Archive:GuildWiki/GuildWiki talk:Wikia Move/Archive 2

Contents

FFXIcyclopediaEdit

Wikia acquisition of another gaming wiki is also stirring up problems... forum post regarding FFXIcyclopedia here [1]. Can't confirm the authenticity, but it has parallels to what's happened here. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 20:56, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

http://euphidime.com/wiki_scandal/10.png http://euphidime.com/wiki_scandal/13.png + http://euphidime.com/wiki_scandal/23.png http://euphidime.com/wiki_scandal/18.png are among some of the most interesting caps, if true. Assuming the numbers hold true across the board, it'd indicate Gravewit's compensation is somewhere around a quarter of a million. And the finale is just cake. http://euphidime.com/wiki_scandal/26.png

Considering Wikia's main source of income appears to be from ad revenues driven through acquiring large existing communities, compounded with pushing traffic from Wikipedia, I don't really doubt it. Merengue 21:32, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Wow. Just wow. --Dirigible 21:44, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Apparently, if we look at all of that, Wikia's had their eye on us for a while already. WoWWiki got snapped up first; probably because it's one of the biggest. THE biggest, I believe. Once they have the biggest one they can on their network, they're raking in enough money to pay for the other wikis, plus they can say "WoWWiki joined us already, and look at how well they're doing!". It's not looking like anyone from Wikia's going to help us out on this issue at this point; we might have to end up either folding like a lawn chair, or making a new GuildWiki. Unless someone finds a lawyer willing to go up against Wikipedia/Wikia. (good luck.) --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 21:53, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Ugh. What a mess. Does anyone have any info on the source of those images? Biscuits 21:55, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

The images were supposedly taken from a private e-mail account through hacking, so there's really no verifiability. Due to the issue of transparency, or the lack thereof, we're likely never going to see any hard information short of a lawsuit forcing the issue, I'd imagine. Until then, it's a he-said, she-said issue, isn't it? Merengue 22:01, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

If these images are valid, then our number 1 priority is to get as much of the guildwiki data off the servers as possible for a fork. Wikia may buy off one person, but they cannot buy a community. 193.52.24.125 22:08, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

So long as Fyren can still access the servers, then we should be able to copy over the Wiki in it's entirety, and legally as far as I know. Wikia would be left to deal with a cheap imitation, basically. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 22:17, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

All I can say is that we need to get as much information over to new servers if this is how it is. That doesn't look very good. Kind of underhanded if you ask me... The Imperialist

Anyone else find it ironic that Wikia's slogan, at least according to Wikipedia, is "creating communities," when really they're "buying wikis"? BftP 02:26, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

In every wiki community there is the vocal minority and the silent majority. In every corporation, they know that they should keep their friends close and their opponents closer. Watch this space as one by one those with the axes to grind fall by the wayside. What saddens me is that you don't see the figures.... You're all talking in numbers of "hundreds" of dollars in revenue... Look at the names involved - Jimmy Wales, Wikia, Angela Beesley... You think they are interested in taking over some crappy "hundreds" dollar website?? Christian Nelson has potentially been getting rich from this site for a long time, Wikia are planning on getting richer. And they'll sit you out, maybe even come to financial settlements with a few individuals? And the sheep will say "baa!" and the wiki will continue and you'll all donate your time and effort to making a small number of individuals richer. Suckers? Or victims? YOU decide whether you are one or the other. Take down this site legally until it is resolved. Meantime, put your desire to share your knowledge and hard-earned experiences into the official ANet wiki. As for ANet, a lot of GWiki stalwarts gave them a hard time over the launch of their wiki... maybe they just had better lawyers and more responsibility towards the community than they could, legally, let on that they knew...

I think that misses the point. From what I've read, there are two issues people are concerned about. 1) That the wiki was able to be sold for profit in the first place, given the non-commercial license. Your post is more related to issue 2) Gravewit is making money from this, when he was only one of a group of people who invested time in the wiki in the early days, and has done arguably little since registering the domain. This is made more sour because people donated money towards server costs and have had the records of their donations deleted, and no share in ad revenue since. In general, I don't see any harm on the people owning a wiki making ad revenue for hosting a community, good for them. It's just fishy that here one person is receiving compensation, and a bunch of strangers are going to be making money from this from now on without the community having been consulted beforehand. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Gravewit had declared he didn't want to host anymore, to see what would have developed then. Biscuits 06:30, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

A very good page detailing the FFXI scandal and the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that changed hands is here.

Subtopic pagesEdit

General note: please direct indepth discussion of any forking efforts into the relevant subpage, so it's more centralized and other people of like mind can find it easier. It may be possible that some of the community may be interested in forking but didn't care about the FFXI topic so are not reading it. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 23:57, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Your obsession with categorization is commendable, but for this particular topic it is a nuisance. This discussion is not solely about forking anyway. 193.52.24.125 00:38, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I was just about to revert Pan's move myself. This discussion is important enough to deserve to remain here, and as 193.52 noted it's neither exclusively about forking nor Gravewit's profits. --Dirigible 00:40, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

It is my belief that important discussions related to how much Gravewit made should be in the appropriate sub-page so that the people interested in that subject will see it, instead of putting it under the Misc Discussions section under the generic main talk page. The forking discussion didn't go very far, but if you feel the need, you can further sub-split that part of the topic into the Forking sub-topic. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:50, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Pan, you are missing the point; this section is not exclusively about how much Gravewit made. Read the link, it involves the whole behind the scenes process. Also, I don't see why you think that an "important" discussion belongs hidden in a subpage; if it were up to me, this would be on the Main Page right now. --Dirigible 01:01, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

On the second point, my apologies. I had failed to realize that the Organized Discussions section may not be prominent to certain people. Can you help think of ways to make the sub-pages more prominently noticeable? Keeping every non-dead discussion on the main general talk page is gonna lead to many redundent repetative points being made over and over again and overshadow new thoughts. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 01:04, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

FAQ and working through the issuesEdit

Thank you all for the patience -

FAQ's: A few things I can tell you now, at least to provide some amount of updates for those who are afraid that too many changes will be made:

• We will not be changing the licensing for the wiki - it will stay with it's current license. For some of the smaller wikis on gamewikis.org - where there is an existing GFDL wiki, we will work with the two communities to try to merge them so that the communities can come together if they're willing
• We DO NOT plan to put lots of ads to the site, in fact if you look at our sites, they typically only have ONE ad per page instead of TWO so I had hoped we would be viewed as an improvement. Also when you login to our new skins, the ad unit is EVEN smaller
• We always maintain monobook as an option for people that want to use it, if you don't like our new skins, like on http://tv.wikia.com
• We do have a number of wiki communities that have come over to Wikia and some but not all received some compensation for this. My contract doesn't permit discussion of this, but I will talk it over with Gravewit as some of the estimates have been speculative
• What I can tell you about the contract is that we acquired the domain name and did not ask for a copy of any CC-NC content as part of it. However we did acquire any commercial licenses or rights that came with the URL.
• The content GameWikis presents to the public is available under CC and we WILL continue to make public dumps of it available on a regular basis to insure that it belongs to the community
• We try to support communities so those who want to stay on their old URL have been able to do so and we would talk to you before making that sort of change.
• I had hoped that by reducing the number of ads and improving the software, we could help make Gamewikis a better place for fans and that this would be a positive change and one that would improve the experience on the wiki.

I have been trying to work through the various issues raised and want to see if there is consensus about at least the issues

• Some people appear to be angry that Gravewit received compensation for this, or at least curious about how much.
• Others are trying to determine what exactly CC-NC-SA prohibits
• Some are angry that the site was not run by a company, although it was hosted by a commercial hosting facility paid for by Gravewit and will now be hosted by a different commercial hosting company. What I find a bit troubling is the notion that ads are ok if there's no profit. Once there are ads - it is a site with some commercial flavor to it. (Not sure that's a legal term)
• Others think Wikia is making lots of money from this. If the community has one volunteer who is designated by the admins, I will put them in touch with our accountants and they can hear directly from them that we lose lots of money every month. We hope over the long term that revenues will increase as we attract more passionate users, but for the moment, we are definitely not making a profit despite having over 4,000 wikis on Wikia. That is something I am happy to be super-transparent about.

If there are other issues I need to work through let me know, otherwise I will keep working on these three. I am going to try to be as transparent as I can here - so please continue to contact me if you see things we need to be talking about that we aren't.
Thanks,
Penchina 23:14, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

You are answering a lot of FAQs no one is asking, and failing to answer the one question that everyone wants answered: how much was Gravewit paid for this? Also, there is no uncertainty about what CC-NC prohibits. Just read clause 4(c). I am sure you don't need an army of lawyers to understand what "you may not exercise these rights ... in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation" means. Unless you are willing to publicly certify that Wikia will make zero profit from hosting the GuildWiki content, you are in breach of license. 193.52.24.125 23:24, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Gil, I think one thing we really want an answer to is whether or not this is a legal sale at all. And by answer, I mean a clear, legally sound reference to licensing law that states it's okay to sell a CC-NC-SA licensed site. Regardless of dollar figures, we at GuildWiki want to know that the integrity behind this "Non Commercial" license is still sound. Even though we're not lawyers some of us feel scammed. And we want a clear explanation of why this is. This statement:

"What I can tell you about the contract is that we acquired the domain name and did not ask for a copy of any CC-NC content as part of it. However we did acquire any commercial licenses or rights that came with the URL."

...is one thing that especially troubles us, where the muddy waters begin. What, exactly, does the purchase of the domain name entail? How much of GuildWiki was built up under the idea of being "non-profit", only to be later sold? What "commercial licenses or rights" came with the URL?

I realize and have seen it repeated many times, that "My contract doesn't permit discussion of this". But, at this point a lot of us want to hear every last little detail explained until our questions are answered. We want to get as close to the "Truth" as possible while you can still remain within bounds of your contract. It just seems that any time we get answers, they are vague, non-specific, generalized, and/or dodge around the question(s)/issue(s) involved. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:30, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I just want to say, Gil, thanks a lot for the response here, you have answered a few questions. But yes, like Entropy just said, there are still much more important questions that have been unanswered, and without those answers, the majority of the people posting here will still feel scammed and duped. A few users were closely involved in the very founding of this Wiki, yet only Gravewit is getting paid for this. How much you paid him you can't disclose, but you should at least be able to tell us if the sale was legal, what exactly you bought, and so on. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^

I can't answer every question overnight, but what I am saying is that we acquired the domain name as the primary asset. We specifically did not acquire anything under CC as it is freely licensed, but if there were trademarks or other commercial "things" we typically try to cover ourselves for that in a contract, as we never know. The purchase of a domain is pretty simple legally. What would be particularly helpful to me is if anyone can provide documentation that the site was DEFINED as a non-profit anywhere. I can't find any reference to non-profit, only CC-NC-SA on content. Similarly on the founding, if there were founders agreements, or anything like that. Otherwise, it being a wiki it's hard to really determine who created what value, as it really is a group effort. My understanding is that the asset (the domain) was purchased and paid for by gravewit. That said, I talked to him tonight and will be talking to him again on Tuesday as my goal is to try to get a close to making everyone happy as is humanly possible, while also trying to sort out the legal questions and provide max transparency during the process, with my continued apologies that it seems to move slower than some would prefer. We are looking at CC-NC-SA issues, but I hope you can take my word that as with everything else here, it seems to be more complicated than it looks at first glance. More on Tuesday I hope. Penchina 00:13, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

You are failing to see the point. Probably willful failure on your part, given the content of the leaked emails from the FFXI wiki episode. The domain and servers were paid for by donations (for the old site) and ad revenues (for the new site) that were gleaned from the CC licensed content. If GuildWiki was *not* a non-profit, then why was it busy profiting from non-profit CC licensed content? If GuildWiki was a non-profit then there are different laws in different states governing the acquisition of non-profits, the taxing of non-profits, etc. If GuildWiki was a non-profit, then were these laws followed, at least in spirit?

The only way we can know for sure is 100% transparency. The contract, specifically the compensation. An accounting of ad revenue prior to the selling of the domain and how it was spent. Is Gravewit an employee/contractor of Wikia, in the recent past or anticipated future?

(disclaimer: I remain Not A Lawyer. My words are equivalent to a monkey randomly shitting on a keyboard, as far as my expertise is concerned.)--24.206.111.186 01:54, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Gil mentioned earlier that "If the community has one volunteer who is designated by the admins". I can volunteer, though I think approval should be from the general community and not the admins in particular. Just to be up front with things, I am partial to Wikia's cause, and am currently an unpaid intern (since July of this year) working on gaming-related stuff with them. If you guys just want an in-between person for communication purposes, I shouldn't be a problem. But if any issues arise that requires negotiations and stuff, the more critical/skeptical members of the GuildWiki community may feel I shouldn't represent the GuildWiki community. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:30, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

People who are officially on Wikia's payroll would tell you exactly what is most convenient for Wikia to tell you, and that helps this situation how? --Dirigible 00:44, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

*Shrug* I am an unofficial intern who works for free. Didn't sign any paperwork with them whatsoever. They offered me university credit for it, but I have no use for that. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:53, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Also, by your logic, Gil's on Wikia's payroll. Wikia's accountant is on Wikia's payroll. An independent inspector would need to acquire Wikia's books from a person Wikia's payroll. So how does any communication help the situation? How does any communication with Anet via someone on Anet's payroll help any situation? -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:59, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

For what he is proposing to mean anything, we'd need to somehow trust the accountants that work for Gil more than we trust Gil himself (that's what he's saying, isn't it? "If you don't trust me, come ask our accountants"?) . I don't see why that would be the case. --Dirigible 01:03, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Oops, sorry, I didn't realize your comment was directed at the part of the sentence after where I quoted. I somehow had mistakened to think it was directed at me. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 01:08, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Community Issues, for Gil's benefit:Edit

Allow me to describe to you very precisely what our issues are, Gil. And I hope that we see a response from you in a timely fashion (unlike Gravewit) that actually answers the questions, not simply repeats then. I am a certified Toastmaster and trained public speaker and know a bit or two about "disarming" people and making people feel soothed and all that stuff. I strongly suggest you avoid these tactics and get down to business. I don't need you to make a post in which you repeat my points to make me feel like I have been heard. I need you to start addressing some of these issues so that we know that you care about "resolving" these issues, not sounding good while they still linger. I am sorry to put it bluntly to you, but ever since I contacted you, you have placed the same slogans followed by repeating what we have been saying.

