Forum:Was the move a bad idea?: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
{{Uxie|time=05:36, 7 May 2011 (EDT)|luna=17m and The Inexistent are right. We're better than ever, the wiki is now free, and we won't have to worry about being ignored or being forced to use something that everyone hates. The Wikia staff are simply a bunch of selfish, snooty and money-hungry crooks. They won't delete inactive wikis, they ignore all complaints, plus they even try to buy other wikis.<!--I'm lucky that the ShoutWiki staff actually listion to complaints...-->}} | {{Uxie|time=05:36, 7 May 2011 (EDT)|luna=17m and The Inexistent are right. We're better than ever, the wiki is now free, and we won't have to worry about being ignored or being forced to use something that everyone hates. The Wikia staff are simply a bunch of selfish, snooty and money-hungry crooks. They won't delete inactive wikis, they ignore all complaints, plus they even try to buy other wikis.<!--I'm lucky that the ShoutWiki staff actually listion to complaints...-->}} | ||
{{Asif|potados=@Kryten: OUCH! Sure it is true (and maybe a little funny too), but let's try to stay on topic here. | |||
Although we did sever our community in two, I'd say it was a good decision. We no longer have Wikia's staff breathing over our shoulder (okay, that sounds creepy, but you get the idea). Now that the old wiki has become more lax on the rules, all the editors who only talked on peoples talkpages and created forums (which is BAD) have left and this one has become more focused on creating a quality encyclopedia. Not to mention the lack of trolls and incompetent users. | |||
Yeah, moving was basically the equivalent of putting the Mainspace in one wiki and the forums in another. I say it was a good idea.}} |
Revision as of 14:37, 7 May 2011
|
Check Recent Changes. We've got more mainspace edits, which is really all that matters. --Ag (Silver) - 47 107.8682 amu ~Crono 16:27, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
We don't have to use Oasis anymore, and readers don't have to see Oasis when they read. Yeah, as Crono hinted on, we've got the harder workers at this wiki, while the rest stayed at wikia. We no longer have wikia staff breathing down our necks either, which is definitely a plus. I have no idea where you got "more cleaned up" from. Chitalian8 16:43, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
I meant some of our pages are kinda blank and they have more that are finished. My best example Is battle missions. P.S. If something I put down on the forum it's because I'm on my iPod instead of computer.
Wikia's editors are also very disorganized, look at their recent forums. Many of their edits are to the user talk space, and plus, our version of Battle Missions will be superior to theirs. Chitalian8 18:21, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
I just need to say this; Hell no. User:Erry/Sig4 19:09, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
|
I response to your points:
- A page with less content is definitly not a bad thing. Most of the "new content" on the Wikia wiki is speculation, which is bad.
- True, Wikia is hauling in a large majority of the new users, but that doesn't matter. If you check this, at the very bottom, you will notice that we have at least 50 users that have made a total of 600 edits have editted here since the site was set up.
- No. In no possible way was it a bad idea. The problem with Wikia wasn't really about Oasis. While that was a big part of it, it was more about the fact that Wikia wouldn't listen to its users, the ones who made its bloody content. They constantly forced inappropriatly crappy updates on us, and we had enough.
KRCCFNF is tired of being STEPPED ON. 21:33, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
|
|
|
|
|