Forum:Video negotiated settlement

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Video negotiated settlement

I have negotiated with Jen Burton @ Wikia/Fandom the following settlement for dealing with Fandom-Made video for the wiki. I bring it to the community for your consideration.

• Video remains for now, but proposed replacements will be considered (small groups or individually written scripts, not a full collaborative wikiwide process).
• We can propose new additional videos (again small groups or individually written scripts, not a full collaborative wikiwide process).
• Fandom may post more videos, but the replacement process could be used
• A single appointed person would have the opportunity to comment on scripts 24hrs or so before production. This person would be appointed following this agreement being adopted.

In the meantime, whilst this vote is running, Fandom may post more video.

I will not be voting to preserve my negotiating position. Agent c (talk) 20:26, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Known Videos

• Ballistic weave
• Cait
• Curie
• Fallout 4 weapons
• Fallout 4 console commands
• Fallout: New Vegas weapons
• Piper

Poll finished on 8:26 pm September 15, 2017 (UTC).

• 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 user's votes.

Yes

1. It's better than nothing. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 20:39, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
2. As much as I want to say no, Paladin is right. This is a much better deal than what we had previously. As vague as the deal is ("considered", "propose", "could be used", "opportunity"), at least wikia will be getting input from the wikia. I say we see how this goes, and work from there. I don't see this getting much better if we don't accept this. Skysteam (talk)
3. TheBEASTisnear (talk) Some input on our part is better than nothing, which is was the last alternative was. As much as I hate to say it, there is probably going to have to be some compromise. They could just crack down even harder if we keep protesting. This is basically an invading army on the Wikis half, and now Nukapedia either has to compromise to their will or face a mass exodus. I don't think some people will ever make it to the 'new land' if that happened.