With that blunt intro out of the way, here are the issues:

First Issue: Making money
How can Phil be making money out of this when the license says that this is a non-commercial community effort? The license specifically states that the content provided will not be used in any commercial endeavors. Now, the definition of commercial endeavor is not as murky or shady as you make it sound, Gil. The divider that the overwhelming majority of us see and that you don't seem to see is the for-profit vs non-profit status. In a for-profit scenario, the contributions of the users are used to generate money for investors, be they stockholders, private owners of the company (like Phil) or venture capitalist. This does not mean the money has to be made right away (so your point about Wikia not making money off of those $25,000 wikis it's purchasing is irrelevant). The issue is whether or not at any point the data will be used to generate revenue in the pockets of certain people. In a non-profit scenario, no matter how much money the establishment makes, the money stays in the organization, or is otherwise deposited into bank accounts and trust funds and what not for later use. A non-profit CAN hire people and pay them salary, but it cannot give them revenue. More importantly, the manager of a non-profit cannot "sell it" to another entity for cash/stock. You think the CEO of the Ford Foundation can sell it to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and deposit the cash into his own pocket?

Second Issue: Is this really a non-profit?
This site has touted itself as a non-profit since this edit by Tanaric. From that moment on, we told every editor in this community that we are accepting their edits "provided they are never used for a commercial purpose." I would qualify Phil's sale of the site to you as a "commercial act." One that is entirely and solely based on the success of this gaming community which is completely based on the individual contributions of thousands of people all of whom were promised that their contributions would not be used for commercial purposes.

On top of that, from day 1, the assumtpion (and sometimes the explicit mention, as Tanaric showed) was that this is a non-profit operating by donations and that the switch to ads was simply to make it self-sufficient. The fact that Phil actually ACCEPTED donations leaves no doubt that this was supposed to be a non-profit effort. Last I checked, businesses either take loans or investments, they don't ask for "donations."

Third Issue: He's not "selling" the data, just the domain name/hosting plan
This is probably one for the court system. There is no inherent value in the domain name and/or the hosting facilities if not for the contributions of those editors which we established were clearly made with the slogan: "No one will make a profit off your edits." You yourself said that you guys were adding a "community" not merely buying a domain name. There might be a legal technicality under which the purchase can be classified as not selling of the users' contributions and therefore not making money off of them. However, even if this is the case, making money off their contributions through the ads is clearly in violation of the license and the copyright notice. This means that even if you can prove your purchase of the domain name + hosting plan does not constitute Phil making a profit off of our contributions, your continued ad hosting (with the aim of making profits) and his prior ad hosting (from December 05 till now) both ARE violations of the terms of the license.

Then there's the issue of someone ELSE buying the name space (see Tanaric's open letter on Gravewit's talk page). Does that other person KNOW that the domain name HE purchased with his money is being sold for thousands of dollars now? Are you guys at Wikia sure you won't get sued by that person later on because Phil scammed him with the whole non-profit-but-for-profit deal?

Fourth Issue: Going beyond acceptance of the deal
I thikn all talk of whether Wikia is bad or good for this wiki and whether their management style, monobook.css and so o are better or worse should be pending on whether this purchase is legal to begin with and whether the RIGHT people were compensated.

Phil paying me back my $50 two years later and after the site's value has greatly increased seems like a pathetic attempt at pacifying us and at possibly avoiding legal consequences.

These are the main issues, Gil. I would love to hear from you (and possibly Jimbo) on these in a straight and productive conversation. Thanks. --Karlos 18:31, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Input from CreativeCommonsEdit

CC has refused to cmment on the specifics of the case, however, they provided me with this very handy tool for determining what constitutes commercial use: NC Guidelines

Read case (3) under section B (Advertising) and you'll see that both Gravewit's money making and Wikia's are disallowed under CC's license. --Karlos 20:04, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

To quote the link you posted (emphasis mine):

These guidelines are a discussion draft only. They are not finalized and they do not represent a definitive explanation of what "NonCommercial" means, in particular they do not represent a definitive statement as to what Creative Commons defines "NonCommercial" to mean.

The purpose of these guidelines is twofold: (1) to demonstrate that it may be possible to reconcile competing views about what NonCommercial means and to provide a flexible set of parameters within which people can understand the term; and, (2) to elicit feedback about whether these guidelines accurate reflect the community's (including both licensors and licensees) understanding of the term.

Additionally, I find it highly curious that while "Click-through ads" and "podcast ads" are explicitly used as examples, pop-up ads and banner ads (which are the two most prevalent forms of advertisements on the internet right now, by my reckoning) are left out. That is an indication to me that the CC folks haven't completely made up their minds about where pop-ups and banners fit in the picture. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 23:11, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Not exactly sure what you're arguing, but the podcast example fits this to a T. --Karlos 23:55, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

My points:

1. That link can't exactly be quoted to determine what is and isn't ok, due to the bolded parts of my quote.

2. Using podcast ad, which I feel to be a significantly more "clear cut violation", makes it hardI find the podcast example to be highly similar to the click-through ads in that you are forced to sequentially go through "Ad -> Content" order. On the other hand, banner ads do not impose that order. They are typically (not always) placed along the margin of the articles, and when a page loads you can directly go read the content and not spend any time to pay attention to the advertisement. Therefore I consider the banner ad case quite a less clear situation from the podcast example. Thus as an example, the podcast ad case failed to help clarify which side of the line banner ads reside. On the other hand, had CC declared that banner ads are in violation of NC, and since podcast ads is clearly (IMHO) a blacker situation, the "banner ads = bad" ruling can establish that podcast ads are also bad. So, that Discussion Draft's choice of picking podcast ad as example over banner ad suggests the CC community doesn't have a clear idea of the ruling on banner ads yet. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:41, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

This feels very ominous to me. Seems like if Big Business(tm) can just buy off enough "licensors and licensees", the "NonCommercial" license will become fully commercial, without anyone being the wiser. This gives Wikia the argumentative advantage again, imo... Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:17, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia has always had the advantage because the NC clause is substantially unclear and has never been litigated. BftP 00:58, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

BTW, the Talk page to the link Karlos posted may be worth a read too. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Talk:DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 23:19, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Incidentally, I have been following this without comment but I am going to be writing a paper for my computer science ethics course on the whole thing. Since you all are going to be primary sources, I'm going to be posting it in my userspace: User:JediRogue/Ethics. I've posted the proposal for my paper there where I think I mentioned most of the key issues and grievances. If there's stuff I am incorrect about or an issue I missed, feel free to comment on the talk page. Thanks for the topic. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 14:11, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi from Jimbo WalesEdit

Hey everybody, I am currently in South Africa promoting the growth of free culture in South Africa. I haven't had good Internet access and so I am sorry I was unable to comment earlier. I just wanted to give my personal assurances that we want to work with everyone to make things better, no problem. The issues raised here are complicated and interesting, but please rest assured that we don't intend to change anything unless you want things changed.

As Gil Penchina has said, but worth repeating from me: this wiki has had advertising for a long time, and our intention is to reduce the amount of advertising, not increase it, for sure. This wiki has more advertising on it than is typical for wikia. We want to offer you some new features and skins, but that's never mandatory. And as everyone knows from my work, the one thing that I think I do really well, and that Wikia does really well, is respect communities and work with people.

Of course the content is under a CC license, and will remain so the same as ever. The NC license does not mean that a wiki can't have advertising on it... any more than people uploading CC NC photos to flickr means flickr can't run ads. It means that no one can package up a book from the content and sell it, and that we can't charge people for access to the site. No problem there. In any event, our intention is to reduce the commercialism of the site, not increase it.

Beyond that, as for people's beef with Gravewit, I am sad to say that I really did not anticipate this or know anything about the history here. We will do what we can to make things right for people. I welcome people to email me personally at [email protected] so I can better understand the situation. Let me know what is your personal pain point, and let's see if there is a way to resolve it.--Jimbo Wales 03:24, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Note: I have moved the following anonymous edit by 89.243.250.113 at 01:21 on 23 September 2007 from its previous location after the third sentence of Jimbo Wales' comment above:

[Please see this article for further insight to this comment...]

This edit was likely inserted with the intent to make Wales look bad and if it had remained it could have easily been incorrectly interpreted as Wales' own words. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 03:26, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

I think the NC clause is substantially unclear, but I'm afraid we can't look to Flickr for the answers. The Yahoo! TOS states that "with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable... 9(b) [w]ith respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available." This is clearly more permissive than CC-NC, which states simply that the distributer may not profit, and also less permissive because CC-NC doesn't restrict distributers to use the content "solely for the purpose" for which it is submitted. I presume that when there is a conflict, the more permissive license wins. As to the matter of whether the words "primarily intended for" commercial purposes or private monetary compensation have any legal weight, I think we have to wait until CC-NC sees any litigation. I personally don't see a fundamental difference between selling a compilation of GuildWiki articles as a book or profiting from ads served on pages containing GuildWiki content. BftP 04:26, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for responding. I think Wikia stepped into a bad situation here. Here, Wikia is dealing with a single person (Gravewit) who was apparently not acting in good faith with you nor the GuildWiki community. And while Wikia's practice of essentially buying out wiki communities by heavily compensating the operators disturbs me, Gravewit's profit off of the contributors here is the issue that rankles more, at the moment. Wikia should have done some easy investigative steps first, like looking at Gravewit's contributions, comments, past actions, and general (lack of) participation and community-building. Wikis make that information easy to find, as you know. You would have discovered an absentee owner who barely contributes, and I think it's safe to say the general sentiment of the community here is that if anyone should profit from GuildWiki, it's not Gravewit. And it seems he may have pulled a fast one on the GW domain name itself, too. It's really too bad, because before the official Arenanet Guild Wars wiki launched, GuildWiki was a thriving community that provided excellent information. Had Gravewit been interested in the wiki rather than the money, it might have continued to thrive. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 05:09, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I believe the main points of contention are the secrecy, the lack of community input and CC-NC-SA related legal issues. If it was an ad-supported hosting deal with no money changing hands rather than a merger and there was community input before the deal was finalised, I believe the controversy would have been avoided. -- Gordon Ecker 05:24, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I hear you. I am not really the business guy, so I will leave that stuff to Gil to respond. For me, it's all about the communtiy: what do you guys need from us, how can we help? I'm really sorry there is trouble, we don't intend to do anything other than host you, help you, and do what we can to foster friendships and community. One of the things we are trying to do for our communities is to work with the game companies to get beta keys and things of that sort. I want what you want: a thriving community that provides excellent information. A lot of people have been talking about ownership of content and so on, but we don't at all think we own your content. One analogy I like to use is a bowling alley. We're providing a bowling alley here, you guy do the bowling. :) We just want to keep the lights on, the lanes clean, and the beer flowing for the party. :) Anything I can do to help, call on me. --Jimbo Wales 08:29, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Jimbo, I'll try to say this in the best way I can, but you are insulting our intelligence with such platitudes. The least you can do to placate the community is come clean on how much you paid Gravewit for the wiki, and make a promise to keep an open record of your ad revenue from the wiki. Lacking even this minimal show of faith in the community, we have to assume that we are dealing with a hostile entity. We did not spend years developing this wiki to make one person (Gravewit) or a group of strangers (Wikia) rich. BftP 08:59, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I hear what you are saying. I do not mean to be giving any platitudes! I am asking what people need here, and you are telling me. That's fine. I am not the business guy, so I don't even know those things from here, I'll leave those questions to Gil and the lawyers to work out. (We may not even be at liberty to announce the numbers on the purchase of the domain name.) Gil has offered to let one trusted member of the community look at the accounting... perhaps that person could be you, or?--Jimbo Wales 00:38, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't know what this "trusted" member is going to be doing. If he is gagged by NDAs from revealing anything except a sunny "yep, all OK", then, far from trusting his word, I would think that he has been bought off. Even if the community decides to take Gil up on his offer, I won't even bother running for this position of "trusted member": I don't trust myself to be incorruptible. I am sorry if this is becoming a drag on your time and your mission in South Africa, which I am sure is an awesome campaign promoting free culture, but I am also sure I don't need to point out the irony of your own company meanwhile trying to buy out wiki communities in secret. BftP 01:28, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Keep in mind, this wiki prospered in spite of Gravewit, NOT because of him. Despite your assurances of supporting this wiki and not wanting to get in the community's way - there is a huge backlog of bad feelings towards Gravewit. This bad feeling is going to make it hard for many to feel okay with continuing to contribute to a site where an absentee landlord (internet equivalent of a slumlord?) made a profit off the hard work of others. A few points to remember:

1. This wiki grew to what it is under the guildwiki.org domain name - while still unconfirmed, it's believed that Gravewit has never been the owner of that domain name - attempts have been made to contact the person to whom that domain is registered. However, after this wiki became hugely successful and he decided to attempt to build a multi-game wiki site, he moved everything to the domain he does own "gamewikis.org" - from which he could profit from the sale because he did own the domain.
2. While Gravewit is offering to refund donations (his post above, currently on this page), this is years after the fact. Those receiving refunds are being bought at at the amount they contributed - no interest and no share of the profit from the sale.
3. Even while under the domain name that Gravewit controlled, he relied heavilly upon volunteer labor to maintain and upgrade the servers. The site would've collapsed under its own weight long ago if not for the efforts of Fyren and a handful of others.
4. And on top of all this, we're still being asked to believe that Gravewit was struggling with the site finances. By his own words; at one point the ad revenue was enough to cover costs plus pay for an additional server. As a for-profit entity, Wikia would not be promising to reduce the ads if the current level was not already more than what's needed to cover costs plus get a profit.

