Talk:Wikia Move/Community poll

Time for a community poll
This page is large and difficult to navigate. Let us take a page out of Wikipedia's book and run a community RFC. Everyone is invited to comment- even those of you who have either written off the wiki or are waiting for the issue to blow over. It is probably too little too late, but let us at least attempt to come to a concensus opinion.

BftP 19:10, 14 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Kinda added a bit to it... The Imperialist
 * A poll is meaningless and a waste of time. The questions raised cannot be resolved with a poll. --24.22.225.85 19:39, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I feel its more intended to be used to find out everyone's view on everything than to get everything resolved. But hey, thats my opinion ;) The Imperialist 19:41, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * So in other words, it's a place for everyone to repeat what has already been said, effectively doubling the length of an already lengthy page. --24.22.225.85 19:42, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Because putting one thing on another page causes the others to grow, right? The poll its self is meant to put everyone opinion on a simple page, and to see who agrees with said "idea". Nobody says they have to talk in the below space, its just provided if there's questions about the poll and why they voted for said thing. The Imperialist 19:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Shouldn't the poll be on article page and this stuff here on that discussion page? This section will just crowd up a already crowded page. --Alari 19:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll move it ;) The Imperialist

Moving the entire advertisement here and leaving just "moved to blah blah" almost guarantees negligible partition, making the whole exercise even more futile than it anyway was. But whatever. I find that I am caring about this whole wikia thing less and less with each passing second. BftP 20:08, 14 September 2007 (CDT)


 * There's no need to clutter up and already excessively cluttered page though. The Imperialist

Discussion for Part 1: GuildWiki is non-commercial
Does not classify whether commercial to raise money for server upkeep and maintenance or monetary gain of a person/group.--Alari 19:48, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll add "for the benefit of the server host." Feel free to reword it ;) The Imperialist
 * I think there should be 2 sections, one asking if it is ok to make a profit and another for if it is ok to use adds and the like for server costs.--Alari 19:52, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Feel free to add that in. I've moved the page, so it's no cluttering anything up The Imperialist

Discussion for Part 2: Phil (Gravewit) is entitled to recoup his financial losses hosting the GuildWiki
I agree that Phil should not have to suffer monetary loss for hosting GuildWiki. However, this section reads: "This includes lost income from his time commitment."

A lot of users have put many hours into crafting this wiki, knowing that they would not be compensated. Are you saying that Phil should? Please clarify this for me.

--Toxik 07:11, 15 September 2007 (CDT)


 * I think its more compensation for server prices than time commitment (since he had none) The Imperialist
 * Paid for by user donations and site ads ...


 * Net loss after donations and ad revenue, assuming there were net losses. -- Gordon Ecker 05:01, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Discussion for part 5: The legality of the transfer to Wikia depends on what was sold
Anything Gravewit paid for out of his own pocket are, in my opinion, fair game for sale at a fair and equitable market value. That is to say, and these numbers are out of the blue, the domain and servers cost $5000 out of pocket, then Gravewit would be entitled to a similar value. Due to the community, and the contributions of the community, the domain and servers now have an associated intangible value of quite a bit more; This value, however, I do NOT believe should be included in any considerations of compensation or sale value, because otherwise, Gravewit is profiting directly off the non-profit aspect of the Guild Wiki. Additionally, anything paid for through revenues generated by Guild Wiki, or user contributions, such as new servers, should not be salable for profit. Merengue 22:13, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Discussion for part 6: The use of Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.0 content prohibits GameWikis or the owner from turning a profit
I strongly disagree with the renaming of this question to "The use of CC-NC content prohibits the host from turning a profit". I believe it would be legal for a for-profit entity to host the wiki for a separate non-profit entity. In other words, I think it would be legal for wikia to host the site for gamewikis as long as gamewikis does not profit, but I don't think it would be legal for wikia to own gamewikis and host the wiki for themselves. -- Gordon Ecker 23:37, 16 September 2007 (CDT)


 * But GameWikis is not an entity unto themselves. It was a banner erected by Gravewit, but, to the best of my knowledge, never incorporated. GuildWiki was always GuildWiki, and I am sure you remember the loud objections the last time Gravewit tried to use the Main Page to advertise other GameWikis projects. 193.52.24.125 23:43, 16 September 2007 (CDT)


 * It's not about whether or not it was incorporated. As I understand it, the CC-NC-SA license allows an individual or entity to solicit, pay for and utilize the services of other individuals and for-profit entities, otherwise it would be illegal to pay someone to host a CC-NC-SA website or publish a CC-NC-SA book. -- Gordon Ecker 00:04, 17 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Hmm, well, I've always been under the impression that the site itself was for-profit but the material within can't be used or sold for profit (e.g. selling a hintbook) unless permission is gained from the author. It's a hard call, because the material itself isn't being sold, only ads for the site which use the material to draw visitors.  In either case, I don't care - I'll license my contribs under a free-for-all license and would be flattered to see them in a hintbook ;) --Falseprophet 16:49, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Discussion for part 7: The use of Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.0 content prohibits ads regardless of whether or not they turn a profit
I've added a question about whether ads to cover server costs are allowed under the GFDL, but it still needs a summary. -- Gordon Ecker 20:58, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll add a summary, but I would think that they would be allowed under the GFDL, since it's no personal gain to a specific party, except server costs. The Imperialist