No

1. Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)
2. Considering the near-vehement refusal to cooperate earlier, this proposition seems like a very weak attempt at keeping things under their control. And the list is only a bunch of "can", "may" and "opportunity". Which still looks like we don't have a say in Fandom/Wikia's plans. NukaTurtle (talk) 20:42, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
3. I'm sorry, but I know blatant sweeping under the rug when I see it. If they want to earn this community's trust, then they need to do a lot more than provide such a weak solution that they give no promises on even upholding, especially after the disgraceful E-Mails that you shared with us on the prior forum. ^寧靜 20:45, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
4. Chad, I appreciate the effort you've put into this with trying to reach an amicable agreement, but the word "considered" scares the hell out of me. Considered by who? Us? Them? I've been on both sides of "considered" and in a nutshell it means "Good effort but we are going to do it our way regardless of how you feel...but thank you for wasting your time." Same with anything we might propose; odds are 20:1 it will be shot down. My feeling is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hundreds of thousands if not millions haved viewed, used, and edited the wiki over the years. Why do we suddenly need video? Simple answer: we don't. StormRider71 (talk) 21:00, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
5. I am the same mind as StormRider here, Its an offer to talk to, but ultimately ignore us if they so wish. With the contempt they have already shown us, I cannot in good faith trust them on anything less than affirmatives. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 21:15, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
6. Wikia staff have shown they do not care about their contributors. They have lied to you before, Chad, and they have lied to us all. The videos cause a page to load slowly on lower end computers like mine. Wikia may give us what we want at the end of this, but it's only a matter of time before they betray us again. - Chris 21:21, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
7. I agree with the statements made by many casting no. I fear with the way they had initially promised similar options for us, only to not keep their word that history will repeat itself. I know so much hard work by Agent C and others have gone into getting us this offer, and thank you all for that, but I'm worried it's another lie in attempt to placate us. --Rotting apple (talk) 21:25, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
8. They've already shown they don't care. Either we get our way entirely on the videos or they have gotten their way when they don't deserve it. Yodamort (talk) 21:22, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
9. These words sound emptier than a vacuum - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:37, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
10. Wikia continues to push this crap despite all the negative feedback telling them how much of a bad idea it is. As usual. Great Mara (talk) 22:05, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
11. It's so hard for me to acquiesce with such an intrusive, irrelevant feature. This is the kind of Web 2.* marketing garbage that I actively oppose in my professional career, so I certainly can't support it here. There are much better ways to go about it that can give them a boost in the "video market" that don't intrude on our carefully built article content. Chad I appreciate the position you've taken and the attempt to arrive at some kind of resolution, but I don't want it on record that I agree with the settlement, because I don't, and I don't think you do either. But again, I understand it. -- 22:09, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
12. Soviet (talk) That was a pile of bullshit. They promised nothing. I don't mind if it's a group or individual that represents the community in this process, but raising a user or group of users above the community, only to join Fandom in this farce will clearly cause division. Until they promise something concrete, I suggest disregarding everything they say.
13. The end of Nukapedia is nigh. Too little too late, Fandom. NomadMC (talk) 23:05, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
14. I appreciate that you've gone great lengths to represent us and get us to this point, but Fandom's response to those strides is more than unacceptable. The first point is probably the scariest, seeing as how it implies that Fandom can flat out deny our requests for replacements, no matter how unprofessional and/or politically charged the material is. Language like "propose" and "can" are terribly shifty, and give far too little room for us to make decisions for ourselves. The fourth point only lets the appointed representative "comment" on videos, like we're just random YouTube users. Unfortunately, I think this give us little to no room in making decisions -- despite being the group with godawful material forced down our throats. AllYourFavorites (talk) 23:13, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
15. 83.71.84.218User:the wandering mercenary; for the craic
16. C, while I appreciate the amount of work and time you've put into trying to reach a deal between us and fandom, this does not seem like a good deal at all for us. It honestly seems like Fandom is trying to keep themselves in control. "Proposed replacements will be CONSIDERED Considered. No promises. We can PROPOSE new additional videos. (Who makes these videos? Us or them?). "FANDOM posts more videos, but the replacement process may be used." I doubt their new videos will be any better than the ones they already put on. "A single appointed person would have the opportunity to comment on scripts 24 hours or so before production." What power does this person have? do they just spit recommendations at Fandom, and if we're lucky they'll listen to them, if not they'll do whatever they want? If Fandom knew what was really on the table for the options that we have right now, they would just give us full control of video and let the entire matter be put to rest.--The Courier NCR for life (talk) 23:31, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
17. I simply put do not agree with these poor-quality videos being forcefully added to Nukapedia articles, because they are more or less a distraction that offers little to the people who simply want to read the pages. --Breakin'Benny (talk) 23:47, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
18. I'm against videos on our pages to begin with, so I don't care about replacements. Because our Wikia is a central place in the Fallout community, however, I might be in favour of a special video section where we feature videos. But no, definitely no videos on our carefully curated pages. - FDekker ^talk 01:36, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
19. These videos are awful, and if this is the "Quality Content" we have to look forward to I don't want them on this site. I don't want Fandom having anything to do with this site. They obviously don't play the game, nor care about our opinions on the matter. It's just a cash grab and it's forced on us. They will consider nothing and do what they please. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 01:57, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
20. About the "agreement", the phrase in Russian would be "Ni o chiom." (≈"It doesn't really say anything"). I appreciate the effort, but this is nothing. Simply nothing. Regarding the place for Fandom-suggested content: nothing not a part of the wiki's community-written material has a place in an article proper. That's the key point in the definition of a "wiki": it's a site whose content can be edited by its users. The moment this ceases to be true, it's no longer a wiki. Wikia can suggest supplemental material in areas reserved for banners e.g. the side pane (as they already do) but again, leave it up to viewer whether to pay attention to it, so no autoplay. — Ivan Pozdeev 02:33, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
21. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, I don't think it will still work. There has to be someone from this Wiki to actually understand the quality of the content (videos) to be placed in the articles. It would've been better if it wasn't in the mainspace, but somewhere else . As said, this is best left for the community to make videos, by making a Youtube channel or something. Not like this. ☢ Energy X ☣ 11:31, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
22. No. They still give us no control over what is posted. It is our community. Its still giving them all of the control over what is posted here, which they apparently know very little about. They don't even give us the priority and ability to make our own videos, which we have done in the past. That should have been common sense, but they are only trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.Leea (talk) 11:41, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
23. After a while dealing with the portuguese Wikia, i learned that they will try to make a "temporary" solution that will eventually benefit them, utterly ignoring what the communities want. Glauber0 ^Howdy! 14:36, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
24. I agree with the bulk of the above "no" votes. Shaka1277 (talk) 19:10, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
25. As above, I have to agree with this, I do have more agreement with what Energy X said though, as in its current place it makes it more difficult to view the content I want on the page. LBraden (talk)
26. Maybe a baby step in the right direction, but too much weasel wording there, and they backpedaled on pretty much everything they had promised in the original talks so it seems hard to think they won't do it again. FFIX (talk)
27. I'm no going to lie, stunts like this definitely contributed to my decision to retire from the Wiki. I very much agree with the nice people above me. ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"} 22:42, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
28. User:Kazakevich I had to stop being active in the community a long time ago due to my status as an Active Duty service member. It boils me to see such an abhorrent overstepping from the higher wiki. A gross overstep such as this severs trust from those who constantly provide their free time in order to keep the wiki function, up to date, especially user friendly and welcoming, and above all - accurate to the game lore itself. I never thought I would have to come back and voice my opinion on something that should have never become an issue to begin with - but here we are. (User talk:Kazakevich
29. I oppose the placement of videos on these pages in any capacity. This is a wiki, not some second-rate fansite. Its purpose is to provide up-to-date, reliable information about various aspects of the Fallout games, not clickbait. Jordanthejq12 (talk) 04:12, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
30. This is like making me eat raw garlic instead of raw onions. Technically an improvement but it's gonna make me puke either way.
    Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 05:02, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 123123abcabc (talk) 21:04, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
2. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:11, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
3. It appears we can't stop it, so what can we do to soften the blow, so to speak. Work with Wikia in making the videos, Unfortunately, I have considerable doubts the mentioned proposals are going to work, they demand quite a bit from people here, on a steady basis, and Wikia doesn't appear to have much patience. But as the videos are now, it isn't working either. Jspoel 22:04, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
4. I'm with Jspoel here: as the inclusion of the videos seems to be a certainty, at least let us have a (minor) say in what is, or not, included. Let us hope that, in time, they start taking our wishes and requests into consideration. TheDeadZone (talk) 23:28, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
5. Switched my vote from yes to neutral simply because I can not support the obvious simplification and revenue attempt, even given the backlash of your supporters. But I also know this is the best offer we will get. So, I will not vote no but truly I don't want it. JBour53

