FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Petition Regarding Wikia/Fandom added video
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki

Important noticeEdit

Please note We have since had talks with Wikia/Fandom, and a settlement has been proposed. I encourage you to review it and have your say here. Agent c (talk) 20:39, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

PrefaceEdit

As an elected bureaucrat, and thus a community leader on the wiki it is my job to speak for the community to wikia/fandom when required - we are not employees of wikia/fandom and are under no obligation to defend or support their decisions publicly nor privately . It is not a responsibility I claim sole ownership of, it is the job of every member of the leadership team to do so.

When video was first proposed by wikia I was personally sceptical but did see some positive opportunity. Now that it has landed although I think what has been produced has some salvage value, the consensus position seems to be as implemented what has been produced is not acceptable to the wiki community.

To recap, for those who have not seen it Ballistic weave, Cait, Curie, Fallout 4 weapons, and Piper Wright are the pages now with video. We have been collating feedback Here.

We were told that when this was proposed (ie- that we were told that this was being forced on us) we would have 24 hours to look at a proposed script. This never happened. We were told that if the quality was at a level where we'd feel we needed to veto it, they'd consider it a failure. It is therefore, by Wikia's own definitions a failure.

The response from Wikia/Fandom so far has been lackluster. Given the outrage that was expressed in the above linked forum, I reached on behalf of and speaking for the community asking what they intend to do about it. The response I received is below. As tempted as I am to paraphrase and editorialise a shorter version, in the interest of fairness I will not.

To that end. I am seeking a mandate from the community to confirm that this is indeed the consensus position - that the videos that have been added are not acceptable, breach our editorial guidelines, and should be removed at least until an alternative can be produced.

This will ensure that it is clear that on this issue the leadership team (including myself) is not voicing our personal views, but the consensus view.

This request for a mandate shall operate as any other vote. It shall be open for a week and you can vote against it.

I cannot promise any practical outcome either way, but I believe a clear expression of our position is essential for moving forward.

I do ask in the meantime, that you bear with us, and anyone considering any sort of "civil disobedience" or leaving the wiki refrain from doing so. Agent c (talk) 20:44, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

Petition TextEdit

We, the users, contributors, and administrators of Nukapedia:

Denounce the forced addition of videos to articles against the community's clear expressed will.

Protest that fact the content has been added to multiple pages to the wiki in contrevention to the promise given that a "test video" would be added first.

Express our outrage that although that despite an agent of wikia/fandom indicating that they would consider it a failure if uploaded video did not meet our community and editorial guidelines, Wikia/Fandom have added content in flagrant violation of of these guidelines - including a video of a type that they were expressly warned beforehand would be unacceptable to us.

With this in mind, we the users, contributors, and administrators of Nukapedia:

  • Request and Require that these videos be removed immediately, until they can be edited such that they do meet our editorial and community guidelines.
  • Insist that no further videos be added until such time as their compliance with our editorial guidelines be positively confirmed by a member of the community authorised to do so.
  • Request that the ability to produce video to be added in this manner be devolved to members of the community authorised by the community to do so; ensuring that the wiki is supplied with video content, and this content will comply with our guidelines in the future.

Vote TemplateEdit

Poll finished on 8:45 pm September 14, 2017 (UTC).
Poll
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

