Requests for Comment/Allow certain reception wiki types to be created

Back in October of last year, a RfC was made to close the reception wikis. This RfC passed, with new ones of all types since being declined. As a result, when I recently updated a wiki request after waiting a few months as I was told, it was declined under the reason of it being a reception wiki. I believe that certain types of reception wikis should be allowed. The wiki that I was proposing was "a wiki providing information from a general consensus about the reception of TV shows," and containing "pages detailing TV shows and their good and bad qualities". While this may seem like another Qualitipedia wiki or clone at first glance, it is meant to be a source based, non-personal opinion influenced wiki which does not separate shows by deeming them "good" or "bad," unlike what was seen on most reception wikis. I feel as if Qualitipedia is unfairly looming over every single reception wiki and making them seem all the same, and while I do admit a good majority of wikis are just Qualitipedia clones trying to copy what was done with those wikis, there are still people looking to provide unbiased information about media and its reception that can't do so due to this. That's why I think something should be done to differentiate the opinionated Qualitipedia clones from actual information centers with a focus on providing a general, sourced based viewpoint on media without labeling things as "good" or "bad". BookFandumb1 (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Keep the ban on Qualitipedia-like wikis, but allow specific reception types to be created
This will not affect Qualitipedia-like wikis being declined, but will lift the ban for other reception wikis which meet the criteria for the following.
 * Are not separate wikis for "good" or "bad" media
 * Are not opinion based and instead contain varying viewpoints from different perspectives
 * Contain reliable sources

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. BookFandumb1 (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  It is somewhat understandable that the opposers of this request are reluctant and averse to the idea of a "Reception wiki". I am aware that my support will not change the outcome of this request but I believe that it is important to have differing views also aired. It is also true that the former reception wikis were an issue for Miraheze's reputation. The first reason for why I support the principle behind this request is the fact that the proposer is addressing some of the most problematic aspects of reception wikis and proposing that reception wikis with those characteristics are still not accepted. The opposers do not seem to have carefully considered the reasons behind why the "Reception wikis" caused Miraheze to have a negative reputation. Even if I do not have sufficient knowledge about them it is my opinion that the main reason for their toxicity and issues were the fact that they were based on personal opinions and were set out in a binary manner (good/bad). The proposer here is proposing to change that and the opposers do not want to give these new narrow limits a chance. The opposers will say that it is impossible for a "Reception wiki" to not be like this. If that is the case then they would not qualify under the exception proposed here and would not be created in the first place. The second reason for supporting this principle is that it is somewhat unfair to allow existing "Reception wikis" to continue operating but only deny new ones that would be less problematic than the existing ones are. Finally where I disagree with this proposal is that I believe that what is described above would no longer be a "Reception wiki" and that indeed new wikis should strive to be something different than "Reception wikis". An issue with this is that no concrete and precise definition of reception wiki has been adopted which I also believe is an unfair restriction on new wikis if the term is interpreted too broadly. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I like and agree with the point that it is only aspects of reception wikis that have caused a lot of problems. I opposed because from the stand point as a potential contributor, I'd be hesitant to post to a reception wiki that could stray into the realm of shutdown.  It would be a painful personal loss, outweighing the pleasure of contributing to the site, just to see the site had to be shut down for actions outside of my control.  From this angle, at this point in time, it'll be more likely that the nascent community will  be comprised of members who are likely to violate the terms and conditions (assuming they have the inclination to do so).
 * If the scope and premise of the wiki could clearly show that the site is more than just a list of good and bad qualities, that something else is contingent, that might make the site more moderatable. There is a line that states that wikis belong to the community, but the bureaucrat is the governor of the site.  For a bureaucrat to go against the community, that will require some rules that will make it possible for such rules to be enforceable.  Otherwise, it'll come across as some kind of dictatorship that requires outside intervention.
 * I don't fully know what a reception wiki is, and I really wish for these reception wikis to flourish. However, it is my opinion that a stricter guideline could help set a tone for contributors to respect the request for a more appropriate contribution.