Excluded votes

1. I like it. Assuming things go as planned this could be a good agreement. I understand why wikia wants to add videos and I understand why a whole wiki wide made input could be overwhelming and unnecessary. Let's hope this goes well. If not then expect the former mentioned actions of people leaving the wikia to find a new similar one will happen. This is JBour53 btw. Since it never lets me sign my name appropriately. You need to be signed in to vote. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 20:39, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Can there be a different person talking for future videos? The current guy has a monotone voice that I cannot stand, and I sincerely hope that they have someone better on their payroll. ^寧靜 20:29, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

The narrator wasn't a part of the discussion, sorry. Agent c (talk) 20:40, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Reading through the votes already casted I see many good points on both sides. Will need a short time to think about it and weigh the pros and cons before casting mine, but know I will definitely cast a vote. Rotting apple (talk) 21:10, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'll be blunt; this isn't a settlement. A settlement requires both sides to give in. All I see is a lot of "consider", "can propose" "may post" and so on. I've been handling legal texts for years, but I don't think I've ever seen words this empty. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:53, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it's been noticed, but now there's also a video on Fallout 4 console commands. Same poor quality, at least concerning the resolution. Wikia, you can do better than this. Jspoel 23:21, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This is precisely the reason for my no vote. --FFIX (talk) 22:31, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

You know, I'm actually curious what the no voters think will happen once this vote is over. Because as of right now, it looks like this vote will end with more bad videos and probably a dead wiki. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:15, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

Argumentum ad temperantiam - The issue, from what I understand, is that for years now, Wikia have been pushing around the communities being hosted by them, by making it disturbingly clear that they have little to no use for input from those that have helped make Wikia into the powerhouse that it is today.