Absurdity of a poll
Fist off, what's the point? Votes can be manipulated, and don't be fooled by the touchy-feely "poll" name on this, it is a vote. On Wikipedia straw polls are used for the admins to consider when taking action. Who is supposed to take action from this? It's non-actionable and accomplishes nothing, other than splintering the discussions onto yet another page rather than keeping then centralized. Then there's the problems with the proposed poll options. Questions can be leading, and these certainly are, biased towards an intended answer. Also, they leave out a great deal. For instance, the comment about Gravewit being able to recoup losses. Great, no problem, except wait a minute, what about everyone else who contributed cash, or contributed technical services for server maintenance which would have cost money to have done professionally, or contributed the guildwiki.org URL under which this site worked for most of its life before Gravewit changed to the gamewikis.org domain? --24.22.225.85 20:53, 14 September 2007 (CDT)


 * While votes can be manipulated, pages have histories for a reason; anyone can check each edit and see if someone edits a vote, the same way I could check every contribution you've made to the wiki, and even use your IP to check your edits on just about any other site as well. No matter what, this isn't a "majority wins" poll; it's a way to find out, more or less, what people's take on the situation is. If the question doesn't apply to you, you don't vote. If there's a question you believe needs to be answered, it can be created, much the same way this poll was. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.> .cнаt^  21:16, 14 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Let me get this straight, you're complaining that discussion has moved to another page so you create a pointless statement containing nothing not already said?--Alari 21:19, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * No, I'm complaining that the vote was created in the first place. Sad that Tanaric gave up his admin abilities, he would've squashed it outright. The results are representative of the community, they're representative of the subset that patrol recent edits, actually followed the link to this page, and who were still misled enough to think that voting on it had some sort of meaning in any way on the issues or the discussions.
 * And the vote manipulation comment had nothing to do with editing other people's votes. I could get a dozen or more IPs and create accounts for each within the next hour, stuffing the ballot box. --24.22.225.85 21:44, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

No offense to those of you who drafted this to give users a clear, concise way to express their views on the situation, but what does it matter? This is a not a question of opinion. No matter how you feel about the move or what Gravewit is entitled to, the issue here is a breach of license. That's a matter of legality, not popular opinion, and no matter how many people feel that Gravewit deserves any remuneration for his 'work' here at the wiki or not, the legal obligations to the license do not change. - Krowman (talk • contribs)  00:19, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Hear, hear! Common sense. Ignore the poll, the Law is deliberately portrayed blindfolded -- it does not respond to opinion or bias,and should never be guided by said opinions nor bias - it simply IS. What is happening here is, simply, ILLEGAL. Wikia will fill your polls with meatpuppets -- noticed them cropping up already..?
 * I believe this poll is about the spirit of the law and the spirit of the CC-NC-SA rather than the objective aspects of the law. -- Gordon Ecker 21:47, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Just delete this
If this page is causing so much trouble, it might just be better to delete it. It failed to attract any real participation anyhow. And with that, I am out to say hi to the sun. G'day. BftP 10:40, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

If the vandal comes back
Put this page in protect mode for an infinite time. -- Xeon 21:57, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Wait, so if the vandal comes back, there'll be no editing the page whatsoever? QQ The Imperialist 22:27, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Just from anon edits. -- Xeon 22:30, 15 September 2007 (CDT)9
 * Why don't you do that right now so as to prevent it in the first place. Besides, anon votes bug me o-o The Imperialist 22:33, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Because everyone has the right to edit the article, people are allowed to voice their opinions freely even if they choose to do it as an anon. -- Xeon 22:56, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Empty sections and headings
This page should be more organic than the support/oppose/neutral straitjacket it is forced into. People who don't endorse a view should be able to write things like "Users who endorse this view, with stated reservations". I have removed empty "vote here plz" sections before, and I'll encourage all to keep them out if for no other reason than to have a shorter TOC.

I've also simplified the headings so the TOC does not wrap on 1024x768. 193.52.24.125 22:24, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

No Ad's Whatsoever
If you plan on twisting the liscence (sp?) into saying no profit whatsoever, how do you expect us to host a site with almost 20,000 pages? Certainly nobody here makes enough to pay for server costs, and for the cost of living... What do you propose we do? The Imperialist 16:38, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I believe that if money from ads would only be used to pay the hosting bills and saved up for server upgrades (which would be investing in the site), we're not talking about profit, since nobody is getting richer. --Toxik 16:51, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Thats what I think is ok, but Gordon made a section saying no revenue should be made at all. I'm just wondering how we'd be able to pay the site if there's no money coming in... Read it wrong :P The Imperialist 17:07, 17 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I added the poll item as an extension of the other non-commercial questions, in other words, to ask how far the non-commercial clause goes. -- Gordon Ecker 21:33, 17 September 2007 (CDT)