It's not hard to understand why there's distrust of Wikia in this transition. Despite your assurances of a bright and happy future going forward, rather than support the community all posts by Wikia have glossed over the issues from Gravewit, supporting the myths he has attempted to spread. It's obvious that Wikia's sole goal is to gloss over these issues as quickly as possible, rather than trying to do what's right for the community and those who helped create it. --71.231.175.85 11:38, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I understand why people might have distrust, but we are here trying to dispel that. I don't intend to gloss over anything. And I certainly don't support any myths. I understand people are mad at Gravewit, and at least in my limited understanding here (please know that I really do respect that I am new to the situation) people have good reason to be mad at him. That's totally fine. I just want to make things right with you...--Jimbo Wales 00:38, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

"One of the things we are trying to do for our communities is to work with the game companies to get beta keys and things of that sort." Well, if ANet ever did that - which goes against their grain anyway - it won't be THIS wiki that gets it. There are no benefits for the community in this transfer, only benefits for Gravewit and Wikia.

Yeah, I found that line funny, too. Granted, Mr. Wales has no way of knowing how the Guild Wars community works. A.net actively wants people to use the official wiki -- so that it can become as accurate and complete as this wiki.

Well, I am in a good position to reach out to them to try to help you... in far better a position than Gravewit ever was. I am here to be your advocate. What do you want from them, and I can try to get it.--Jimbo Wales 00:38, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

There is little doubt in my mind that the devs are reading about this situation. There's threads on guru, on guild-hall, and probably other places as well. A.net passing out candy to the old GuildWiki makes a ton of sense. I think it's safe to say they loved GuildWiki. Who knows how they'll feel about the new GuildWikia. Since a.net has relationships with so many of the people wronged or otherwise pissed off by this transfer, it's a reasonable guess that they won't be as happy with GuildWikia as they were with GuildWiki.

Anyway, given the mass copyright infringement on this site, we should be petitioning Gaile to remove the fansite status. A community run fork would be a saner place to bear the specialty fansite badge.--24.206.111.186 13:17, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

A copyright license violation does not equal copyright infringement. Additionally, CC has been avoiding to address this case directly, instead referring us to a "discussion draft" that is "not finalized" and thus essentially useless. We probably need to get two dozen lawyers to debate this out. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 23:15, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I get that confidentiality is a standard clause for business contracts, especially for settlements and compensation, but seriously, while this might not be the ideal place to say it, could people stop acting like the Magical Contract Fairy flew down from the heavens and added the clause without your knowledge of it? Or whatever it is you're telling yourself happened, because both Gravewit, and Wikia are saying it like some dark force is binding them from speaking of it, and they're powerless to do anything about it. You MADE the contracts, and it's got to be within your rights as the creators of said contracts to come together and revise the clause of confidentiality. I mean, both parties are acting like their hands are tied behind their backs on this, but if both wanted to, revising the contract should be wholly feasible. The key words are of course, "Want to." You don't want people to know the money involved, and that's the whole reason it's not being stated. Not because a mystical force arbitrarily decided it couldn't be said. I have no problem with incorporating confidentiality clauses into contracts, but please, we're all grown people here. Could we not pretend it wasn't through your own actions that it was included, and through your own insistence that it is still in effect, and enforced? Is it that unreasonable a request for a little less, to be perfectly blunt, garbage? You're not running for a political office here.

To put it another way, a huge part of the issue is of feeling betrayed, deceived, BS'd, and kept out of the loop. Dancing around issues with pretty words does not help your case. It's nice to hear some responses, but we're at best marginally more informed about the situation than we were to begin with. Merengue 23:18, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Merengue, I totally understand what you are saying, but I am in South Africa at the moment, coming in here to try to understand what is going on. I am sorry that I haven't been able to help more yet. I will do what I can. I get on a plane later this evening to fly back to the US... and so I will be offline for about 24 hours. But I give you my word here: I work for you, and will work to get to the bottom of this and do my best for you. --Jimbo Wales 00:38, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

No personal insult to you, Jim, but you're slick as WD-40 with your replies, despite your claims to not wanting to "gloss over" things...Even if I were in your exact same position, having had limited time to read the debate here, not being "the one with the power to do X", et cetera, I think I could have given some sort of reply which contained one more iota of Answer to the Questions being asked.

"But I give you my word here: I work for you, and will work to get to the bottom of this and do my best for you." This is the exact same sort of (forgive my language) crap that you, Gil, and to a lesser extent Gravewit have been throwing at us as response to every issue or question. Granted that you have an honest excuse, bad Internet access, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time...but after another few days, it'll just be the same old broken record. If you truly "work for us", want to "get to the bottom of this", and "do your best for us", then I suggest you take a close read of all the relevant topics and discussion that's been posted. Yeah, Jim, it's a hell of a lot of dense material and interconnected links. But hey man, that's the price you pay for doing business, ain't it. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:49, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

I'll concede that it's a lot to read at this point, and the bulk of the writing will not further your understanding of the situation. I'll see about putting together a condensed report when I can get the time. (Edit: Ok, I definitely do not have the time for this at the moment. A liberal estimate would be Friday before I can even really start.) Merengue 09:19, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Entropy: I don't think I am being slick at all. I am being plain and honest with you and I hope you will continue to assume good faith here. We are feeling a bit beaten up here when we have done nothing wrong. :) We came into this situation in good faith and we are trying to do right by everyone. I am reading everything. Gil is working on it. I am sorry we can't resolve everything instantly. I welcome productive suggestions of what to do. (Someone else below made the suggestion to simply shut everything down, but uhhhh, I fail to see how that's helpful at all.) I think most users see that Wikia is absolutely not the bad guy here. We have acted in good faith to try to support this community, as we support many others. Simple as that. More forthcoming.--Jimbo Wales 00:16, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Jimbo: I believe the community would have significantly more faith in Wikia if Wikia hadn't shown itself to be deceptive during the purchase of the FFXI wiki. I'm not saying other companies are better. I'm not saying Gravewit is better. I'm just saying you can't expect a glorious reception as Wikia, the Saviors of the GuildWiki, because the situation is far from that.

Furthermore, I think you're all missing the point. You're using work we volunteered to make money. We volunteered this work under a license that specifically protects against this work being used in a commercial fashion. We don't care how slick your skins are, how savvy your tech support team is, or how fast the servers will be. We don't want you to make money off our contributions. Period. Ever. Nothing you can do can fix this fundamental problem with this acquisition.

—Tanaric 00:54, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Tanaric, does that mean you think the idea proposed here would not be satisfactory? It's something they can do (whether they will do or not is a different question, but if that's something you would accept, at least that opens a starting point for negotiations). -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 02:00, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

No. The benefit of having a network of wikis, like Wikia, is that traffic from one naturally bleeds over to traffic on another. This is profitable and against the terms of our license. —Tanaric 10:10, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

What makes the discussion difficult is that Gravewit has been doing essentially just that, on a smaller scale (the smaller Gamewikis network, some not NC). Just because Gravewit also did it doesn't legitimize things, but since a small handful of people ever really challenged Gravewit while the greater majority of the community were apathetic, it muddles the picture as to what our standard is. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:53, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

At the time, it was never explicitly states that the GameWikis were for-profit. And I was too dumb to notice that glaring inconsistency until just about now. —Tanaric 03:05, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Suggested Course of Action for Jim Wales, ver 1Edit

If you really want the beer to flow...

Step 1: Make a database dump available asap. Step 2: Close down gamewikis and guildwiki.org after a reasonable time. Either point the domains to your existing, crappy Guild Wars wiki or point them to nothing. (Tell us about how you bought guildwiki.org from the original owner so people can stop holding on to the fairy tale of getting that domain back? Cause I think that's how it went down, myself.) Step 4: Fire Gravewit. Call him names in a public forum. Make information about negotiations with Gravewit available to assist the community members looking to recoup their investment from Gravewit, in full proportion with his windfall, with interest and plenty of ass kissing. Invoke weird contractual clauses and DENY gravewit his stock options in October. Step 5: Revise your procedure for acquiring wikis to involve the afflicted communities, so that you don't end up with another situation like this or other fiascoes. BECAUSE IF SOMEONE HAD BLOODY WELL ASKED US, WE COULD HAVE WARNED YOU AHEAD OF TIME.

Duh. --me, 17th of September, 2007

"Of course the content is under a CC license, and will remain so the same as ever. The NC license does not mean that a wiki can't have advertising on it... any more than people uploading CC NC photos to flickr means flickr can't run ads. It means that no one can package up a book from the content and sell it, and that we can't charge people for access to the site. No problem there. In any event, our intention is to reduce the commercialism of the site, not increase it."

See, that's where you're wrong. Under the implied intentions of the license, you must not use it for commercial purposes. The thing is, advertisement is where it's "gray", but it's actually pretty clear under Wikia, where they're using it for a commercial purpose, if not directly then indirectly.

Here's another thing: If Wikia is not here for commercial purposes (and therefore legally allowed to recieve the DB dump), the public (that is, all contributors of the GuildWiki) must also be allowed to recieve the DB dump, as the Wikia "corp" should not be considered different than the average user attempting to help, and we should have the same rights. So, give us that DB dump. ~ Lutz 21:17, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

They have said they plan to make regular database dumps available. Biscuits 21:23, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

If someone asked me in advance, I would've said yes, but only after the legal issues are resolved. -- Gordon Ecker 00:08, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

As founder of PvXwiki I just want to say that making money on contribution made under CC license, it just turns it all up side down. The whole idea of the wiki is gone then. I don't like this, but at the same time I am happy that we at least saved some parts of this Great wiki on our forked wiki. PS I was hopping that at least some things in this world aint for sale. Gcardinal 09:30, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

If there is people out there who want to re-start this wiki, PvX are ready to provide servers and what its needed. Just as we did for builds. For free. Gcardinal 09:34, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I just want to say that I would support this 100%. PvXWiki is awesome. Please let's do this, guys. BftP 09:38, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

For us it will be no problem to get all servers ready, we have done it ones and have some experience. And if some of current admin will help there will be no problem. And as soon as new dumps are released we will get wiki online in matter of days. And if they will release dumps a few weeks old or something, we have special:export, wget... :P Its all possible. Wikis are community thing, made by the people for the people. free. Gcardinal 09:44, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

You don't need our permission for this. Go for it. —Tanaric 10:11, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I just want to make sure that this is what community wants. And there will be some admins to run it. But all the things like servers and so on will be no problem. Gcardinal 10:36, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I think you are going to make a lot of people happy if you do this. :) The main issues would be 1) lots of people wouldn't realise the wiki had moved, unless there was a prominent message on the front page (although if the community here wants that, it's possible, right?), and 2) This wiki would not shut down, so there would be two copies of the same data to confuse people. It also won't stop the fact that we were sold, but it would be a great way to refuse to work with the people that bought us without conferring first, and is the next best thing. Biscuits 11:41, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

With new money give away... well forking is just pointless at this point. With 60k$ guildwiki can make 1000 of forks them self :) Will be quite some financial power there, but in the end - money based. Fight for the admin place, "smelly" deals, behind the scene cash cutting... I am sure about one thing - I will keep pvxwiki cash free :) ps: if anyone needs any help to start a fork or a new game related wiki pvxwiki are there if hosting/help is needed. Gcardinal 13:54, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I think it would be cool for us to host a fork... We wouldn't need inter-wiki links anymore, lots of things would just be easier... But yeah, $60k is a lot of $, enough to run the servers for a looooong time. ~~ User:Frvwfr2 frvwfr2 (T/C) 14:20, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I think moving this to PvX is a fantastic idea. If I can do anything to help, I work from home and am available during the day EDT. Likai 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)LikaiKailla

What I'd like to see is a document explaining the complicated legal situation in both plain English and legalese. I'd be happy if Wikia spun off a non-profit foundation to for its' non-commercially licensed wikis. -- Gordon Ecker 19:33, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

The realitiesEdit

I really should just walk away, but I keep foolishly reloading this page every few hours. The current reality seems to be that Gravewit and/or Wikia will try to pay out those who donated to this site originally. Some are demanding interest on that donation---Karlos, for instance, suggests a 1000% return on his investment. Tanaric thinks that he was never paid a salary he was promised. Wikia will gladly buy such people off to shut them up; even $5,000 is peanuts. Far from solving the problem, we will just have more people profiting personally from a community work.

Does anyone realistically think Wikia will not win this? I don't.

To me, this is the end of the community. We have already allowed ourselves to be sold; a few are just haggling over the price. Maybe it is time.

Image:Inspirational Speech.jpg

This user contributed to GuildWiki before it sold out.

BftP 12:49, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I, for one, am going over to the official GW wiki to help there. t needs alot of work and with this issue I think its about to get a bunch more workers to work on it. I'll also be putting that userbox on my profile, lol. --Hawk SkeerImage:Hawkicon.png 13:16, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

"Does anyone realistically think Wikia will not win this?" Yes, I do. If the community decides to move to GWW, or even call it quits, Wikia will have lost. --Toxik 13:19, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia doesn't need this community. GuildWiki has such a high google pagerank that they can keep profiting for years by doing next to nothing. Plus, it would be monumentally stupid to misunderestimate the Wikia PR/marketing department, who haven't pulled out the big guns yet. BftP 14:12, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Before the "hostile takeover" I had never even heard of Wikia, so their PR/marketing department must be doing something wrong. --Toxik 15:38, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Hey man, there is no hostility here at all. Cut us some slack, please! We are not trying to do anything bad to anyone, and we are trying to figure out how to resolve the problems that Gravewit left to us. We are on YOUR side here and trying to figure out how to help.--Jimbo Wales 00:19, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I've heard of Wikia before. Back when they attempted to buy out Bulbapedia, which, by the way, is currently the largest Pokemon Wiki in action. But in that particular case, their offer was up-front and direct, and they were shot down by multiple admins and users. You can check that out here. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 16:02, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for that link. One thing that really stands out to me is the following: "On top of that, there's already a Pokémon wiki on Wikia, and it's terrible. The only good thing which could potentially come of the two being anywhere near each other would be that the other one might wither and die; and, well, while that might help us, it isn't really necessary." I really see a connection there. --Toxik 16:19, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Heh, I personally would never lend anyone with interest, it's against my belief system. :) I made a donation to a non-profit that turned out to be a commercial entity. Phil is choosing to rewrite my donation as a "loan" and I am choosing to rewrite my donation as an investment share. On what legal grounds does he posses the right to rewrite my donation as a loan? Simply because it suits him? It suits me more that we rewrite it as an investment. We'll see how this goes. --Karlos 18:35, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

I am afraid as long as you talk money, you dance to Wikia's tune. As I said earlier, if $500 or even $5,000 is all it will take to satiate you, Wikia will cough it up. Same with Tanaric. To Wikia, this whole thing reduces to just a money dispute between Gravewit, Tanaric and Karlos, and they will try to cut the Gordian knot with a sword made of cash. BftP 01:10, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, Gordon himself won't stand for that; it's obviously a copyright infringement! Seriously though - do you really think Karlos and Tanaric will just sit quietly on the sidelines even if/when they are "paid off"? I don't think so. Their interests in this issue run beyond the desire for mere monetary recompensation. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 01:13, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

DMCAEdit

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT To whom it may concern, 1. Detailed identity of the copyrighted work that I believe has been infringed upon. This includes identification of the web page or specific posts, as opposed to entire sites. Posts must be referenced by either the dates in which they appear or the permalink of the post The contents of contributors under the by-nc-sa/2.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/, license at the URLs http://gw.gamewikis.org http://guildwars.gamewikis.org http://www.guildwarswiki.com http://www.guildwiki.org

The company `Wikia`, www.wikia.com has recently purchased from the original holder Christian Phillip "Gravewit" Nelson, the transfer of all GameWikis URLs, the labour of a data dump of all wiki content and the discontinuation of hosting the sites. Licensed content of interest includes all edits from contributors that have not dual licensed their edits under a commercial license. The sheer size of the user database and number of anonymous contributors are in the tens of thousands and a complete list included in this document would be incomprehensible, instead a list of registered users is supplied, http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Listusers , anonymous edits are not recorded in a list but are recorded on individual article histories. Individual editors will not be singled out, so they will not be listed in this document.

Copyright infringement content includes:- All anonymous edits made to http://gw.gamewikis.org that have not specified their alternate license to be allowed for commercial gain. All registered edits made to http://gw.gamewikis.org that have not specified their alternate license to be allowed for commercial gain.

It is believed that Wikia is gaining monetary gain through providing advertisement, despite the clear indication that content they host is released under by-nc-sa/2.0 and may not be used for such. Wikia have refused to reveal any information to the contributors related to this subject and are believed to refuse access to this information in the future.

Referential material:-

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki:Wikia_Move http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki_talk:Wikia_Move http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki_talk:Wikia_Move/BY-NC-SA_vs_Site_advertisements http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Talk:Wikia_Move/Archive_1#A_for-profit_company_displaying_ads_over_the_content_isn.27t_commercial_use.3F

2. Identity of the material that I claim is infringing upon the copyrighted work listed.

Histories of article pages can be traced through individual articles history tab. If a user is under a dual license they will have it noted in their article edit comment or their user page.

3. Location of the author copyright notice (for information). http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki:Copyrights Or otherwise stated by in the contributors user page or edit comment.

4. Information to permit our company, the provider, to contact you. >Include here your email, fax or postal address to quickly get a feedback from the provider.

5. Statements I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by their registered copyright and by the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that these contributors are the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is infringed. Your signature >Signature of the author >Add your name here

A rough draft of a DMCA that can be used, individual copies can be adapted through reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#Exemptions. While I and others have waited patently for a number of days, it seems that Wikia intends to "ride this out". The license that most work at Gwiki is under by-nc-sa/2.0, this specifically states that contributions can not be used for monetary gain, until Wikia accepts this and puts this into practice, Wikia can not host the content. This is black and white. There are no "Others" that are trying to determine what exactly CC-NC-SA prohibits, hosting the Gwiki content in its current form is illegal. Do the moral thing contributors.

More information about DMCA. http://www.pixel2life.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20185

Submit this to GoDaddy.com, the provider of Gwiki. Details on where you can send it to are listed at https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/about.asp?ci=8921. 58.107.162.189 13:47, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Do NOT do this until we have gotten a copy of the database out. 193.52.24.125 13:57, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Bolded the entire thing, since the other way made it go off the page o-o The Imperialist

Can we really do this since they're keeping the BY-NC-SA license? 72.196.131.42 18:29, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

It doesn't matter what they say they're doing if it's not being upheld, which is the question at hand. Merengue 18:40, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

It would be the same as keeping the copyright on the McDonald's logo, then scribbling all over it and using it as my own company's logo. Doesn't matter that I kept the copyright, because I didn't actually follow it. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 19:45, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

From the attitude of certain people here it appears that it doesn't matter if Wikia uphold the license, those people are going ahead with the DMCA before Wikia even makes up its mind on what to do with any ad revenue (if a commercial company doesn't keep the advertisement money for themselves then the NC clause would still be upheld. And the data is public so you really have no grounds to claim Gravewit sold the NC content). -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 02:50, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

So who has the ability to grab the data? And can it be done soon, as I am intending to file DMCA takedown notice within 24 hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.75 (contribs) .

Talk to Fyren. If anyone could do it, he could. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 02:39, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

We will have a dump at least by the time the wiki is locked for moving. -Auron 02:46, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Who the hell are you anyway? I doubt you have any kind of standing. Your contribution list is empty except for your comment here. 193.52.24.125 02:47, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Standing? Maybe if I was a founder contributor, then, I would somehow have this mythical "standing" to which you refer. Someone like Gravewit, perhaps? now, HE has standing, eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.75 (contribs) .

GW:AGF please. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 02:48, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Threatening to shut the wiki down is not good faith. 193.52.24.125 02:49, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Wake up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.75 (contribs) .

[personal attack remove] This community has more important things to deal with than DMCA trolls. 193.52.24.125 03:00, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Comment has been edited to remove a personal attack. Please observe GW:NPA. BftP 04:58, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

Everyone should go to bed and sleep on the issue. Come back in the morning. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:04, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

(restting indent) Erm... wait to see what Wikia's intending, at least for a few more days, 2 maybe? The Imperialist

Copy of the contract available?Edit

Can a copy of the contract between Wikia and Gravewit, minus whatever information the contract forbids to reveal (such as the dollar amount), be made available? I am highly curious as to the exact wording. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 23:00, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

Wish You Were HereEdit

Can't really join in the discussion, or answer any questions right now... Its Marguerita time!!!! Phil'n'Gil 02:46, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Pffft! ;-D Biscuits 04:06, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Let the Bacardi Cola roll!! —ShadyGuy 04:11, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Change to Deal & TermsEdit

Wow, how much have I missed? Might as well put in my 2 cents now before I go back to real life.

Actually, from remembering the past and now this, it seems that something of this nature has been in the works for a long time now. I remember that I was even offered to help make gamewikis.org profitable and get into it, though not by Phil. At least I'm not aware he knew anything about the conversation the individual and myself had.

I came in after donations were eradicated, so I can't say anything regarding compensation, except for man hours put into the project, but it was fun, so I did it without any thought of commendations or compensation. I say let those that are jaded regarding money get what seems fair, and give the rest to charity. This was a non-profit venture when it started. Not sure what will happen now, but it seems that it would be fitting that a real non-profit company and those individuals that charity helps to benefit from Wikia's "hush money". Sorry, had to say it. — Gares 13:58, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

I've replied to Gravewit directly on his talk page. The question is now, what to do with this money? My initial thoughts:

1. Kick a chunk ($4000? more?) over to GCardinal to help defray hosting costs, if he hosts a fork.
2. Return all donations at four times (more? less?) the original amount -- allow a six-month grace period for this. We can get lists of donors from Gravewit, presumably.
3. Whatever's left, split the rest among the sysop team proportionally, based upon how long they've actively been sysops.

I'm sure there are more ways to spend this, though. What do you guys think?

(there are certain things I think it's best to not discuss until we actually have the money)

—Tanaric 14:05, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Split the money among the sysops?! Are you mad? I think I am fully disillusioned now. BftP 14:32, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

If the community decides to accept the cash, donors are being repayed by Gravewit anyway. As for the suggestion of repaying more than they *freely gifted never expecting cash payback*... I disagree, as in that case all who *freely contributed edits never expecting payment* should be revising their positions, too: what is the current going-rate for researcher/writer's of technical manuals..?

...with the goal that those sysops would then come together to sue Wikia. I had hoped I wouldn't need to spell that out. —Tanaric 14:36, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

That said, now that I think about it, the only way the GuildWiki will get any money is if we sign a paper saying we won't sue Wikia, so maybe that's a bad idea.

Any other plans?

—Tanaric 14:37, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Blah, I'd rather spend it on setting up an independent foundation to manage the fork (wouldn't mind if GCardinal chairs the foundation initially). Any wiki run by private individuals run the risk of the key individuals getting hit by a truck and stop paying the bills (and not notifying others to cover it)... or risk those individuals eventually pull a Gravewit. A WikiMedia-style foundation minimizes that risk, IMHO. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 17:06, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

haha according to one source (http://leapfish.com/domain_name_appraisal.php?url=gw.gamewikis.org) you're domain is worth $24,795.00! first thing i'd do is buy a better CPU :D --Foxx

"the majority of the cash portion from our original contract .... in the neighbourhood of about $62,000 USD". So if $62,000 is the majority of the cash portion, we're talking in the neighborhood of $100,000 cash in the original deal, and most likely more than that in stock. Even if the original deal was equal parts cash and stock (unlikely), Phil could still be making around $140,000 here. If the stock options to cash ratio is more like the 180:25 suggested by the FFXI deal described above ([2]), that's very nearly $1 million worth that Phil's getting. Not much surprise both sides are willing to toss $62,000 to the community to get this deal through trouble-free. Besides most of the things the community could agree on to use the money (better servers, better connection, buying up the adspace for X months for no ads, paying off the loud dissenters) might just as well be money back in Wikia's own pocket. The official wiki, as always, is prepared to welcome refugees with open arms. A lot of familiar faces are already there anyway. - 71.224.123.149 21:42, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

It wouldn't surprise me if the cash is coming out of Wikia's pocket, and Gravewit retaining his original deal in full. Plus, his job with Wikia, if such a thing exists. Full disclosure of compensation is needed before intelligent decisions can be made.--24.206.111.186 00:24, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Foxx: According to that website, my personal domain (http://tanatopia.net) is worth $12,685. I'd take its claims with a grain of salt. —Tanaric 00:40, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

LOL, a friend of mine's site comes up at 40 bucks, so it's fairly accurate. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 00:44, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Well christ. Uh... hey Wikia, want to buy my domain too? —Tanaric 03:07, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Lol, crazy huh, a forum for CSS is worth around 120K, i go there daily :p --Foxx

Well that message from gravewit looked forced and totally out of character for him. Just wondering if I am mixing up histories. At one point didnt Gravewit say the money he was acquiring from Wikia was not much and just enough to cover costs, i thought it was mentioned on the Wikia Move article but i must be wrong because it isnt there or in the history. -- Xeon 14:14, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

All the previous Gravewit apologies were written primarily by me -- I have no doubt that this one was written primarly by Gil. —Tanaric 14:37, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking more, nominate 4-10 charities/NPOs and vote as to which one each person wants, and split the money up accordingly (only open to users pre-announcement). Ideally all the money going to this, after refunding 1:1 that given by people to pay the bills/etc (any more than 1:1 would be making a profit), including Gravewit's costs (not reimbursing for 'time'). Since surely, if we can have some good come of our work, that's a great thing, where the only profit is a warm fuzzy feeling. --Nela 13:04, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Uh, I usually make at least $20 an hour, so unless I'm given more than $20 x (thousands of man-hours I've put in), I'm not making a profit. —Tanaric 16:16, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

<sarcasm>Sorry my fault didn't know 'guildwiki' was a co-operative company run for the benefit of it's employees.</sarcasm> --Nela 18:31, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Even non-profit organizations have employees that are paid for their time. Non-profit doesn't mean no-income. I'm not saying that you people owe me money or that I deserve a cut of the $62k, I'm just saying that your implication that being compensated for your time is evil is totally wrong. —Tanaric 19:20, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest it's evil, just got a little defensive... were unlikely to know how much is being made from this, and just the admin involved with splitting it between everyone equally would be a nightmare, both to calculate what someone's real contribution to the project is, and then sorting out the details, identies and sending money to a lot of wiki users, so just skipping the option entirely is somewhat easier. --Nela 03:28, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

GuildWiki.org / Community LeadersEdit

I'm in contact with Tabor. He will point the guildwiki.org URL to where the community resides.

