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.
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.
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.
Signed in Favor (yes)
- Agent c (talk) 20:44, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- 123123abcabc (talk) 20:48, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:49, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- NukaTurtle (talk) 20:50, September 7, 2017 (UTC) --
- 寧靜 20:55, September 7, 2017 (UTC) ~
- RottingApple (talk) 21:02, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:05, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- Glauber0 Howdy!
- Pedro Washington (talk)
- DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:23, September 7, 2017 (UTC)
- The Courier NCR for life (talk) 21:31, September 7, 2017 (UTC) --
- Breakin'Benny (talk) 21:36, September 7, 2017 (UTC) --
Noted Opposition (no)
Agent C and Wikia Email chain
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
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
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