Signed in Favor (yes)Edit

  1. Icon check Agent c (talk) 20:44, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Icon check 123123abcabc (talk) 20:48, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Icon check Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:49, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Icon check TheBEASTisnear (talk) I really don't approve of the videos, and certainly not as a in depth guide to the things they are supposedly explaining. This is a information wiki, not Comedy Central. These need removed, revised, or put in a comedic relief tab, not used as an overview of the page.
  5. Icon check --NukaTurtle (talk) 20:50, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Icon check ~ 寧靜 Fox 20:55, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Icon check Rotting apple (talk) 21:02, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Icon check Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:05, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Icon check Glauber0 Howdy!
  10. Icon check Pedro Washington (talk)
  11. Icon check DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:23, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Icon check --The Courier NCR for life (talk) 21:31, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  13. Icon check --Breakin'Benny (talk) 21:36, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Icon check YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 21:58, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  15. Icon check Soviet (talk)
  16. Icon check WardyLion (talk) 23:20 (BST)
  17. Icon check JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:33, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  18. Icon check --HighFiveBearLeftHighFiveBearRight 22:37, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  19. Icon check Yodamort (talk) 22:48, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  20. Icon check AllYourFavorites (talk) 22:49, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  21. Icon check StormRider71 (talk) 23:02, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  22. Icon check —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarterman812 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~! 23:37, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  23. Icon check - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 23:54, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
  24. Icon check This is just obnoxious. Isn't there a Video section in the layout guidelines for a reason? Kastera (talk) 00:10, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  25. Icon check  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 00:41, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  26. Icon check Great Mara (talk) 01:07, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  27. Icon check - User:FracturedMind 21:09, September 07, 2017
  28. Icon check HarleyAliceQuinnFont HarleyAliceQuinn
  29. Icon check Skysteam (talk)
  30. Icon check Opifex1 (talk)
  31. Icon check Xa3talkContributions
  32. Icon check Definite yes from me. I strongly approve of your response and your will to stand up to Fandom. This petition just about summarizes our grievances. (I suggest you also send Fandom the link to the forum where we're collecting responses.) NomadMC (talk) 03:12, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  33. Icon check If any of these had been added by a user I would have removed them. They aren't up to snuff. I'd like to see 'em get up to snuff, but they aren't there yet. They're not ready for the prime time. Richie9999 (talk) 03:19, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  34. Icon check I don't like the videos at all. They are very unprofessional. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 03:37, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  35. Icon check I wholeheartedly agree with you on this matter. I don't believe we need videos, and if we must have them, they need to be better. You have my support. TheDeadZone (talk) 04:14, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  36. Icon check My response to these videos can be summed up with my initial statement "give me one good reason not to hang up my rights and stop contributing". We have been given something that does not meet our community standards, hell if they had not spoken to us and followed our editorial guidelines I would be less pissed about it. Not only did they go over our heads, they showed us how they feel about our community and the standards it expects of those who are new. I honestly feel like we been treated with absolute contempt over these videos, and the below responses also demonstrate that the only people who really matter are those willing to click a button on a video, which significantly limits who can and cannot make an opinion to desktop users (as these do not appear on the Mercury skin). Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 05:22, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  37. Icon check For the People, By the People User:Ianthebean
  38. Icon check As much as I can say how this is a good idea, it is still a bit early to implement them in the videos. Too large, needs to be placed better, and the videos are a bit blurry, too. As for the quality, I can see the point that some in-game lines are not even accurate, and the videos themselves have more focus about popularity (favorite weapons, for example) than to say something interesting about the content itself. If the videos are to be mandatory on some of the articles, then people should have more control over it - make a Youtube channel or something and upload our own videos. This way, we get videos from certain people that do not know or understand our rules and policies. These sort of videos are more fit for a user blog/forum, I say. ☢ Energy X ☣ 10:12, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  39. Icon check Catherine
  40. Icon check KernOrisymbolHallowed are the Ori 11:04, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  41. Icon check FFIX (talk)
  42. Icon check Much of what "FANDOM" has "implemented" the past few months sucks, to put it plainly. And if it doesn't suck, its distracting or irritating. Leea (talk) 13:03, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  43. Icon check They're so poor, they'd start to annoy visitors quickly, especially if you need to watch the same one over and over again for months. Wikia doesn't seem to have to manpower to make good quality videos, they're bad resolution and demonstrate lack of knowledge of the game. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:16, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
  44. Icon check They don't even add anything to the contents of the page. - FDekker talk
  45. Icon check —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:5119:B5E5:0:4B:4F4A:DF01 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
  46. Icon check It's been a long time since I've edited here, but I do still care about this wiki. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to control and regulate our own content is something we must secure as a community. And as for the videos themselves (which I first noticed on the Game of Thrones Wiki), the resolution is very poor, not to mention they are downright annoying and provide little to nothing that is not covered in the article itself. We do articles, not videos. --Skire (talk) 07:57, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
  47. Icon check I'm outright disgusted that Wikia has chosen to stoop to this level of interference in the wiki's article space. Those videos have absolutely no business being there at all, let alone on autoplay. They stick out like a tumor on the forehead, and are about as welcome as one too.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 04:48, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  48. Icon check Im in Kylxackep (talk) 20:52, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
  49. Icon check ------Cassie I can see you. 05:26, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Noted Opposition (no)Edit

  1. Icon cross Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)

Present/Abstain (Neutral)Edit

Excluded votesEdit

# Icon cross OWB is the best Me gusta es videos OWB is the best 22:26, September 7, 2017 (UTC) User since permabanned for trolling.