If you need somebody to direct and lead a permanent fork movement, well... consider this my application for bureaucrat/community leader status. I'd be doing the same job I did before, but this time, my power would stem from you, instead of from Gravewit. Let me know if this is what you prefer -- I'm happy to serve in this role if the community wishes it.

—Tanaric 00:14, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Addendum:

If you'd rather not have me, I completely understand -- I don't know if I'd support me for something like this. In any case, we, as a community, need to come up with somebody to be the point man in the short term. PanSola suggested setting up a commission or a committee -- this makes sense to me too, as long as there's some obvious leadership for the wiki. Right now we're headless, and this puts us in an incredibly poor negotiating position.

—Tanaric 00:17, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally support you in this field. Having multiple "leaders" would also be a great way to go, I think; for anyone who doesn't like the idea of all their eggs in one basket (or basketcase, depending on the situation). --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 00:38, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

The term I actually used was "foundation". d-: It's significantly different than a "committee", in the sense that the foundation would have legal ownership of the fork. Nobody will be writing personal checks to hosting services, the check will come from the foundation. Any donation of money would go towards the bank account of the foundation, instead of a private individual. If advertisement income is allowed to pay for costs as long as no "profit" is generated (excess cash beyond a set amount of contingency fund would be donated or use for the community), that income goes directly to the foundation's bank account. The leadership positions of the foundation will be determined by the community of the fork (I don't quite want to equate "the GuildWiki community" with "the fork"). -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 01:12, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about that, Pan. My misquote was due to excitement about the domain name, not any intentional misrepresentation.

A foundation is a good idea, but there are something things to be cleared up:

1. Why start a foundation for a fork of a wiki that's already essentially been forked? Will the wiki last long enough to justify it?
2. If we decide it won't, what more could the foundation do? A new GameWikis, except non-profit this time? Do we really want to compete with Wikia either way?
3. How does one legally set up a foundation? Who is in charge of this, and what position does that founder play in the hierarchy of the new foundation?
4. Can we do this quickly enough to get a check from Wikia?
5. ...are we ever actually going to see this money anyway...?

—Tanaric 01:31, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

1. . Um, your questions is unclear to me. Basically, on the premise that if there is going to be "a permanent fork movement", then I believe the fork should be managed/owned by a foundation instead of being personally managed/owned by a person. If the forked wiki is not gonna last long anyways, then I don't see the justification of creating it in the first place. But if it's gonna get created, then I think it should be managed by a foundation.
2. . Again not sure what you mean. The sole purpose of existence for the foundation is going to be to own and manage the fork. If no one end up creating a fork, then there's no need for the foundation.
3. . I'm not a lawyer. I would say the founder should be the grandfather chair of the foundation, until new ones are elected/selected by the foundation's constitution.
4. . Well, if the GuildWiki community says "we want to save this much of the money promised by Wikia for the fork's foundation", I would trust Wikia to hold on to that portion of the money until the foundation gets created, so I don't see any hard deadline (of course the sooner the better).
5. . I'm in the mood to be optimistic.

ps. I think part of the confusion in your question and my answer stems from the fact that you labeled this section as "GuildWiki.org / Community Leaders", but the two paragraphs you wrote were about applying to be the leader of the fork. As I consider the GuildWiki community this current community we have, and I think the fork will end up splitting the GuildWiki community, I do not equate being the leader of the fork's community as being the leader of the current overall GuildWiki community. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 02:13, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

If the fork will split the community, it's doomed to fail -- this community has already been split by the official wiki. That's why I'm hesitant to support a foundation -- I don't see the point in establishing a foundations for a community that's likely to dwindle and die over the next year or two.

Then again, if we get the money and intend to fork the entire community over, it'd involve some sort of consensus-bearing wipe here, similar to the builds wipe, except with links to the new content (with the new domain name) left behind in its wake. This requires someone with a role similar to mine to implement, if only to deal with Wikia when they "What the fuck, you can't do that, we just paid $300,000 for this." In such a case, the leader of "GuildWikia" will end up being the leader of the forked GuildWiki, too.

—Tanaric 02:23, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I see as much point creating a foundation for a wiki that might dwindle and die in a year or two as creating that wiki in the first place. If a fork gets created, I want to make sure its finances isn't controlled by a private person. Otherwise it would betray the principles behind the fork. As an individual, I might trust you with my life, but I still don't want you (or any other private individual) to be paying for the fork's bandwidth/server out of your own pocket, and have donations/revenue for the fork to go into your pocket. If there's going to be a fork, the people involved in the fork needs to show they've learned a lesson from this incident, and structurally have a way to prevent history from repeating itself. Right now, the only way I can perceive this happening is if a foundation is established for it.

I also don't see how a "content-wipe" would work. Instead of Wikia saying "WTF you can't do that", they'll just revert the wipe. And if we are immature enough to go play a revert war on their server, we'd just get banned for it. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:08, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, with the cash offer now tossed in the hat, Wikia have achieved their objective. We are no longer focused on some of the fundamental issues here, we are instead haggling over who get's what and where to spend our hush money. The fact remains that all of our NC-by-sa contributions made Gravewit a wealthy individual and are subsequently going to be used to make Wikia wealthier. Something that *seemed* to be at the heart of the matter is now hidden under a pile of grubby dollar bills. Call me cynical, but this is possibly exactly what Wikia wanted to happen, and what several of us warned would happen. The only difference between a crack whore and a high class escort is the sum of money that changes hands... Are all of our previous discussions really just a veiled haggling process?

I imagine Gravewit's sale of the domain is legal -- or at least legal enough to make suing him unrealistic. Wikia is another matter entirely -- but for us to get the money we'd need to sue them, we (the GuildWiki foundation) will have to sign something saying we agree not to sue. The only way to sue Wikia with their money is to distribute that money to contributors and hope they individually donate for a lawyer, without them being involved with this hypothetical foundation. —Tanaric 03:02, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually I don't think a foundation created after the sale would be in a position to sue Wikia. What you need is probably a class action suit from individual contributors of GuildWiki. The foundation idea I have should only be useful for the management and ownership of any fork that a portion of the community end up creating. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:17, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we should then accept that we've got almost as far as we can short of DMCA. If there is no stomach for DMCA and if there are concerns now that a fork would wither on the vine, then we either abandon this wiki for OfficialWiki, or we take the hush money and carry on here. The 60k seems to have knocked the wind out of the sails somewhat - as it was intended to - and short of the possibility of setting up some kind of foundation to manage that cash, we have no concrete plans and are no further forward. Do we set up a GuildWiki foundation and stay here? I'm not keen on the idea of the cash being distributed to a few contributors and us then relying on their "good citizenship" to do something useful with it... the evidence, this mess we're in now, should ring alarm bells for everyone with regard to people "doing the right thing" when there are greenbacks involved... If we take the cash, then we should accept it in good grace and go back to wikiing. The foundation should maintain transparent, publicly accessible records of its ledgers, and it should be used only for the benefit of the GuildWiki community here, not dished out in thank you cards and to repay donations: Gravewit says that he is taking care of that (read: Wikia is taking care of that) separately to this cash.

What the hell are we going to do with the money? All of our servers and hosting costs are already paid for by Wikia. Channeling it to third parties -- whether for forks, for legal fees, or for compensation for time spent -- is the only thing we can meaningfully do with it. —Tanaric 10:22, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree. It would be absurd to give the funds to Wikia to maintain those servers. Of the remaining options, I'm against paying out compensation for time spent - Gravewit has already sold-out his ideals, and I see no benefit in encouraging others to do the same. As for legal fees, to what end? Even if we win the legal case, it would use up any funds that could potentially be used towards establishing a new wiki. The only two real alternatives that I see are to either use the funds to create a fork of the wiki content on its own servers; or to donate the funds to a charitable cause, but the number of options for that one will again end in endless debate - donate to a legal fund? a medical cause (which one)? an open source technology project (again, which one)? In the end, any donations would be split between so many options as to again be minimal to each, and someone would be bound to complain that their preference got left out or short changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

What about taking the money, create a foundation as discussed above, and make a GuildWars 2 wiki, complete with servers and everything owned by the foundation? I for one cannot, in good faith, contribute any more to this wiki, now that it has openly been sold out in such a ethically disgusting way. Leave this tainted mess to Wikia unless you want to go into a full legal war with them, but not before squeezing them for whatever you can, and let people vote with their feet whether they want to support the official wiki or the new old GuildWiki. Write this off as a painful learning experience (and possibly listen to Karlos when he smells something fishy). Try to gather as many of the veterans and make them admins on the GW2 wiki if they so choose. I have never taken much interest in the community matters, just trying to improve and gain insight from the wiki, but I have the highest opinion about every single one of the people that actually ran this place as elected admins and, of course, Fyren as server admin. Make a fresh start as ANet does with GW2, and minimize the chance that any of this can happen again. --Image:Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Do we know whether Anet has plans for an official GW2 wiki or not? -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 17:43, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

From the last discussion where this issue was raised with ANet people, yes, there'll be an official GW2 wiki. --Dirigible 18:15, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

I think it's a safe bet there'll be a GWW2. If ANet wants people to use a certain service, they are not shy of promoting it with insistence (see official online store), but, as far as I can tell, they are and have always been up-front about it and they don't work with dirty tricks. They just have enough muscle for not having to resort to this kind of behaviour, and once they have momentum, they are not likely to lose it. How much would ANet have to screw up to drive people away from their official wiki once people settle there? No ads, a hail-storm of official promotion, exclusive contributions of high-ranking ANet staff members, and sometimes game update notices and news before they even appear on guildwars.com. These and probably more I've missed are all speaking strongly in favor of the official wiki. As long as they are content with providing the hosting and do not interfere with wiki policy, I can't think of a reason why people would prefer an independent wiki. Server features might be an issue, but could you imagine anything being off-limits for discussion and implementation on GWW? I also couldn't think of a reason why the admin staff of this wiki would not follow the community where it wants to go, as long as they want to contribute meaningfully.

Anyway, thanks for your simple question. It led me to realize that GuildWiki's time is probably over, no matter what will come of this current mess. GWW is catching up rapidly, even though it might never reach the amount of content about pre-GW:EN campaigns that GuildWiki has. But for GW2 and the future, I don't see how another wiki could provide enough incentive to compete with the official wiki or why this would even be desirable on the whole. As for pre-GW:EN content, we shall see for how long GuildWiki will remain the "authorative" and most complete source of info, but all in all, it looks to me like GuildWiki's history is as complete as is that of the game GuildWars 1. The end, as far as we can speak of it as such, could and should have been heralded more gracefully than this, but either way it's time to move on. I can only hope, if GuildWiki's name and reputation remains in Wikia's hands, that this mess hurt GuildWiki's momentum enough to make it insignificant in comparison to GWW2. As for the original question what to do with the money, GuildWiki2 was my best shot. --Image:Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Money was actually not part of the original question... -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:35, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Well said. I agree on all points. I also agree with Barek above; this money offered by Wikia is pure poison. Don't accept it! For a company that claims to be building communities, Wikia is adept at destroying them. Starting a GuildWiki foundation now is a waste of effort. It makes more sense to set up up a larger gaming wikis foundation, but you will just end up with a soul crushing competition with Wikia, who have a huge lead. I urge people to get some perspective. Most of us are here because we care mainly about Guild Wars. In that respect, ArenaNet's actions have snsured that Guild Wars is immune to parasitic companies like Wikia. I hope more gaming companies are taking notes: run your own wiki and keep your loyal playerbase close. As for community leaders, I detest the ritual fellation of the admins by the rest of the users. Besides, some have been wearing their admin hats for so long, their heads are the size of small planets. No offense to Tanaric, but we don't need 'community leaders'. We definitely don't need to elect ourselves a panel of wiki elders to guide us with their 'vision'. A wiki is one of the few contexts where anarchy can actually work; down with guv'mints! 193.52.24.125 21:25, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Anarchy does not work on wiki, especially not in a case like this. That you believe it does is completely incomprehensible to me, and I don't know how to begin to respond to that. —Tanaric 20:21, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Am I the only person that is sitting here thinking you all are acting like a bunch of whining idiots? I mean seriously, who cares? The official wiki will soon be better than this one will be anyway, and many people use only the official wiki now regardless. And to be honest, I am all for good ole capitalism. I am American, so sue me. If Gravewit made some cash off this project, then good for him. I salute him for taking what many may consider a really low-key website into a way to bring in some bucks. Kudos for him.

