Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proxima bignoted her stuff, it got rationalised down, and now it's gone. Good - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now all the Liberapedia links lead nowhere ... I dunno, maybe the content could be shoved into some user subpage and the links redirected there instead? --91.7.7.226 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect so that instead of going to Wiki#Liberapedia it goes to Wiki#Wikia. Spud (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How about pointing it to the comparison chart instead? It actually lists Liberapedia and gives very succinct info on it (arguably all there is really to know about it, eh?). --91.7.7.226 (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

A question about wikis: if a wiki is completely dead so that not even the sysops participate, how do you become a new Sysop?--Seonookim (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In MediaWiki, there's an account called WikiAdmin which has all the powers and can grant them to others. If they've lost the login for that, whoever's actually running the server can twiddle settings to make someone an admin - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Is it a move or a schism?--Romartus (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

More a schism - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

RightWiki / Rightpedia

"Rightpedia is an electronic encyclopedia which focuses on culture, art, science, philosophy and politics. The word Rightpedia is derived from two words: Right, which means the side, but also correct or true, and ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία (enkýklios paideía) that is encyclopedia. The name has a dual symbolic meaning: Rightpedia sets its focus on topics that usually are not covered in — i.e. that falls outside of — mainstream encyclopedias. Rightpedia has a political purpose, focusing on God, family, nation and social care, to influence the mainstream debate, culture and historical view. The project is still in its early stages, but the database is growing every day and you are heartily welcome to contribute to the growth of this valuable and unique encyclopedia. Rightpedia was created in December 2014 from a full backup of Metapedia. Rightpedia is regularly backed up, therefore it is guaranteed that in no circumstance any user contribution will be lost." (Main Page)

Metapedia is back from the dead, maybe. It's got Mikemikev, too. How lovely. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

PsiWiki

Psiwiki is a wiki hosted on wikia that espouses quack "psionics". I figured that we might as well as document it.

How many people care about it? (ie, would it be better to document another site?) 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikifoundry

Would it also be appropriate to add Wikifoundry to this caregory being as it aims to be a wiki host aimed towards users for building their own websites similar to those seen on Wikia/Fandom? DonutBandit (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, but we don't have Miraheze listed either. — Dysk (contribs) 09:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Commupedia.

The wiki so tiny that the main page consists of vandalism. https://commupedia.fandom.com/wiki/Commupedia_Wiki 04:44, 1 June 2019‎ 174.93.39.118

Has vanished since the above remark was made - 'Wikia/fandom Central' delete such wikis: This may be its successor but is hopelessly small and needs some help with the main page. .

[2] is in (I think from the accents confetti) Vietnamese

I used the fossil record to add poster and timestamp for the above comment. Anna Livia (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)