Agent C and Wikia Email chainEdit

Please note that in this message I am not speaking in my personal capacity, but on behalf of the community in my role as a bureaucrat.

The videos that have been added by yourselves have been done so without our express approval, and in contravention to promises made by Fandom that a script would be made available for a test video which we could then feedback on.

Additionally, we were told the following by Brandon

>>>. We don't want you to feel like you're displaying content that doesn't meet your standards. We are more than happy to work with you in order to ensure that it does meet your standards. The word veto was used, but I wouldn't think of it in those terms. I would think of it as a collaboration where, together, we can work on a video until we're all satisfied with it. I'm now managing the team that will be creating Wiki Videos, so if it got to the point where you felt like you had to veto something my team creates then I would consider that a failure on my end and a breakdown of the collaborative process.

The videos that have been added do not meet our editorial guidelines - and in one case is a video of a type that Fandom/Wikia were expressly warned beforehand would not be acceptable to us. All videos show signs that our editorial guidelines have not been complied with, and perhaps have not been read at all. As such, we would have vetoed these videos as they do not meet our editorial guidelines.

As these videos have clearly met Wikia/Fandom's pre-established failure condition, could you please state your intentions on how you intend to rectify this?
— Agent_c
Hi Agent c,

When we proposed a test video with community input, the community response to it was rather lackluster. We found ourselves faced with a potential situation where we were investing time and resources into a video that the community wouldn't like. That would place us into a scenario where we would continue having to spend time and resources on multiple revisions until many users, with varying opinions about what makes a good video, all came to an agreement. That's not a practical use of time and resources, so we instead opted to spend that time focusing on videos for other communities before revisiting Fallout videos.

Once we did decide to produce Fallout videos, we'd already come to the conclusion, through testing with other communities, that crowdsourced script and video creation was not an effective use of time for two key reasons. One was that it very time-consuming to wait for script input, which is understandable since no one has any obligation to participate on a wiki at any pace other than their own. The second is that it actually resulted in scripts of lower quality. Crowdsourcing creativity can be compromising because different people will want to see different things. Either not everyone will get what they want, which can create feelings of being ignored, or everyone will get what they want and the script will be a mesh of several different ideas instead of one consistent idea.

Videos that take on a more casual or even opinionated tone are within our guidelines for acceptable Featured Video content. That's normal to expect from videos online. We have a feature built into our player where viewers can rate videos. If we were to find that videos that contain opinions don't perform as well, then that's something we'd factor into the creation of future videos because we'll have the data from viewers, and not just the preferences of wiki editors, to prove that.
— Jen Burton


Jen,

I am not satisfied with your response.

It is clear from your response that the community is being ignored, as our our editorial guidelines.

The Community has worked hard to build a reputation as a fact based wiki with a high level of quality for content. The content you have provided is at a poor level.

You indicate that waiting for approval was not an effective use of time. I find it hard to believe that there was such a need for this that the 24 hours that we were promised was not practical.

I am yet to hear one person whom is not employed by Wikia?Fandom say anything in favour of the content you have added. To the contray, i have users at every level indicate that this content is of very poor level - from casual discussions users to long term administrators and editors. The closest to a postive comment comes from myself - that some good can be salvaged but only after heavy cuts.

We were told that if the community felt a need to veto content that the content creation would be seen as a failure. Do you accept that this is a failure?

I am dealing with threats by important community members who are irreplacable to either leave, or go and work on competing fallout wiki projects, or engage in acts of defiance to block the ability of these videos to work.

If nothing is done, this wiki will be crippled. It was seriously harmed before due to an exodus. It will not survive another.

I am speaking on behalf of the community on this. This is a problem that Wikia/Fandom has caused. You are the VP of Community, that makes this your mess. I must insist on knowing what you plan to do about it.

In the meantime, to shore up my position, I will be asking the community for a positive mandate that the content you have added to our wiki against the community’s will and against its stated editorial guidelines is unacceptable and should be removed.

I will no longer apologise for my anger on this. We told you all the way that we were skeptical, and we have been proven right.
— Agent_C

Update 8 SeptEdit

Hi Agent c,

I’ve read through both the forum thread and the petition.