To exasperate matters, Fandom emerged from Wikia, and it's been made abundantly clear that they are moving on from any sort of encyclopediac nature that they may or may not have once embraced, and have instead chosen to embrace clickbait, to the point where they're completely willing to throw around, on a daily basis, dozens upon dozens of low-quality, and a lot of times, non-factual articles and videos across both the Wikia spectrum, and their social media mediums.

Wikia, as it currently stands, are not willing to compromise in any sort of meaningful way, even though there are plenty of options for them to take, to continue this matter amicably - a false dilemma, if I've ever seen a perfect example of one. On our end, there is no true compromise, as if we just blindly accept their "terms," then all we are doing is betraying our core tenets as a wiki of factual information, serving the Fallout fans; not the Wikia overlords and their invasive clickbait, who have absolutely no qualms with ignoring us when we need help, under the guise that Wikia does not get involved through independent wiki communities, as they "respect" local wiki policies and guidelines.

Now we just know that they're lazy and/or incompetent, and that they are perfectly willing to disrupt any wiki community as they see fit, in order to fit in with their agendas. ^寧靜 02:30, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say they're not "lazy and/or incompetent" but desperate. This looks very much like SourceForge: at one point, they went so desperate trying to monetize they started seeping malware into downloads (this lead to so much shit hitting the fan they became a pariah in OSS movement and ended up sold off so as not to go bankrupt altogether). If Wikia is so much on the edge, they may have too lost the Mandate of Heaven a viable business model (probably in part owing to some newly-emerged tough competition with some fresh ideas and/or the founders/key members losing interest, launching a downward spiral of gradual deterioration like any other system without working feedback) and are not long for this world.
  • Anyway, I don't see much of a problem for us content-wise. A function to extract page content is built into MediaWiki, so moving it elsewhere with a bot is not a problem, this could be done in a completely automated way (I'm pretty sure there's already software for this, including distributed one). Likewise, it's not impossible to synchronize new useful edits between wikis since APIs for that are standard. So, it doesn't really matter where specifically the content is going to be thanks to CC-BY-SA.
  • The main concern is tearing the community apart. But again, if Wikia makes the wiki unusable (all that heavy junk content makes pages grind to a halt and annoys the crap out of readers and editors alike), there'll be no community split - few new contributors will come, seeing as it's practically impossible to, well, contribute.
  • On a bright note, I can only salute them for trying to provide some more relevant suggested content (I blocked the banner panes specifically for being all superheroes and blockbusters, things that I don't give a sh1t about, at the point when I couldn't take this anymore), only not approve of the specific way as too obtrusive. — Ivan Pozdeev 04:22, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
• Speaking of "mass exoddus", I may have a better idea.
  • I personally am going to stay until I can't take the crap any longer or until I've nothing else to do, whichever comes first (I've just completed FO2 (yet again) and have added about all the required information I immediately saw was missing here, so I may move on to other things).
  • I suggest others do the same. Whoever is fed up at the moment joins the migration task force: scout a destination, set up information transfer/synchronization, install and set up the necessary extensions and collaboration tools, etc.
  • The longer Wikia will keep playing dickheads and the harder they do it, the farther this process will go and the more activity will move away. They'll be seeing the dynamics and the community will not have to fully commit itself to either choice until the very end.
  • Since people would be on the force while they are disgruntled with the state of affairs here (nothing stops them from taking a break once their discontent seeps out), they'll be the ones with the most incentive from all the community to keep the initiative going. Of course, this turnover model requires central coordination so that a new volunteer can relatively quickly come up to speed and take up any task that was left unfinished. — Ivan Pozdeev 08:23, September 9, 2017 (UTC)