Talk:Community Central/Archive 4

(This page is primarily for discussing the Main Page. Questions and ideas about specific pages or subjects may get a quicker response, or at least be easier to find and edit, at Forum:Index. You can try a "Search" to see if your proposed subject-matter is already on a separate page.)


 * See Archive 1 for discussion between October 2004 and April 2005.
 * See Archive 2 for discussion between April 2005 and May 2006.


 * ''See Archive 3 for discussion between May 2006 and April 2007

J'ai un question. . . ..
Here's my question:
 * Does it cost anything to start a new wikia?

I was considering one. . . . . (and please no tax jokes!!!!!)
 * Chef Clover from Wikipedia
 * No, it's free. Go to requests.wikia.com and make your request. Szoferka 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't log in
Hi, I'm Ham Solo. Today I tried logging in to Wikia as Ham Solo, it showed the login success page, but as soon as I clicked to go to another page, I was logged out. This is on every Wikia, even the central one. 24.77.42.48 14:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured out the problem. The cookies for this site expired. To log in you must clear all cookies first then log in. It's very annoying, but it's the only way to log in. Is there any other solution? -- Ham Solo talk to the Ham! "You're all clear, kid!" 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IT HAPPENED AGAIN!!!! Is there ANY solution?! It's so annoying that I can't log in.
 * Hi Ham Solo, a couple of other people have reported similar errors. The technical team will look into it, but for the moment clearing your cookies is the best solution.  Hopefully this will be fixed soon -- Sannse 14:09, 14 May 2007 (U

what hpend to the halo wiki
will ehat hapend


 * All seems fine there... http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Are you having problems accessing the site? -- Sannse 08:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Images
All the images on the wikis hosted by Wikia have disappeared. What happened? -Xbolt 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Server crash more than likely. Phillip (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's fixed now. Odd. -Xbolt 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

i need help
hello my name is keeria chaffin

i would like to talk to you about an interveiw i need to ask you 10 quetstions about flag burning. maybe you could help me we could do it over the phone of over email. please contact me back i am at hottiekc6691@aol.com thank you

Profit-sharing?
Hi,

I think I suggested this idea earlier, but since Wikia is trying to make money, and you want others to contribute reliably to it, why don't you give an additional incentive for people to contribute to a site such as yours which has ads? It didn't take much for me to modify the Mediawiki software to allow Google ads to be added which were credited a fixed percent of the time to the original author or most frequent contributor to a given wiki page (as well as allow links to be added to allow people to accept Paypal donations--perhaps as payback for answering questions, etc.).

Basically ads just get placed according to a "Google ads" field in one's preferences. (or "Paypal" field for Paypal donations). There is no security concern here since all that is needed is the Google id, and that is available in the HTML code of any page which includes ads--people don't enter their passwords or anything--just their account id so that they can get the credit. If you like the idea, maybe you can let my Google ad id, pub-9515729973633640, show up 1% of the time too!

If you want better quality, you can pay for it, and get the financial benefits yourself too... If companies like Starbucks give their employees a share of the profits, why not for such intellectual work as this...

thanks, Brett


 * That might not increase the quality of edits, but simply encourage people to create lots of of stub articles with bare minimal content (to make sure it doesn't get deleted, and still be able to claim as the "Original Author"), or it'd reward revert wars... Overall it seems to reward quantity, not quality edits. -Afker 06:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not without getting banned first... But, yeah, it'd probably be better to split it in some proportion between the top contributors rather than just one (less confrontational people might lose out otherwise too)... There could be a delay too... Or even an algorithm to see how frequently the person was reverted... A voting system could be added... But even without a voting system, I think it shouldn't be insurmountable if the incentives (rewards or punishments) are tweaked right... The threat of a ban should prevent any long-term contributors from abusing the system (otherwise, there goes all their ad credits), and short-term contributors could be restricted from being able to receive credit right away until such time as their contributions were accepted (or at least not rejected), etc.


 * And while there is no perfect system to detect quality (many professors feel their pressure to produce articles is one example), it is important to reward quantity and/or frequency in some measure, as long as it is not determined to be spam, etc. Brettz9 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So now we get into the question of how to develop a system without pissing off people who think the rules are set against their style of (quality) contribution. Since obviously there's no perfect system, I personally fear the potential of pissing off those who feel being "disenfranchised" might be greater than the gain that will always be diluted by people gaming the system and being borderline almost-bannable.  Gaming.wikia has a "Top users" ranking system http://gaming.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:TopUsers, and honestly, I have no clue how I scored that high, despite I trust the people who came up with the system honestly worked hard to try and make something fair.  This might also be why I'm not very trusting of some user-ranking system.
 * Well, can't the scoring mechanism evolve with time? I mean, it's not really going to damage anybody if they get less money than they expect for contributing to a wiki site which would really only be offering this as a side benefit (and could made clear as such in the introduction). As long as it is determined fairly transparently (or at least after consultation), I think it shouldn't be too big of a deal. Anyways, you can verify for yourself on any page you should be there that ads end up being attributed to you some of the time.
 * Hmm, well, I remain skeptical of the relative balance of the effects, as well as the potential for online drama it might induce (and I know some wikia communities that don't need any help in having drama). This is boiling down to speculative community and individual human behaviors, so we'll just probably have to agree to disagree. -Afker 13:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, this system is going to artificially encourage people to click on Google ads on their own articles just for the sake of increasing Wikia's revenue (as opposed to click on ads that actually have things that interest them). I believe this constitutes a violation of Google's adsense program agreement.  I'm not familiar with other advertisement services, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have a similar clause against artificial encouragement of clicking ads, and they probably don't pay as well as Google.  Feel free to correct me if my recollection of facts is  wrong.  (btw, I'm just a random wikia user, what I wrote above has nothing to do with wikia's official position on the matter, which I have absolutely no knowledge of).  -Afker 13:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea here is not that Wikia would do any work to share the profits. It is simply that Wikia would sometimes display ads credited to Wikia and some percent of the time to a specific relevant user (though it is an interesting idea to take a more collective reward mechanism (or to add this to the individual compensation system) by just allowing random users to get ad credit (maybe with a minimum of accepted edits and after a delay so that spammers wouldn't be able to get credit) so that people are working for the common good of the system). Since the ads are tied to the user's account, and Google supposedly has a means of detecting which clicks are artificial, just as with any page that uses Google ads, it really should be the individual abuser who will get detected and punished rather than Wikia. Maybe Wikia would like to run this by Google to make sure, but I didn't see anything that would violate Google's agreement (or I wouldn't have added it to my own site back when--someone else is also using this approach on discussion forums I found out and has said they've had no trouble). There is a clause Google has about not tampering with the code that is created for the user to use, but inserting others' id's instead of one's own is not really tampering, I would say, as that is exactly how the code would be produced for that person--we only substitute the id (and I think the real intention was to avoid people concealing the ads, etc., anyways). Brettz9 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying. During the course of discussion I misremembered the details of your idea. -Afker 13:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)