User blog comment:Brandon Rhea/How we're testing the fandom.com domain migration/@comment-141.109.120.90-20181008203126/@comment-24155515-20181014164726

"each wiki is a hub of information on a specific topic run by a community."

"what information? Where does it come from? What's it about? Who are you?"


 * A specific topic
 * A community
 * The specific topic
 * [Topic] Wiki (or, alternatively, "[whatever company name you're using at the time], a host for wikis")

Meanwhile, "a site where fans write about what they love" is somehow cloudier copy than AO3, a fanfiction site: "The Archive of Our Own offers a noncommercial and nonprofit central hosting place for fanworks using open-source archiving software." (make no mistake, I love AO3--and that's a darned good explanation of exactly what it's for)

The "Wikia"-esque explanation sounds more professional and might invite more encyclopedic contribution (something I (anecdotally) find more-informational wikis about media properties seem to struggle with, especially recently). The "Fandom"-esque explanation sounds like it's practically courting less-encyclopedic edits ("I love Olive! I'm making twenty pages about her RIGHT NOW!" "I'll continue to upload fanart despite being firmly told by admins to stop and take it to the fanon wiki!"). I'm not going to say it's even close to a somewhat significant portion of why there are more unencyclopedic behaviors on media property wikis, but it certainly doesn't try to guide users away from that kind of thing.