User blog comment:JustLeafy/Wikia VS Wikipedia/@comment-30930384-20170917143651/@comment-5956954-20170918012206

"Lately, they've been forcing a lot of things on us and expecting us to suck up to them."

You can always give feedback. That would be the answer to most of these quotes. "There's the video situation on Fallout Wiki (Seriously, those videos Fandom put up are just horrible. They only did it for the ad revenue) and there's also the headers, which in my opinion, aren't great because it takes out the chat link, and when it was implemented, it made the headers of some wikis look horrible."

It's hard to find out what is horrible if one does not go into detail about it. Are there any examples and reasons of the bad FANDOM videos, why the chat link out of the navigation is a bad thing when it is on the side rail, and headers that look horrible? "There's also the CCC rules, which are way to strict, and some mods are so high on their thrones they think they can be the biggest jerks and they try to avoid questions about IP Checks and Email Checks."

What makes them strict? According to the guidelines, the chat wants to be a hotspot for help and discussion about FANDOM, which is reasonable since other wikis will fit a certain topic better like Pokemon and will have more people catered to your interests. Are there examples of moderators being jerks as well? Not talking about IP and Email checks is reasonable since going into detail about them can compromise the tools and make them less effective as the information about it spreads across the public. I would prefer if their methods are kept as mysterious and obscure as they are so my wikis can stay protected. That's just my opinion, though. "The discussions are just a bunch of posts and you have to sort your way through them, instead of the better forum, which was very organized."

What makes them more organized? The same scroll-down layout is used on Discussions like the forums. The difference, however, is that Discussions is separate from the wiki (?), which means CSS and JavaScript fanatics will have a harder time with the vanilla version. Since it is also not a MediaWiki hack, it can be easily debugged, at least more so than forums which still allows people to edit comments without the rights through an exploit. I'm one that likes detailed criticism :I "While Wikipedia doesn't have a chat, or is similar to social media, it's very informative, reliable, they have no ads, and nobody thinks they're better than you because they have powers."

They have chats. FANDOM is also much more of a social network than the Wikipedia even appeared to be since the Wikipedia has such strict policies it seems to only allow comments that only benefit the user experience on the Wikipedia in terms of building the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia, like any good wiki (like the Runescape wiki), can be informative and reliable, though the Wikipedia states in an essay that they should not be relied on completely. The Wikipedia is funded by donations, and that isn't the most profitable; it's a clash between two different business strategies like apples to oranges. The Wikipedia Staff's behavior... ehh, yeah, can learn from them.

Overall, I'd like to see more detail in these criticisms if they're going to be an effective learning material for all of us (or just me) because otherwise, I can't see them as being issues but rather nitpicks.