Now stop whining like 2 yr old babies that lost your pacifiers. - Lord Xivor 03:48, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Being blunt and opinionated is one thing, being uninformed, insulting, and unable to contribute to the discussion is another entirely. --Image:Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, I do recall posting in this talk page. Would posting my thoughts, just like everyone else, be considered contributing, just as much as the next guy that has posted on this page? I apologize that my opinions are not a good enough contribution to you. Maybe I should be act like a robot and uniformly agree with everyone here just because you all feel the way you do. Nah, never mind. Instead, since everyone else here is allowed to and encouraged to have their own opinions, then I surely am going to have mine. Just because I think along these lines does not mean I am uninformed. I have read every single ounce on this topic on just about every page available on this site. Disagreeing does not equal uninformed. - Lord Xivor 04:09, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh really, do you recall that? Your user contribution page does not. Half of your post I replied to were insults anyway, so that alone disqualifies you for meaningful discussion. --Image:Roland icon.pngRoland of Gilead (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

So my opinions do not matter because I do not splatter this website with information on a day to day basis? Because I don't have 14 million contributions means my thoughts are worth nothing? Sorry bro, this is where you are mistaken. In the world I live in, my opinions are not based upon how many pages I edit or how many words I type. Fact of the matter is, you all whine too much. Plain and simple. But then again, if everyone here has the same shallowness in their mentality as you do, I guess I can only expect it. - Lord Xivor 07:46, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

(reset) This is far more then just guildwiki. Someone use information that people gives under CC by-nc-sa to make money. Some people say, well the stuff stay free but to me it's like giving to a conservation fund to by land to protect it and then found out that the leader of the project resold the land to make money. Even if that park stay free, ain't it wrong that someone made profit out of this.—├ Aratak ┤ 08:18, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Not really. I mean, I would have gladly have used a website like this to make a profit. Welcome to the capitalistic world. In fact, I almost am upset that I didn't think of it first. Do not get me wrong, I understand your frustration. But its just text on a page that you all put down in your free time. It is not like you got paid doing it. And, it was his website to start with...or at least had the majority of the ownership. In my mind, he has every right to do as he pleased with it. - Lord Xivor 08:51, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Please read a bit more about this. He doesn't own anything. The license says exactly that. Nobody would have donated time if this wasn't a non profit cause. Wikia have the right to start a branch of Guildwiki with the same info has long has the license is the same but nobody would have move there if this site was up. What they did is they have bought Gravewit to make the community move without incident. People don't change habit fast so wikia plan on keeping an adresse they know to redirect them to theirs. This is my interpretation however and their a lot more legal stuff under this that I don't understand. —├ Aratak ┤ 08:56, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Let's donate all the money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We can tell our story at the same time, and maybe get some press and a sympathetic lawyer. —Tanaric 10:43, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Can i suggest we move all discussions about this issue to a site not hosted by either Gravewit or Wikia. -- Xeon 10:51, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Refuse the money and walk away. We have already gotten the most attention we need with the Slashdot story. We are not going to get lawyers interested here because what Gravewit did really isn't uncommon or that big a deal. Worse atrocities are being perpetrated against free software every day and the EFF have their hands full. This wiki is not art or literature; it's just a glorified FAQ for a video game. Any further attention we get is not likely to be positive. Just write this wiki off as a lesson learned about trusting random internet people to share your ideals. 193.52.24.125 11:38, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Nobody gives a shit about Slashdot. If nothing else, we can channel money to a good cause. —Tanaric 11:50, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Nobody gives a shit about GuildWiki either. Fewer nobodies than those that give a shit about Slashdot, I might add. Do you want the press to report that "Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales donates $62,000 to the EFF"? Because I guarantee that you are not going to be getting center stage. 193.52.24.125 11:57, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Better that then Wikia keeping the money. —Tanaric 12:26, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Would it be legal for us to use the money Wikia gave us to pay for the first few months of server costs for the "New Wiki" while the foundation etc. are set up? I think that would be a good use of money if anybody supports it... The Imperialist 19:57, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

The money is chump change. It is designed only to distract. It appears from your fixation on it that you have already essentially agreed to the "sale", so Wikia has achieved its goal. I am really starting to wonder if you really understand the problem with the sale, or whether you are just bummed that Wikia dealt solely with Gravewit. 193.52.24.125 11:09, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Anon, we can accept and use the money while still filing a class-action lawsuit against Wikia. If whoever ends up accepting the money on behalf of GuildWiki reads the contract and finds it to be too restrictive, we can then decline it. There is no reason not to plan for usages of it while still raging against their breach of our license.

They are not buying our content, because they cannot buy our content.

—Tanaric 13:19, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

If you still want to pursue the foolishness of a class action suit, at least do it with your eyes open. Legally, we probably don't have a case. Remember that no CC license has ever seen litigation. Even CC themselves are unsure what the NC clause entails. I hope you know some good lawyers. 193.52.24.125 01:34, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

So the Creative Commons doesn't even know what their own damn license means? O_o -- Gordon Ecker 01:54, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

According to my understanding, it is more accurate to say that the Creative Commons internally disagrees as to what the license means. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:20, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Anon, don't misunderstand. I think a class-action lawsuit is doomed to failure. I think a fork is doomed to failure. This is why I initially suggested splitting the money among the admins -- it's better then everybody getting $2, and it provides some reward to those people who who spent disproportionate amounts of time working on the site. It's not that I think that sysops/bureaucrats deserve or are owed any money by Wikia -- it's that, well, if we're getting the money, what the fuck else can we meaningfully do with it? —Tanaric 15:27, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Raffle prizes (copies of Direct Song music upgrades for GuildWars, copies of GW2, etc) to people who non-trivially contributed to at least one of the improvement projects? Current, future, and past admins may not participate in the raffle. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:36, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

You can refuse the money. But feel free to put it in your own pocket instead. It is clear to me that the difference between you and Gravewit is one of degree, not kind. Enjoy your earnings. 193.52.24.125 17:48, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

I wouldn't do that without community consensus. I don't care what you think my motivations are, though -- I don't believe I've ever earned that sort of remark, so I'm happy enough to ignore it. I'll say this, though -- I personally refuse to directly accept any share of the ~$62,000 that Gravewit intends to set aside for the community. I still think it should be split among the admins. Does that make my standpoint more palatable?

I don't see why refusing the money is helpful -- would you care to explain that one to us, since you continually suggest it?

PanSola, why should the sysop pool be cut out? They're the people who have worked hardest for this wiki to be successful. To deny them an equal portion is folly.

As far as a raffle or something similar goes, that'll take a lot of manpower. I'd be happier with a charity-oriented solution than something that intensive.

—Tanaric 20:18, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

I have two options in mind:

• Donate to a suitable cause. The Electornic Frontier Foundation taht Tanaric suggested looks pretty good, but I'd like to know of any similiar possibilities before deciding.
• Share the money to the contributors who held the wiki together. This includes: 1) Those who were there to create the basis for the wiki 2) Those who have been in a big role with important policy and formatting decussions 3) Those who did a super lot of work (includes some people who have done very very very high amounts of stuff and former and current bureaucrats and sysops) Most of the three points include same people, but that's just more of a reason to divide the cash to them. They've really earned it even if they originially were into this for free.

Not accepting the money is just dumb. How would that help the community in any way? -- Gem (gem / talk) 08:01, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

To Tanaric: I remain highly suspicious of your motives, but since you asked, and despite having already explained it above, here again is why we should refuse the money: it is Wikia's blitz campaign to come out of this smelling like roses. We take the money and Wikia immediately becomes the good guys. Donating to a charity seems noble enough until you realize that the donation will come from Wikia, not from the GuildWiki contributors. No one will care about our side- against Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, paragon of freedom, philanthrophist extraordinaire, and all round media darling, the mundane story of a bunch of petulant and self-aggrandizing gamers, snot-nosed and parent's-basement-dwelling all, will be entirely ignored. You seem to want to attract more outside attention to this illegal sale, so I am surprised at your unsavviness with regard to money and your readiness to cede ground. I don't have any desire to become Wikia's bitch, myself. 193.52.24.125 21:16, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

The guildwiki.org domain nameEdit

In the previous section, Tanaric said, "I'm in contact with Tabor. He will point the guildwiki.org URL to where the community resides." Does this mean that the domain name is NOT under the control of Gravewit nor Wikia? WHOIS still indicates Tabor Wells as the administrator. IF that is correct, and Wikia did not buy the domain (because Gravewit didn't own it), then there are several crucial questions to answer right away:

What will happen to ownership of the domain in the future?

Might Wikia try to buy it from Tabor Wells? Might he sell it if they throw large amounts of money at him?

Who will Tabor listen to in terms of where to point the domain?

How important is the guildwiki.org domain? How much does the domain help determine the success of whatever fork of GuildWiki the domain points to?

If the answers are that Tabor does own the domain and is not going to sell to Wikia, and that the domain is important, then I'd suggest a serious discussion about whether the Wikia hush money should be used to try to secure ownership of the domain. Whether that's by a negotiated purchase from Tabor or some other business arrangement with him (eg including him as a director of a foundation); something to prevent its future acquisition by Wikia and its use by the non-Wikia fork of the GuildWiki community (unless the community decides that Wikia acquisition is what they want). Also, Tanaric, if you're still in touch with Tabor, you might want to see if he has made sure that no one else has access to the domain's setup or adminstration at the registrar. Even folks like Fyren or Nunix. Just to be safe. And again, all my points here hinge on the true status of the domain; if Wikia actually owns it now, well... that's that. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 05:39, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Goes for guildwiki.net and guildwarswiki.com and .org too, and anything else Tabor registered that Wikia may or may not now own. FYI, guildwiki.com, which points to a holding page, is privacy-protected so can't tell who the admin/owner is. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 06:26, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Tabor mentioned that he would not sell the guildwiki.org domain. —Tanaric 10:39, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

So what happened with the idea of having it point to the official wiki? -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:51, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Right now, Wikia itself is linking to this wiki by using www.guildwiki.org Rawling4851 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I emailed Tabor advocating the domain be pointed to the official wiki. —Tanaric 18:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts from an ObserverEdit

For Jimbo Wales, Gil Penchina, and the rest of Wikia, but also for the community.Edit

The whole situation is a mess. Wikia messed up badly; Gravewit didn't do his job; and the community, not surprisingly, reacted violently. Frankly I am appalled that a company like Wikia, who should have so much experience in areas like this, could do something so stupid. They made so many mistakes that one would think they didn't know how a wiki worked at all!

They conducted the whole business with Gravewit in secret. Perhaps this worked in the past on other wikis, where the "owner" of the wiki is still active, but he wasn't here. This was a HUGE mistake. Whether you have done it in the past or not, Wikia, you cannot buy a wiki by paying off the founder(s). They can't do this anymore than I could buy Wikipedia by paying off Jimbo. A wiki is a COMMUNITY project. it is not under control of one person, you (I had a lot of respect for you, Mr. Wales, but Wikia's business practices are making me unsure - how much of what's going on do you know?) of all people should know that! Even if it is legal (which is questionable), it is morally wrong. A complete betrayal of the community.

The sad truth is that the wiki would probably have benefited from being hosted by Wikia. They certainly would have more resources than Gravewit, and would most likely have been more active and involved in the community. The ads would have been the same or less. Before this whole fiasco, If they had involved the community from the start, this could have been good for everyone. If they had:

1. First contacted the entire community by posting on the Community Portal or something.
2. Asked about who was really in charge.
3. Given the idea to the community, not as buying the wiki, but as taking over the hosting (that's all they are legally allowed to do anyway AFAIK).
4. Point out the benefits to the community - better hosting, possibly less ads, more tech support, etc.
5. Had some dialog with the community about things like who deserved to be compensated, non-profit status, etc.
6. Signed a contract open to viewing by the whole community

We would have fallen over ourselves to sign up. I can bet most members would probably have been happy to join for free.

However due to their incompetence (I really can't describe it any other way), they have angered the community and caused both of us to lose a valuable opportunity. And after this huge mistake, they think they can still get out of it by paying us off! I'm sorry Wikia, but you cannot buy goodwill. People still have some morals. The painfully scripted apologies don't help. If what happened in the FFXI wiki story is true, Gil, is there nothing you wouldn't sacrifice for money? That kind of conduct is appalling. FYI, I am a long time user but not a terribly big contributor. I have a lot of respect for the leaders of this wiki, but I would support the solution that involved the whole community. I hope that the admins won't simply accept money then agree for this to go ahead as it is.

The legal issue is not black and white. I will point out that Arena.net clearly stated that according to their lawyers they couldn't buy+use this wiki (when they were starting GWW) - though then again Wikia clearly have been doing this with other wikis. The issue with the ads - I can't say the community is entirely correct here. Gravewit had been doing this anyway, why didn't we sue him? How come only once it was a corporation making the money everyone gets flustered? To me this smacks slightly of anti-big business prejudices. If you didn't complain against Gravewit, you can't complain against Wikia (I recognize some people did complain against Gravewit, but the community as a whole never did). I also point out that Wikia hosts other by-nc-ca wikis, with ads. Whether it's right or wrong I don't know; but it has been happening with little incident as far as I could see. I strongly think that this should be decided somewhere (along with buying a wiki), maybe in court, so there is some precedent we can work with. It's dangerous to work in these legal gray areas, as we have now found out.