 * --Imamy (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) That's going to be a hard no from me.  Reception wikis as a genre, qualitipedia-style or not, were a huge black eye for MH's reputation and a volunteer time-sink for unending rehabilitation efforts and burnout. Let's not retread old ground here. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 04:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  You know, I always thought a source-based, reception based and not fundamentally biased into camps of 'good' and 'bad' reception wikis were the only way it would work. At this point: too late. Qualitipedia even tried that in its twilight time. I am not confident that the author of this request (a 'veteran' of the old way that I recognize from the old wikis) is capable of realizing this idealistic goal or able to manage the endless temperaments that this formula and subject at a wiki level attract, never mind the previous users, controversy and vandalism that the wiki he wants to create will attract. It's too soon, too close to the problem we struck in the first place, and I don't have any confidence in it being realized competently. So I firmly oppose weakening what has been a very positive policy on wikis of this focus. Let wikis of the old model that are still open reform and prove themselves better (there are several), or wikis off platform demonstrate competence, before we give a chance to something that already long overstayed its welcome. --Raidarr (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Nee. Naleksuh (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 13:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a no or a nay, but in a fun way. (At least by my read) --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 00:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think it would be better to work towards improving the wiki's purpose statement so that it doesn't fall into the reception wiki category.  That is the best way to ensure that contributions won't be lost due to violations leading to a site shutdown.  --Imamy (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per NotAracham and Raidarr, for the most part. Qualitipedia and the rest of the reception wikis on Miraheze were a massive stain on its reputation as a suitable wiki farm. Volunteers spent countless hours resolving issues that originated on said wikis, some even migrating over to Meta (which causes its own problems). While the proposal laid out could work, it's all idealistic, and in reality Miraheze is not capable of moderating wikis to the extent that the proposal would require. One day, maybe. But today, no. This is a strong oppose from me. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) As a former contributor to the reception wikis, I'm opposing this as strongest. If theses wikis are allowed to be created again, this will damage Miraheze's reputation yet again, so no. TIMEKEEPING  (talk༆) 07:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  Even though I believe that Miraheze should not restrict the creation of wikis based on their content as long as it doesn't violate the Content Policy (which only the idea/content of reception wikis doesn't violate; not necessarily their userbase, however), the creation of new reception wikis was banned because they significantly damaged Miraheze's reputation (so much so that Miraheze has had to add a question in their FAQ about their toxicity). There are hundreds of rants on the Internet about reception wikis; in fact, if you type "miraheze" into Google Search, "miraheze reception wikis rant" is fifth on the list. Additionally, your rationale for creating this RfC is weak. Tali64³ (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  per above. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 13:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  I have moved on from the reception wikis for a few months now, and I've been finding time to edit my Kirby Wiki recently. I have no plans in returning to the wikis, as a lot of detractors weren't wrong to say the wikis were problematic and biased. Some users were madly obsessed with reviving it even after they were closed after a lot of us showed a lot of consensus to have them closed. I'm sorry, but I am against this idea of having them re-opened. That is all. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  These wikis are long gone for the better, and no new ones should be created. CRAB-2 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  Yeah no. Reception Wikis are infamous for being extremely problematic according to many groups on the internet including some on Miraheze. Not only that, but what if someone creates a "User Reception Wiki"? (I'm pretty sure those wikis violate Miraheze's guidelines) Snorunt (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) While I'm not trying to bash people for their votes, it seems as if some opposers have not read the full RfC. Some people are even using Qualitipedia as a reason for opposing, and for that I say stop having Qualitipedia shadow over everything that goes on with Miraheze. Once Qualitipedia shut down, people were and still are being biased towards any wiki with a seemingly similar concept just because of the problems caused by Qualitipedia. Not every wiki is Qualitipedia. It's just not fair and incredibly prejudicial in my opinion. BookFandumb1 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in the wiki set that you are proposing be allowed, every wiki has the potential to become Qualitipedia. Which frankly is too large a risk to take and Miraheze as a whole is better off restricting these types of wikis so that never happens again. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 00:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This genre of wiki was only disallowed ~4 months ago. Even in the most lenient proposal from the RfC where new reception wikis were banned, the minimum length of time before revisiting a ban was 6 months - given the scale of the problems that minimum was for good reason. While I respect that you hold your own opinion, it seems incredibly hasty to already be pushing for exceptions so soon. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 05:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  As someone also opposed to this proposal, I should step in and correct some things that are appearing in the votes so far as they're starting to appear outside of Fandumb's attempt to discuss them in the comments section. For one, this is not a proposal to reopen Qualitipedia. The OP painstakingly attempted to separate itself from them. It does not seek to reopen any closed or previously removed wikis in fact, and it is attempting to sell itself as doing the formula in a more responsible way that wouldn't attract the same issues. I have issues with that (mainly I don't think it's split far enough) but this is the basis to start from. It certainly does not propose to recreate the User Reception Wikis, which would indeed violate several existing guidelines and would never make it past the approval process even if this proposal was successful. Courtesy nods to  and, with the two arguments mainly featured here.--Raidarr (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)