As mentioned many times - both in Community Council (where you are a member) and on Community Central - FANDOM will be adding Featured Video to wikis which allows us to update the ad mix on our communities to reduce the overall ad clutter. Pages with Featured Video already have the new design with fewer ads on the page; we are currently testing using this new ad mix across the network in various geographic regions and plan to roll it out worldwide pending favorable results.

In my previous email to you, I pointed out that the videos posted on Fallout do not fall below the company’s editorial standards. As such, they will not be removed and we will continue to post Featured Videos on the wiki. I realize that initially the company hoped to have communities involved in video production at some level; however, testing showed that this was not a feasible plan and we elected not to move forward with it.

I understand the concerns you and other community members have regarding this change to the wiki experience. The landscape of the internet has changed and will continue to change significantly in the years to come. Per https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/02/03/video-marketing-the-future-of-content-marketing/#7a41bb5d6b53, 80% of internet traffic will be video by 2019. Because of this, we’re confident that having videos on wiki articles is key to our growth as a company and is necessary for a modern experience across our network.
— Jen Burton
Jen,

I have done you the courtesy of being honest with you. I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

When you say that involving the community isn’t feasible, I know you are not telling the truth. You say you’ve read the petition. If you have then you will have noticed I have read the Runescape Wiki post. I do know that you have removed the videos from that wiki temporarily and you are allowing a person appointed by the community to have say over the content. Please do not tell me this isn’t feasible because clearly it is.

Your editorial guidelines are not in question. When you put content on our wiki and put our logo on it, our editorial guidelines are what matter. I could care less what you put on CC or any other site with the fandom logo on it.

When you put our communities logo on it or put it on our wiki that makes it our problem because it suggests it is endorsed by us. We reject the content completely.

We are not 100% opposed to having video. We have proposed a compromise position that is more than fair. Give us back editorial control of our wiki, and we will facilitate your video and allow you to get the ads you want.

You seem to have forgotten to get that revenue that you’re trying to seek you need compelling content that people will want to see. At the moment we give you this content for free. This has been on the understand that we control the content, and you control the back end and collect the revenue from it. You have broken that implied deal. We’re willing to work with you to fix it, but we’re getting nothing back from you in order to resolve the impasse.

Unless you can tell me how you are going to do your job to fix the problem you have created, I am compelled to do the job the community has appointed me to do.

I do not work for Fandom, or Wikia. I work for the community.

When elements of the community tell me they want to explore working on another wiki, or splitting to an independent wiki I am compelled by my role as a leader of the community to start to explore those options and take those meetings.

So far I have resisted doing so, but unless you are going to start to engage with us, I will have no other cards to play.

Please let me know your intentions.
— Agent c

Agent C standown from Community councilEdit

Hello,

I need to stand down from the Community Council for the forseeable future. Perhaps after the current situation is resolved I can consider returning if the council will have me, but me remaining during the current situation is untenable.

Wikia/Fandom has, contrary to promises of script oversight and community involvement, added a range of content to Nukapedia: The Fallout Wiki that does not met our editorial guidelines.

This is an usurpation of editorial control of our wiki. We have offered to work with Wikia/Fandom to improve these, or replace them with fan made alternatives, but have been rebuffed at every turn. It is a blatant violation of the whole spirit of what a wiki should be - a product made by consensus and consultation.

My communities stand against this, and the communications we've had with Wikia/Fandom can be found here.

Over the years there has been an implied impact between communities and Wikia/Fandom. We provide the free content and explore the areas that we're fans of. Wikia/Fandom does the back end, and collects revenue from advertising. This compact has been broken through this dictation of content.

As my role of as a leader of our community requires me to support my community in whatever outcomes or resolutions they want to follow as a result of this crisis, my remaining here has become a conflict of interest as these solutions may involve turning away from Wikia/Fandom.

These are not meetings I look forward to taking, but as a leader of my community I am obligated to support my community if these are options they wish to take. I would have prefered to have reached an amicable solution "within the family".

Additionally, I cannot in good faith believe that any feedback I would offer would actually be taken on board given how our community's feedback has been taken during this process.

If the situation is resolved amicably, I hope to return; but for now remaining would be a conflict of interest.
— Agent c (talk) 19:03, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Other wikisEdit

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.