This fiasco doesn't look salvageable. The way it's looking now, with so many community members looking to fork, Wikia is going to end up with a severely crippled wiki, if anything, and we are going to have to get all our users to switch URLs, which will result in the loss of quite a few. Not good for anyone. I hope for their sakes Wikia learn their lesson. --MasterPatricko 04:17, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Well said. I only wish everyone involved (yes, me too) could have taken the time to make such thought-out appeals. I'm not speaking of anyone in particular, but we did sort of shoot ourselves in the foot with this issue because of excessive infighting, anger, and bile. It was "Implosion". Calm and collected is the only safe way to approach the big issues in life... Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 04:27, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Agreed, MasterPatricko makes some important points here, and I think he's right that GuildWiki would have eagerly jumped away from Gravewit's "management." It would have been so simple to come to the community and work things out openly, instead of dealing only with Gravewit in secret. This raises questions about what Wikia did and why. Wikia says they exist to promote free culture. That's a noble goal, and I'd like to think Wikia has good intentions. They seem to offer a good service to their hosted wikis. But as far as we've seen here, the way they practice free culture puts money and secrecy first. Community comes... third? That's totally opposite how Wikia describes itself to the public [3]. Do they understand the sad irony of their approach vis a vis the goals of free culture? Are they concerned about secretly paying big bucks to the "godkings" they say are a bad thing for wikis [4] in order to acquire wiki communities? Why did they chose this approach? I really hope it's not all about the ad revenue [5] (Business 2.0 article). Why wouldn't Wikia try its hardest to prevent damage to the community in the first place? How do they respond to publicly fracturing wiki communities by their actions? — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 08:39, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

And keep in mind, we are not dealing with a Wikia B-team here. Penchina is their CEO, and Wales and Beesley the co-founders. These are Important People who know about wikis. Their participation here means they are aware of the big-money/secret negotiations approach to acquiring wikis. Hopefully they haven't become so business-oriented that they can't empathize with these people-level issues. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 08:40, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Very well put, MasterPatricko. You summed up my thoughts exactly. :) It's a shame it had to happen like this, when it could have been an amicable agreement for both parties. Biscuits 10:53, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

I expressly disagree with your claim that we would have fallen over ourselves if Wikia offered to host us. As noted by ArenaNet's lawyers, our nc license prevents the use of our content to turn a profit. Yes, Gravewit might himself have been violating this license, but that does not excuse Wikia. I am actually very glad that Wikia have revealed their true colors from the very start. None of us need to suffer any illusions that our work here is not directly filling Wikia's coffers, nc license be damned. About the rest of your summary, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said five times already. 193.52.24.125 11:19, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

And the company that provides server/bandwidth hosting of GuildWiki (during the Gravewit era when we were running off donations) is also making a profit. That company probably pay PG&E bills, which means PG&E also profits from GuildWiki being hosted on servers in their electricity grid. I personally claim that it's obvious the NC's purpose is no to sue these "service providers". I claim (acknowledging that this issue is debatable as opposed to being black and white) it is ok for companies to make profit from providing electricity, bandwidth, and server maintainance in the process of making NC content accessible for free to any general public with internet access. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 14:30, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree with most of MasterPatricko's open letter. I didn't object to the ads when Gravewit was in charge because it was assumed that he was operating the wiki on a non-profit basis. Wikia, as a publicly traded company, is expected to turn a profit, which conflicts with the license, that's why it's a tax-paying for-profit corporation rather than a tax-exempt non-profit organization like the Wikimedia Foundation. I agree that the non-commercial clause does not apply to the service providers, but I think that Wikia is in a gray area. -- Gordon Ecker 17:37, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

NC specifically disallows profiting from the content. Hosting companies are allowed to profit from their custormers, but they are not allowed to insert ads into the hosted content and derive profit from that. I am surprised that such an obvious difference is invisible to you. 193.52.24.125 01:25, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

The ting is though, as we were, it's arguable that there was no "profit" to be made. The money went towards maintaining the servers, and extra money helped get more servers, for the community as a whole. (weather or not any of this actually happened is a matter from Gravewit.) The CC license itself has a huge grey area on that subject, so it's not all that obvious. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 01:33, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

To 193.52.24.125: Eh, the idea that "it's ok for me to host some NC content by charging you and make a profit, but it is not ok for me to host some NC content by not letting you (or your users) pay a dime and get my profit from advertisements" isn't something immediately obvious and digestible. In fact, I find some of the implications of that sentence rather disturbing. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Instead of tangling yourself up in verbal spaghetti, try instead to read what is written, carefully? If obfuscation is your game, I am afraid you must play by yourself. 193.52.24.125 17:54, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

My interpretation of the non-commercial clause of the CC-NC-SA license is that they cannot unilaterally host it with ads, but can host it with ads for a client, with that client's continued permission. For example, I think it would be legal to include a CC-NC-SA document as an attachment to an email to or from an ad-supported email provider, post a CC-NC-SA document on MySpace or upload a CC-NC-SA video on YouTube, but I'm not a legal expert. -- Gordon Ecker 19:35, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Image:How much for the champagne room.jpg

It's all about the Washingtons, baby!

We're Going to be run by Queen Beesley!Edit

Lord save us now! The Imperialist

Wikitruth.info is to wikis what scurrilous tabloids are to the press. There is enough damning evidence already without having to dredge up old, personal, and entirely irrelevant nonsense. As a matter of fact, there is a Wikipedia article on Angela Beesley, and the importance of WP:BLP is now enforced rigorously with the full support of the WMF. 193.52.24.125 01:18, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

This really isn't a productive topic for discussion in my opinion. Personal attacks and muckraking sully everyone involved. Sure, these folks have done controversial things, but none their personal deeds is really relevant to GuildWiki. And that wikitruth website does seem to be a terribly biased source. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 06:40, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

You're right, this is getting us nowhere. I suggest we archive the whole page and focus on the two most important things:

a) Will we take the money or not?

b) Where will the community go?

--Toxik 13:48, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Where Will The Community Go?Edit

I have to say, this completely sounds like the vital question. The Wikia deal has shattered an already fragmented community. I hate to be a buzzkill, but the damage has been done. Even if lawsuits undo it later, in terms of community unity, what we have is what we're gonna get.

The options before us are simple:

• Continue to support GuildWiki on Wikia;
• Move our collective support over to PvXWiki;
• Move our collective support over to the Official Guild Wars Wiki; or
• Start fresh somewhere else.

In fact, I can virtually guarantee that all four options will get support by some. After all, it's a community effort, we can vote with our feet. The fact is that very few users are going to even visit more than one wiki, much less actually support more than one wiki. The question before us is not who screwed who; it's not who gets paid what; it's simply, and completely, a question of where we go from here.

I personally haven't made up my mind yet. I've played this game obsessively for 15 months, and GuildWiki has been on my permanent set of "home" tabs the entire time. Part of me cringes at the idea of changing that. Then again, parts of me cringe at what has happened and is continuing to happen to this community.

I think the only hope for this community is to talk it out and reach a concensus on where to go; otherwise, wherever we choose individually to go, it's gonna be a different gestalt. Auntmousie 23:19, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Who is the community? There are a lot of users who never edit, and have gw.gamewikis.org bookmarked. The majority of them will probably never comment here either. Should we count them as part of the community? -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 00:07, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia has purchased the readership of this wiki. Whether the editors choose to stay or not is honestly completely irrelevant -- there won't be any real effects for a long, long time. Any effects that do occur will be eclipsed by the Official Wiki's eventual complete integration into the game. —Tanaric 00:22, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Then why don't we stop editing here and put our efforts into the official wiki? The only reason I still come here instead of GWW is the massive amount of missing or incomplete information. More readers will come, and looking at Auntmousie's options there is one thing we really know for sure: It is the most definite way to deal with hosting, money and ad problems. --Toxik 02:25, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Hear, hear on that; surely the many of us that have been contributing to both wikis on a regular basis can easily just transfer our total attention to GWW. It will turn out to be the definitive source of Guild Wars information - it's just a matter of time. The only reason I still spend time here is that the http://secretgw.gamewikis.org URL isn't blocked by the nanny filters at work... --SnogratImage:User Snograt signature.png 03:28, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

PanSola: I'd say "the community" = people who actually edit and/or contribute to pages. Yes, there are people who simply use this or any other wiki as a reference, without contributing to it - but those people can't keep a wiki alive. Without the people who actually edit pages, the wiki stagnates, which is essentially death. It seems to me that many of the actual contributors to the wiki - among whose company I barely have the right to count myself - are absolutely outraged by this deal. I know a several who have absolutely and permanently refused to contribute further. In the end, though, I think it comes down to what we want the wiki to be. If what we want is reliable hosting and complete information, then I think supporting the official Wiki is the way to go. If the corporate aspect of the official Wiki bugs us, then Wikia's GuildWiki is no longer a better option... in which case the fastest way to making a definitive noncommercial wiki is to head on over to PvX. Auntmousie 03:43, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

A lot of readers aren't even aware that articles have talk pages, much less click on the talk page link and read this long page. The fact is, as with forums, users who participate in talk page discussion form a very small minority of a wiki community. This whole issue will split the community, but not as drastically as it's being painted. There was a lot of uproar over the introduction of the official wiki, but so far, I would say the effect it had on GuildWiki was pretty minor. I would expect a large majority of users staying on with GuildWiki, with most of them not even aware of the heated arguments being carried out regarding the Wikia move. It's too pessimistic to say that this wiki will get destroyed by the Wikia move. Affected negatively yes, but I'd say it'll be be quite awhile before it'll die out. --Ab.Er.Rant Image:User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 03:49, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Strong support for Toxik! Fuck Wikia

You're right of course, Ab.Er. The majority who won't be affected by this are people solely interested in Guild Wars and the dissemination of the information therein (yeesh, that sounded pompous). This whole debacle will affect the same sort of people who boycott Microsoft because Bill Gates is too rich, if you get my drift. Hell, it's not as if GWW doesn't have its dissenters; there are plenty of people who doggedly stayed with this wiki because they do not trust a wiki on ANet servers to be free and impartial. Which, of course, it is. Um, am I rambling again? --SnogratImage:User Snograt signature.png 05:15, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

I think you've hit it on the head there Snograt. The only reason at this point not to just work with/on the official wiki is if, collectively, we don't trust ANet. Gee, after investing four thousand hours in my characters - which reside on their servers - I somehow find it in my heart to trust them not to delete my characters. Does it seem like a larger leap of faith to trust them not to delete a wiki? (And, short of deleting it, how can they keep it from being impartial? There's a lot more of us ...) Oh, and Ab.Er.Rant... sure, most people don't read talk pages. But I think you'll find that the number of actual contributors who are unaware of talk pages is relatively small. And I for one am perfectly comfortable defining the community as the contributors. Auntmousie 03:43, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Screw this, Anet wiki here I come :P

Err hate to point something out but PvXwiki is BUILDS ONLY (and now guides) not the kind of wiki this is-if you meant in terms of builds (and guides) then by all means i encourge people there (where i usually am XD) otherwise i'd suggest most people stay here for the most part very little people have donated money here anyway (so i understadn) so for most life will continue as normal i'd suggest.....PheNaxKian 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let'sEdit

give the 60 large to a charity/charities, and take our editing/knowledge/experience over to official wiki where we know with 100% accuracy that the only way we will get shafted is if they nerf [insert fave skill here]. 89.241.233.254 09:37, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

besides which, notice again that penchina, beesley, nelson and wales have all suddenly got "bad internet access" again... *Cough* Let's turn the tables, and SHAFT Wikia for 60k.... take the money, give it to charity, and switch off the lights as the last editor leaves. Sell wales some snake oil, a wiki that nobody contributes to or gives a fuck about anymore. Official wiki - and GW2 wiki - need us, this place no longer does. Heck, we can still call DMCA after we've left ;P

In my opinion, it's a bad idea to take the money. If we accept the money, we accept Wikia's buyout. And let's face it, 60 grand doesn't mean that much to most charities. Also, how would we pick a charity that doesn't turn our donation into their managing director's Christmas bonus? --Toxik 10:32, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

And if we dont take the money..? The sale has happened. Its done, dusted. all we have left in our arsenal is DMCA. Let's take the cash and then leave them with that as a parthian/parting shot. As for charities and "Christmas bonuses".... get real - THEY have proper accounting, and ACCOUNTABILITY, unlike this place. 89.241.233.254 10:44, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

I am being real about charities and their money not ending up where it's supposed to be. Follow the news or read some reports. And what good would the DMCA do? People would have to spend time to come up with decent, legal arguments - time better invested in the official wiki. Gem has already started some substantial, workable improvement projects over there. Help him out instead! --Toxik 11:14, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Youre just blowing smoke up peoples asses... That link went to nowhere of any substance. Like I said, get real. Cant get real? Go away :) Gem? That asshole? I wouldnt trust him to post a letter without shoving it up his own ass he's so self absorbed. See below 89.241.233.254 11:24, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't know nor am I interested as to what Gem did to you, your mom, your husband, or your daughter. But please keep things civil, thanks. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:43, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

