Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-3026053-20130621001540/@comment-1940096-20130621021447

Semanticdrifter wrote: Lady Lostris wrote: So it is indeed basically an arbitrary and very subjective decision like SeaTerror said: "oh, this is animated, it must be for kids".

I very much doubt that the law allows for a distinction to be made between one wiki and another just based on a personal feeling of the one in wikia doing the blocking. The law is aiming to block all underaged wikia usage, that means all wikia usage, and not just on a few. By singling out only a few wikis, wikia is discriminating amongst their own communities, purposely letting some communities take the fall that will inevitably follow due to the blocking of anonymous users in order to avoid having to actually comply with the law as it intends to. How is that in any way fair? How is that in any way following the law? OK. This is definitely something we will be explaining more over the next week. Keep your eyes peeled for a staff blog post explaining the background in greater detail on Monday. In the meantime, to respond to your specific question the decision of which wikis qualify for the category was definitely not arbitrary. While I can't share our exact guidelines, we followed a fairly exhaustive review process. I know that many of you have wikis dedicated to subjects that appeal to a wide age range, and we are striving to be fair but realistic in our assessments. We do believe in the ideal of open editing wherever possible, and we took care to only focus on what we have to in order to comply with federal law. I realize this is controversial, and I do apppreciate everyone's point of view.

Then I have plenty of images for you to prove that some of what were marked ARE NOT for children.