Wikia Move/Community poll

The Wikia move is generating a lot of negative reactions. This page is intended to consolidate the viewpoints and to gauge the amount of support for each viewpoint. Please endorse all statements you support, or write your own summary. You may also indicate opposition to a view, but if you wish to oppose, consider simply writing another statement instead.

THIS IS NOT A VOTE!

GuildWiki is non-commercial
This is not a matter of concensus, really. The license makes it clear that no-one is able to profit from this except to keep the servers active. That means no personal gain.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) BftP 19:10, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) The Imperialist 19:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Alari 19:47, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Lord Belar 19:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>  .cнаt^  21:11, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) --[[image:Hrothgarsig.jpg]] (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 04:14, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Phil (Gravewit) is entitled to recoup his financial losses hosting the GuildWiki
While the GuildWiki is not a commercial entity, it is not a charity either. Gravewit is entitled to recover all money he has lost hosting this site. This includes lost income from his time commitment. There is nothing illegal about running ads per se, or selling the Guildwiki to Wikia per se, as long as Gravewit simply recovers his losses.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) BftP 19:10, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Alari 19:47, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Lord Belar 19:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Users who do NOT endorse this view

 * 1) The Imperialist 19:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Users who are neutral

 * 1) --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>  .cнаt^  21:12, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Phil (Gravewit) or Wikia should come clean on the GuildWiki's finances
Much of the apparent community outrage stems from Gravewit's secrecy about the monies involved. Gravewit or Wikia should publicly declare the GuildWiki's valuation to end the rampant speculation on how much Gravewit has personally profited from the transfer.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) BftP 19:10, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) The Imperialist 19:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Alari 19:47, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Lord Belar 19:50, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>  .cнаt^  21:11, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) --[[image:Hrothgarsig.jpg]] (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 04:14, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Phil (Gravewit) has always retained full ownership of all tangible GameWikis assets
Until the transfer to Wikia, Gravewit was the sole owner of the server(s) and the GameWikis domain names. Being personal property, he has always had the right to do with them as he pleased, including sell them to a second party. Any donations received by Gravewit were never intended to transfer equity in GameWikis to the donaters. All agreements, verbal or otherwise, between Gravewit and third parties that were not concluded with legally binding contracts are not, and were never, operative.

The Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.0 is a distribution license covering the content of the GameWikis wikis, not an ownership contract covering any tangible GameWikis assets. The contents of the wikis are not, and have never been, GameWikis assets.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) 193.52.24.125 23:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

The legality of the transfer to Wikia depends on what was sold
Because the Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.0 is a distribution license, all contributors retain perpetual original copyright on their contributions. Gravewit is prevented from selling these contributions for personal profit according to clause 4(c) of the license. However, he is allowed to sell all GameWikis assets that he owns. As long as Wikia has not given any money to Gravewit in exchange for the database, which Gravewit does not own, the sale cannot be illegal on licensing terms.

Users who endorse this view

 * 1) 193.52.24.125 23:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Lucielle 22:11, 14 September 2007 (PST)