Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-180.191.95.15-20200908075313/@comment-40517619-20200916005706

Strange that you say Fandom the company is probably being more accommodating with Gamepedia, because at times I feel the inverse. UCP uses an approach far closer to that of Gamepedia (modern and updated MediaWiki with less custom code), so that reason alone mitigates some of the impact. (Also Gamepedia's community is, uh, significantly less "wild" than on Fandom, which shapes the environment: feedback from Gamepedia editors is much more constructive, looking at what comments Fandom users post on blogs, and what happens on the Discord server.)

It's not just about tech, it's about the brand and the future of Gamepedia. New wikis can no longer be requested on Gamepedia (except non-English wikis where the English wiki already exists), and it's still not known whether wiki creation or requesting will be re-opened in the future (after UCP Phase 1 is complete); staff say they have nothing to announce on that subject. The Fandom brand is getting a lot more attention than the Gamepedia brand (at least IMO; though I'm not sure what at all could be used to show the inverse).

There were some surveys shared that, uh, looked quite suspicions. One of them directly asked, "How likely are you to leave Gamepedia if [this thing about Gamepedia, for several such things] changed?" The other asked "What gaming community is Gamepedia part of?" and something among the lines of "What improvements to Gamepedia can you suggest?", then it apparently stopped accepting answers from Gamepedia editors.

As for the points I forgot to mention.
 * 1) Gamepedia's Help Wiki is not a central wiki from a tech perspective, it's central for community help. The tech-central wiki is a different one that can't be accessed by ordinary editors (so I know next to nothing about it).
 * 2) Yes, the Discord server is where a lot of communication is taking place. I agree with the concerns that it's noticeably more closed than an on-wiki discussion platform. I don't think any communication there is conceptually critical, but some discussions with staff there do clarify things.