User blog comment:JustLeafy/Wikia VS Wikipedia/@comment-5956954-20170914021747

Gonna review this because I'm bored. Pretty long.

Pros
"More communities to edit, collaborate, and of course, have fun in."

The Wikipedia would be so large, it includes sub-communities for subjects like chemistry, astronomy, calligraphy, video games, and so on. I think the Wikipedia would have the same amount of communities as a result due to its thorough categorization system allowing such a possibility. I think it would be more accurate to say Wikia allows people to put more into one subject, community, and topic. The Wikipedia would not want to discuss a minor location of a show, unlike a wiki community.

"Easier to do things in general, like communicating, uploading files, and of course, editing pages without having to always cite stuff."

The same thing can be applied to the Wikipedia if one takes the time to get used to the system and skin, though I understand the learning curve for the latter. What you seem to be referring to is that an average wiki community is less developed than the Wikipedia, making it easier for people. That is because the wiki is first trying to adapt to its audience to see what works best for it. The Wikipedia established that a very long time ago and now has one of the most developed systems that use the MediaWiki software. The essays and policies, for example, cover almost every problem with a response. This time to establish also applies to existing wiki communities such as the Runescape wiki which borrows quite a bit from the Wikipedia itself. To cite information is to make what is written as valid as possible, so it's a quality standard in that case. You want your paper to be taken seriously, right? Other than the system, it is a matter of getting used to the vector or monobook skin rather than the default oasis that would make it easier. Even Oasis has a learning curve. That's just my opinion at least.

"Can customize a wiki personally or site-wide."

And the Wikipedia does not? I can assume you are referring to how the site looks rather than its functions such as the abuse filter. Take note that the Wikipedia is viewed by billions of people, so they have to make a style that suits everyone. This includes people who are perhaps deaf, blind, sensitive to colors, and so on. People who have similar disadvantages would use a screen reader, and the Wikipedia would cater to it using simple white-and-black text so the text is easy to read for the automation along with the "alternate image captions" which appear when an image cannot display. The fewer colors can prevent events such as epileptic seizures. Overall, it's more catering to a wide audience rather than a niche market such as gamers who can handle bright colors and such. Other than that, the Wikipedia would be being customized every day both with personal scripts and site-wide. It makes me think this "pro" would need to be more specific to refer to how the Wikipedia's look is "tired."

"Tons and tons of information from almost every franchise."

This would be true. The main idea of Wikia is to be "the rest of the Wikipedia's library." It would tackle more minor things and would be more a home to a "fandom." No real argument besides the fact that the extra information is usually just extensions of succinct explanations already offered by the Wikipedia to help appease the need to make a large article.

"Weekly updates and staff blogs, to show an awesome site developing."

True as well. I'll say it is easier to access.

"Good UI, and is being renewed in general."

Referring to paragraph 3.

"Almost anything in general."

Very vague, inconclusive, and boastful.

Cons
"Staff may sometimes not listen to our feedback (not judging)."

They listen, but they won't cater to your wishes since they likely thought of it and disagreed with it already.

"Extensive amount of ads (good thing that is being fixed now)."

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia has no ads whatsoever and relies on donations it asks non-intrusively. Wikia doesn't seem to ask for donations outside of specific events, so that's strange. I would put that in Wikipedia's "pro" section.

"As it covers niches and is reliant on volunteers, not every niche has enough of them, or at least, enough skilled ones. Once a franchise ends, interest dies down and the wiki is left half finished with noone bothering to pick it up again."

True. That would be the case for the Wikipedia, too, which makes me wonder why it is worded this way in Wikia's con section while the Wikipedia's con section has it say "Info is sometimes not accurate or outdated."

Pros
"Endless amount of info, in many languages."

Same goes for Wikia.

"The beta features are great."

Undoubtedly.

Cons
"Community in general."

How vague. If you're referring to the Wikipedia being strict, do take note that they want quality from you. They have a bunch of policies under their belt to use to resolve disputes for the sake of maintaining the peace and quality of its articles. It would discourage new editors from continuing, but the Wikipedia has encouragement pages and policies saying not to bite the newcomers, so it does try. Whether it is successful or not is up to debate.

"Very steep learning curve."

As with anything that is new or otherwise "not default."

"Bad and outdated UI (that's why I installed Wikiwand. :D)."

Referring to paragraph 3

"Info is sometimes not accurate or outdated."

Same goes for every wiki community as well. I don't understand why this bit of criticism is not on Wikia's cons.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP. Done. Still bored, though. Oh well. A discussion might help. Sharing opinions is good like that :)