Wikia new ad policy!?[]
Recently Wikia has started a new advertising campaign. At the bottom of various pages the topic of external sponsored links has appeared.
These links choose words in the content and then when the link is moused over pop-up a distracting and for that reason intrusive ad. The popup moves quickly to the side but the very act of showing itself interrupts the user viewing the page.
I have written wikia about this being unacceptable. I have not yet heard back from them. Since then the offer to put these links on more pages or even the entire GG wiki has been added to many of our pages.
This IMO is a terrible development. Worthy of forking the wiki and choosing a less intrusive host.
Unfortunately wikia has decided to harvest the seeds they have sown with their free hosting. Looking at the rebellion that arose when the format changed many other wikis chose to find other hosts at that time.
We went through an earlier period of almost deciding the same thing. User:Mnenyver lead the effort. I voiced opposition based on the hope that wikia's ad policies would improve as they listen to feedback. Also the Foglio's made a request that any new site not use the name Girl Genius in its title. So giving up this site would have meant losing the name. m also did not want to see the wiki forked and I suspected that wikia would keep the content here up and as a result any move would end up creating a fork. In the recent rebellion users and sysops who removed their content from their site or even announced the sites moving on their sites found themselves blocked and banned from posting. So wikia will insist on their right to display the S-A-3.0 content we have contributed here.
During the earlier discussion I wrote a bit about what I considered a reasonable ad policy. It was written in the context of what ads were annoying at the time of writing. The gist was don't intrude rudely and keep a clear distinction between the contributed content and the advertising. The sponsored links hijack words from the edited content and pop over the content, so they are violating both of those stated principles.
What to do about it? I don't have any great suggestions.
- We can fork the wiki to a more amenable host.
- We would have a less salient and recognizable name.
- This site would remain, tempting others to edit here.
- This site would still be subject to wikia's control in it's add policy.
- We can write wikia our objections. I keep thinking of Tim Robbins the Shawshank Redemtion.
- A writing campaign would have to be sustained and probably frequent.
- We could do both.
There are other foolish suggestions I read a lot of them in the rebellious mail wikia received. I won't be recommending those. We could also do neither. I personally don't like that suggestion so I won't recommend it either.
External circumstances will force me to stop my activity on this wiki in a matter of months anyway. So I won't be around to see the outcome of this. Before that happens I intend to do mostly what I have been doing. I have enjoyed my participation here as well as the comic.
I write because I want to raise the issue among the active contributers and those who care about the site. I believe telling wikia when something is unacceptable and needs to change is important. Them hearing it from more than one person is important also.
So this is a heads up for your benefit. It is up to you how you respond to this current change on wikia's part. I just believe it should not be ignored. Cheers --Rej¿¤¤? 02:14, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Just to emphasize for anyone quickly scanning through:
- What makes these new article-bottom advertisements egregious is that their institution blurs together content and advertisement -- i.e. makes it confusing to the reader what text is part of the actual article, and what is a commercial advertisement that the editors have no control over. Labeling the section "External Sponsor Links" does not solve the problem, because the heading and text of this new ad block are:
- above the wiki navigation controls
- in the same style as the article content
- in the same innermost visual box as the content
- and thus there is a clear implication that the people who wrote the article approved the addition of those links and endorse the sites to which they lead.
- Any website where the distinction between advertising and content is obfuscated immediately starts losing credibility in the eyes of visitors, who are therefore less likely to return.
- --Undomelin 20:30, December 5, 2010 (UTC)