• Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s embarrassing that huge and ongoing successful games can’t shell out to host official wikis, but instead leave it to the community to either pay out or pocket (not happening) or pick whichever crappy provider they can find willing to host it for ads.

    A good wiki needs to have mosly text, a modest amount of pictures, no self-hosted video, and low computing needs. While an unpleasant expense for a private individual, it doesn’t cost a company much to host.

    • Syndic@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While I agree that it’s rather sad for developer not hosting their Wiki, I really never had any problem with the old hoster of the Minecraft Wiki. I certainly didn’t perceive it as a “crappy provider”. It did exactly what it needed to and there weren’t any intrusive adds or at least not to my attention. But maybe I’m just really good at ignoring adds myself.

      Edit: Or mabye my add blocker did help, hard to tell since I haven’t seen the internet without it since years now.

      • poppy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah Bulbapedia is fan-run and does exactly what it needs imo.

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ya, not all are the level of Fandom. The old one for Minecraft was somewhat tolerable without an ad-blocker. I don’t really feel it is fair to blame the providers either - even Fandom. They are stepping up to offer something nobody else feels like paying for.

    • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A good wiki needs to have mosly text, a modest amount of pictures, no self-hosted video, and low computing needs.

      Huh. That sounds kind of like Lemmy, wonder if someone will try to modify the software to support a wiki.

      • ram@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Looking it up, there is WikiWikiWeb implements Federated Wiki, which Wikipedia describes its primary features as:

        adds forking features found in source control systems and other software development tools to wikis. […]The software allows its users to fork wiki pages, maintaining their own copies. Federation supports what Cunningham has described as “a chorus of voices” where users share content but maintain their individual perspectives. This approach contrasts with the tendency of centralized wikis such as Wikipedia to function as consensus engines.

        Gonna look more into Federated Wiki today, because this sounds super interesting to me c: