<div class="quote"><i>
<p>SaltyPearl7152 wrote:
1. look, do whatever, but please stop essentially insulting me by giving me absurd "alternatives". a discord server is not and never will be akin to a comment section
</p><p>2. as for the "allow vandalism" thing, yeah obviously, as the wiki is meant to be run by a community of users who wish to better the information, and such vandals are not considered true users, this has nothing to do with oligarchal rankings and does not mean mods get the final say, it simply means vandals are not valid users in the eyes of the wiki and never will be
</p>
</i></div>
<p>1. It's ultimately up to you, and none intend to be insulting. If you want my observation, Discord is 10x better than the comments, especially since it isn't the same. Perhaps, I don't always use Discord for discussion similar to yours, but the amount of features, possibilities, and continuing ease of use cannot be ignored. Discord and Forums are not missing anything the comments do have except the preference for a niche usage case. They boast many things stated on the New Year, New Wiki thread. I'm sorry that my message was found to be offensive, so it's still up to you on what you do and why. It's just a bit difficult to solve these problems.
</p><p>2. The point was that the community doesn't have full control of the wiki for a reason. This is not to say the community's opinion isn't important. Why else am I responding to the community when I could say to get used to it, and why did the comments return in an archived state if not for Citrus, Lapislazuliisthebest, and Ke2083? You can interpret the meaning as you wish.
</p>
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Citrusellaeditswikis wrote:
As for #2 I think at this point I'm really just frustrated with the response from people who like comments when I bring up the issues I've personally had with them, as if their input is important and mine isn't. Maybe when I get like that I should just hold my tongue and go edit an article or something. XD)
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Everyone's imput is important. I'll do better to recognize these situations and boost morale when I can. I'll make myself clear just in case, though: the moderators intended the comments be for improving articles or just being relevant and useful. When I said "intended," I meant what every other poweruser intended, a social media site in majority.
</p>
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>SaltyPearl7152 wrote:
i may not agree but i think its worth hearing because you're actually willing to make an argument instead of just saying NAH IM RIGHT TIME TO REMOVE COMMENTS WITHOUT ASKING ANYBODY
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I'm aware this comment wasn't directed at me, but everyone has made valid points and are doing their best.
</p>
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Citrusellaeditswikis wrote:
Point is, if the majority is the decider of what's okay, and the majority are, say, vandals, then in theory they could vote to allow vandalism (even if they don't call it vandalism) and that would be okay and no could say they aren't "real" users because they're the majority. It's an absurd-sounding argument, but it's not impossible if the vote is truly up to the users without admin/moderator oversight (or if said people in power agree with it!).
</p>
</i></div>
<p>This is a clearer hypothetical scenario to clarify why this wiki is not a full-on democracy, so thank you. To state some things, though, even if the majority decided vandalism is okay, Fandom Staff and especially the
VSTF will not allow it. Of course, it depends on what the vandalism is ("no hate, no libel, no pornographic content, and no copyright infringement"), but it's ultimately up to those people.
</p><p>Here is some background for those interested. Fandom websites, as wikis, are meant to be projects worked on by the community rather than a set few people. This is stated in the
community creation policy which various rules exists not to make the wiki akin to a personal website for a founder. Though not listed, the page gives any kind of community the ability to affect the site. The result is that no wiki can ever become an actual dictatorship, oblicarchy, or just akin to a personal website where the founder or group of admins rule with an iron fist.
</p><p><i>If the community is this powerful, then why does this wiki's staff team get to do internal votes that void community consensus? Isn't this site meant to be a community project, and doesn't the policy intend to prevent small groups having total control?</i>
</p><p>I'll be honest, there is no clear answer due to the countless variables present. The comments have been disabled without a community discussion, but this criticism was acknowledged along with legitimate counter-criticisms, such as the continued ability to communicate elsewhere with objectively better tools. Yes, a staff vote has nulled the community consensus on this topic, but not all vote threads go through this process, many of which ending as fast as a day from community consensus alone (such as changing images, quotes, and
even rules themselves). Such variables and contradictions will continue to puzzle this situation and "what" a community can do for a <i>community project.</i> It's ultimately up to Fandom Staff at the end of the day (it's their website we're freeloading off), but it's definitely a social issue that's persisted not only on Fandom, but for centuries in scholarship, and we're just another victim to this vortex of confusion.
</p><p>The concept of "community" is a topic for another day, though. Tl;dr, the community is invaluable in its importance, which is why it has so much power over the wiki. However, there are some limits, hence the moderation team's existence. For me, I rejected the community consensus because I found the reasons to bring article comments back to be subjective and down to a specific psychology that can't be understood objectively. Simply put, the alternatives available besides Article Comments are simply superior in every way, and it's up to the wiki to make those alternatives great. The positives outweigh the negatives almost completely, from my observation. Regardless, I still listened to the community, and that's why I fought for the comments coming back, though in a read-only state.
</p><p>That's what the community can do, and the result is a symbiotic relationship that continues to improve each other, even when discourse occurs. That's amazing stuff
</p>
<span style="color:#00ff00;"> Support</span> - 35
</p><p>
<span style="color:#FF0000;"> Oppose</span> - 1
</p><p>
<span style="color:#D3D3D3;"> Neutral</span> - 7
</p><p>Note: I'm going to let this vote go over a week and up to a month even if we have a fair vote because it is a bigger vote than just an image vote or anything else.
</p>
