User blog comment:JustLeafy/Wikia VS Wikipedia/@comment-25240518-20170918180338

Obviously everyone's going to vote for Wikia, but Wikipedia having bad and outdated UI is untrue. It's perfectly functional, and Wikiwand is no different, barring its slight modern kick. You could say exactly the same about Wikia; barring perhaps the new corporate modules and navbar, it still utilises the same Helvetica font, gradients, outdated images, etc. that everyone associates with an old-fashioned website. Plus, if bad UI is on the topic, there's no mention of mobile FANDOM whatsoever ─ which I think is a key point, considering, in my opinion, Wikipedia's mobile app is clean albeit functional, and isn't an extreme fumble to use.

In addition, Wikia isn't as consistent as Wikipedia. While it's by far more informative, having over 300,000 independent subsites under its belt all dedicated to individual topics, many of said wikis can be poorly built, inconsistent, and informal. With Wikipedia, almost everything is neat and tidy, and while this doesn't say anything about its content, at least you're near guaranteed a good, clean, and conformist article to wade through. Wikipedia has been cited in PhDs at this point, and with good reason ─ Wikia to a lesser extent.

And while you said Wikipedia features a steep learning curve ─ which I totally agree with, haha ─ with its sheer size there's more to edit; while on Wikia you might know of every nook and cranny a franchise has to offer, on Wikipedia you're right at home editing something you might know absolutely zero about, which isn't quite the same on Wikia.

TL;DR I'm not a Wikipedia fanboy, lmao, but there are a few other aspects to it that are worth the thought. But otherwise, awesome blog on an interesting and original topic, nicely done! Still waiting on that Community Highlights though, haha.