Forum:Optimal Wikia Size

What's the optimal Wikia Size?
Ok, I suspect that there is no one size that is right for all Wikia, but that said, I also believe that Wikia that are not active enough tend to die out and that ones that are "too big" need to work out ways to be more comprehensible and can get very intimidating.

So, what do you think? Size can be measured in a variety of ways including or some combination or ratio of these simpler measures.
 * activity
 * number of articles
 * number of active contributors
 * number of visitors
 * percentage of overall community

--CocoaZen 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of what you mean by "too big"? I can only think of a couple on Wikia that would qualify as big, but I don't find them intimidating or incomprehensible. I haven't seen one yet that I would call "too big". Can you explain what you mean? -- Danny (talk ) 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite possible that there is no such thing as "too big" for a Wikia. But, there is definitely a size at which multiple mechanisms (like portals or extensive categories, templates etc.) are created to handle the size and organizational issues.  See the Wikipedia for some examples.  It has also had to come up with different strategies to handle vandalism and monitor changes.  I think it's done so successfully, but I am also aware of people who will not participate as contributors because they see it as too complex a process (not the actual editing), but the overhead (guidelines, style, etc.).  Wikipedia is clearly "successfull", but it has had to change in response to growth.   If you look on the Wikipedia list of people who have "left", you can see that some of them gave the large size and loss of community feeling as a reason.  At this point, none of the Wikia are anywhere near as large as the English Wikipedia, but the same principals could apply.  It's also possible that Wikia are more community oriented, so keeping a feeling of community is more important?
 * My question was also about a minimum. For instance, I suggest that any Wikia without at least 2 edits a week will become inactive.  Also, a Wikia needs to get at least 3 active participants and over 250 articles before it becomes truly "self-sustaining" with a community to take care of it and a "flavor" of it's own.  (I can think of counter examples, but I propose this as a starting point for discussion.)
 * --CocoaZen 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true, I've found Wikipedia to be intimidating, which is one of the reasons I've found Wikia so attractive. Of course, Wikipedia has about 26,000 active contributors a month. If you look at Wikia's stats, even the largest Wikia are nowhere near that -- Uncyc has about 650 active contributors a month, Wookieepedia about 350, Memory Alpha about 125.


 * Looking on the stats page, it seems like most of the wikis that hit 10 contributors are still doing okay. In general, it seems like if you can hit double digits for a few months in a row, then the wiki works; if you can't, then you go into decline. However, there's a chicken and egg problem with that conclusion -- Is a wiki successful because it has more contributors, or does it have more contributors because it's successful? -- Danny (talk ) 10:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that there is possibly no such thing as too big. Wikipedia can be very unfriendly and even intimidating, but for what it is trying to achieve, it does very well to have as many contributors as it does.  Perhaps specialist Wikia with a more limited scope would do better with less contributors?


 * Our wikis are more like small community Villages rather than the sprawling city that is Wikipedia. I've just added a bunch of features to aid communication as a wiki grows larger.  (This is copied from my Wiki, but some of these features are very, very useful for a fledgling community)


 * * Discussion Forum General Forum - Only up for a couple of days but already in use.
 * * Active Talk Pages: Search
 * * Psychology Wiki IRC (live chat-room) irc://irc.freenode.net/wiki-psy
 * * Remember you can add pages you are interested in to your watchlist
 * * Some of us are using MSN, see peoples user pages for details.
 * * Use the Recent Changes to see what your fellow contributors have been up to.


 * I think that the number of quality articles reflects how good your Wiki is, which in turn reflects how many contributors you've got. Increasing the number of good articles and awareness of them will in turn increase the number of Visitors, which will in turn increase the number of contributors.  I think its both the chicken AND the egg in reality.


 * As far as the critical number of contributors goes, I'd say enough people to edit the Wiki every day means it will almost certainly survive in the long term. Even committed contributors get tired and need a break now and then, and if there are not enough contributors to keep it active while they are away, then the Wiki can appear to be 'dead' to outsiders, especially Wikipedia users.


 * I think Danny's right that about 10 contributors is a good sign, but overall I'd say that maybe something like 25+ committed contributors, by the end of the first couple of years, are required in the long term. Mostly Zen [[Image:Baby_tao.jpg]] (talk ) 11:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)