CharitiesEdit

I propose that Tanaric and Karlos should choose a charity/charities to be in receipt of the cash award from Wikia. This is about charities, people, lets not go to war over who gets it. Look into your hearts. 89.241.233.254 09:53, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

I support that. —Tanaric 10:44, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

I support that as well, on the condition that Tanaric and Karlos still let the community in on the decision. --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 15:47, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

As one of the hitherto silent majority I'll chip in and say that seems the most decent thing to do IMO. (ru)

Who r u? What if I want to be paid out? Or what if I want to donate to give the money to a charity of my own choosing? --Xasxas256 18:13, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Weee let's attack the anon! It's posts like Xasxas256's that make the wiki a worse place. On the issue: If any plans of forking/building a new site go ahead, it would be a shame to rule out free funds. Otherwise, a charity works. Any community money should either go to benefit the whole community, or be given away. Biscuits 20:08, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

You're right, the who r u was unnecessary, my apologies. But I'd like to weigh in with my own opinion on where any money should go. There's not many "bad" charities but there are however some causes that I'd prefer to support over others. Everyone is welcome to voice an opinion, including this anon who didn't sign but I'm not convinced that I want Tanaric and/or Karlos to decide on a charity and I don't think that I like the idea of a vote to decide where the money gets donated to either. --Xasxas256 20:42, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we take the money, regardless of what we use it for, the community gets mad because we're doing just what Wikia wants, accepting "hush money" or whatever you want to call it. If we refuse the money, the community gets mad because it does nothing but keep our sense of dignity. Which doesn't help GWiki much. IMHO if we're going to take the money, send it to the Creative Commons people so they can @#$%@% figure out what their license means. (yes, sarcasm, I really have no clue what to do) Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:45, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia was not born yesterday. They are fully aware that bamfing into a community in a cloud of cash will sow discord. Luckily, that is their intention; to them, the more divided the old guard gets, the better. They don't need this community anyway when they are acquiring a decent quality wiki, with established formatting policies, that needs mostly residual maintenance. Which is to say, start an elaborate discussion and/or vote on what to do with the money if you want to, but suffer from no delusions of grandeur either. 193.52.24.125 21:29, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Why a charity though? Why not donate the money to an open source project like Wikipedia's MediaWiki? They're the people that made this site and community possible to begin with. --Toxik 01:13, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

They also made Wikia possible too, but who's counting. :P --Image:GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 01:49, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Wait a sec, Toxik. You bad-mouthed charities as untrustworthy just a few paragraphs above, but here you're suggesting donating to a non-charity foundation instead? That really doesn't make sense; real charities are far more likely to use the money wisely and the money then does good for society rather than the development of some piece of software. Anyway, I would suggest taking the money, don't leave it to Gravewit/Wikia to enjoy. Then decide whether to spend it on hosting a fork, securing the guildwiki.org domain if needed, or a charity. If the charity route is chosen, it'll probably have to be an umbrella like United Way, or something similarly palatable to most people. Just some thoughts. — HarshLanguage HarshLanguage 02:53, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

There is real proof about the charities, but sadly I've already been told to "get real or go away" on that matter. Also, I didn't say all of them can't be trusted. You're probably right. Still, I stand by what I said about rather not taking the money at all. In all likelihood it doesn't mean a thing to Wikia anyway. --Toxik 06:54, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Can I just thank my gods that I never actually donated cash to the wiki, and therefore have no cash coming to me regardless? Frankly, I haven't got any say over what happens to a pile of cash that isn't mine. With that said ... I wonder how taking or not taking the offered money would affect the possibility of a lawsuit. Then again, I just got done saying that a lawsuit won't ultimately change a single thing, largely because by the time it happens, GW2 will be here and it's already established that this wiki will not be involved in that. So to the extent that my two cents matter, gee, whoever might get money coming, go right ahead and take it. Do whatever you feel like doing with it. Auntmousie 03:53, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

You could perhaps set up a donor-advised fund. That way you wouldn't need to figure out exactly what you were going to do with the money straight away, but it would definitely be dedicated to charitable purposes (401(c)(3) organizations or the equivalent). You'd have to figure out who the advisers were, of course. GreenReaper 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In support of Gravewit, Wikia & the Guildwiki CommunityEdit

Apologies as I couldn't find a better place to put this comment. Firstly I just wanted to express my HUGE thanks to Gravewit for his excellent idea and implementation of THE best GW tool out there (I WISH there was something HALF as good for LOTRO). I applaud you Gravewit for your pioneering efforts in getting this all up and running, I really praise what you have done and support the Wikia move, tempus fugit, and GWiki needs increasing amounts of support etc, Wikia can provide this. Secondly well done Wikia for knowing a gem when you see it (Pardon the ref Gem!). GWiki is THE master example of what EVERY Wiki should be, in terms of structure, content, format & community, there really isnt ANYTHING anywhere near it out there in terms of quality. I hope you will treat it with the respect that GW, the GWiki community & Gravewit deserve. Thirdly thank you to the GWiki community for all you have done. There are too many to name, and I dare not risk missing someone in case I get flamed! ;-) but you should ALL be extremely proud of what you have done, specially the admins, you have a tough job and you have executed your duties with great dignity, honour and intelligence. Well done all who have contributed. I would liken GuildWiki to a family with Gravewit as the father, the Admins as the mother, and us the contributors & users as the children. What we have here, in Wikia, is a new father entering the picture. I trust that he will not stop GWiki's mother (the admins) from caring and shaping the community as they have done so well in the past. Finally I would like to say that the $62,000 should be distibuted fairly, and I believe the following model may be a good and fair method; 1. Gravewit take from it any out of pocket expenses incurred in setting up / running GWiki. 2. ALL those who contributed be fully re-funded. 3. Gravewit take 25% of the remaining funds in recognition of the "idea" and the initial inputus. 4. ALL Admins (ever) split 25% of the remaining funds equally between them in light of their vital role. 5. The remaining 50% be either; a) Contributed to charity on behalf of the entire community. OR b) Split amongst ALL members of the community equally (including Gravewit & the admins), however I fear this second option will be too complex to actually implement. Can I suggest someone setup a poll? For all users who joined before the announcement date to vote on the funding distribution ideas?. Anyway that's all, apologies for how verbose it is! Image:Raxous wiki sig.png- Raxous -Image:Raxous wiki sig.png 04:56, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Just a wild guess here, you haven't read any of the discussions on this page and have no idea what you're talking about? Am I right or am I right? Rourke 05:27, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Agree with Rourke. If you read the discussions above, you will see Gravewit had much less input than you think, and that others did most of the work without any acknowledgement. Also, the money you were talking about has only been offered as a result of all the community outcry about this problem. Just to summarise what has happened for you:

1. Gravewit sold the guildwiki domain to Wikia as a private deal from which he made lots of money
2. This was done against the wiki community with no consultation
3. As a result, Gravewit and Wikia are making a hugh profit from our contributions, whereas otherwise any profit could have been re-allocated by the community as a non-profit wiki to wherever we saw fit (more servers / donate it, etc). And we will almost certainly not be able to move in the future because wikia owns the domain name so the best we could do is make an inferior duplicate with no readership.

I agree with you that the wiki is a great resource, but the situation is nothing to applaud, and it would be a good idea to get a full understanding of what has happened before you praise them for it! Because of these actions, a lot of people have felt that their contributions and time were used to make private profit from people they didn't want to be working for, and are no longer willing to contribute here. Biscuits 06:28, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

I understand ALL the above (and have read the above txt). Unfortunately I seem to be the only one who thinks that Gravewit deserves some of teh credit for setting this up & getting it going. I know many others have contributed more but the fact remains Gravewit "started" this and despite what all the contributors may think there is GREAT value in "starting" something. I know it's a bad example but Tim Burners Lee is hailed for his pioneering work, yet he can't create a descent website (He's said so himself) he gets people's respect for "starting" it, not for doing it all. I don't see anyone claiming a share of his nobel prize money! If Wikia were going to make this a pay-to-view wiki, or were going to close it down and make print copies or something then I would agree with the general opinion. What seems sad is that people are basically complaining that Gravewit is getting money and they're not. Underneath it all the problems seem to stem from this bitterness. So Gravewit gets money, good on him! I'm happy for him. Why can't everyone just carry on contributing without needing money, as they always have done! And let's save our vitriole for Wikia should they choose to move the goalposts! (He says putting on his heat-proof jacket and gogles ready for a flamin'!)Image:Raxous wiki sig.png- Raxous -Image:Raxous wiki sig.png 11:07, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

He didn't start it, he hosted it because no-one else got round to it. Apart from that he has pretty much screwed up every decision he's needed to make while others did the leg work. Lord of all tyria 11:11, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

GRAVEWIT DID NOT SOLELY FOUND THE GUILDWIKI. —Tanaric 11:20, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

LOL, OK, calm down... I know, but he had / has the "keys" to GuildWiki and is GENUINELY trying to do the right thing, in my opinion. No one is perfect but giving ANY money back to the community is pretty much, nay, completely unheard of! And 62k? Well, nuff said! I don't remeber anyone seriously trying to get the Wiki hosted neutrally, everyone seemed happy enough for Gravewit to deal with the hosting practicalities (Which can get quite tricky) I can see what the arguments are on both sides, but I have to say that it seems like there are a quite a few egos and more than a little arrogance on the community side. Why can't we all be as magnanomous and positive as Gravewit & Wikia? Give everyone a CHANCE to prove this is a good idea, before we shoot it all down before it's even started!!! Give peace a chance people! Gil seems like a good person, why don't we go in with an open mind, and a nod to Gravewit for the GOOD he has done (Why always look at the negative?) I COMPLETELY understand and respect the contributions of the admins / senior members, but actually hosting it is a real headache (I host a number of sites) it does not involve anywhere near as much time as an admin but it does involve stress and worry etc Image:Raxous wiki sig.png- Raxous -Image:Raxous wiki sig.png 11:26, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Name one good thing gravewit has done for this wiki, its hardly a hardship for him to get fyren or nunix to maintain the server while he makes the money. Lord of all tyria 11:30, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Erm, I don't know, sorted out the hosting, and the contributions & the ad-revenue etc! I know Fyren et al have done most of the technical work on the servers etc and as such a HIGHLY deserving of their share of the 25% or 50% (or whatever I said admins might get). Look, all I'm trying to do is be positive, I don't have any more answers / reasons than anyone else, all I'm saying is let's give Wikia a chance! Is that too much to ask? I have never contributed much, but I have always thought that any one person would get more OUT of GWiki that they could ever possibly put in as an individual, regardless of their level of contribution. And I'm all for "Fair shares" all round. Why can't this just be like another "server move" why does everyone have to reach in and try to grab their pound of flesh? What's important? The community surely? What difference will the move make to the vast majority of users? NONE. We will be able to add, edit & discuss as we always have done, and everyone will be able to continue to use us a reference... so where's the big problem? If Wikia mess up I'll be the first one to flame them, infact I'll happily stick a server up and give Fyren et al free reign on it to create GWiki 2 (perhaps in good time for GW2?) ;-) but let's get on with the business of being a community, please! GWiki is important to me, as a resource & a community, and it seems like it's going to be killed from the inside out due to bitterness, deserved bitterness perhaps, but bitterness none the less. Image:Raxous wiki sig.png- Raxous -Image:Raxous wiki sig.png 11:46, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

So if someone started a charity to get everyone to clean a street. Then that same guy go see the city and get a 1000$ for it and keep it for himself, that would seem ok to you? Nobody should make money out of this. If Wikia want to host the wiki we have no right to stop them as long has they keep the same license. The problem is that someone is making a profit out of this. We all donated time, some donated money and Gravewit donated some of his time managing the server ( not the wiki). I don't see why his time is worth 62k and actions and not ours. We shouldn't ask for money, just that nobody get money or any form profit from this.—├ Aratak ┤

I would have been willing, even enthusiastic, to give them a chance, before the deal was finalised. The problem is that this was done without consulting the community or even providing a decent arguement that it's legal. -- Gordon Ecker 19:53, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Raxous, you're not being positive, you're being ignorant. I think you just skimmed all the previous discussions instead of actually reading and understanding the gist of it. No one is opposed to a server move (the idea of it, not only Wikia). The opposition is to the sale of it. That payout is also kinda like rubbing salt on open wounds to some of the veterans. If Gravewit just decided to pack up and posted a request for someone to take over the hosting, and then only Wikia got involved, all of this could've been avoided. When you say things like "HUGE thanks to Gravewit", "I applaud you Gravewit for your pioneering efforts", and "nod to Gravewit for the GOOD he has done", you are inciting negative reactions, not positive ones. Do try to understand the gist of things first. Your "cheerful" tone is a bit... disturbing. --Ab.Er.Rant Image:User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 02:30, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Gravewit hosted GuildWiki, did he not? If he did, the website is his and his alone and he could damn well sell it to whomever he pleases. I don't know whether praises for Gravewit and Wikia are in order, but the point remains that nothing illegal was done, nothing immoral was done and people should just mind their own businesses. A.Saturnus 10:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance...apathy...can't decide which. >.> Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem A.Saturnus 09:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only "not illegal" because there aren't any laws that specifically cover situations like this, and even the CC license itself is too vague to do anything. It IS extremely immoral, though, for him to profit off of the work of the GuildWiki community.

I don't know why I'm even bothering, what I said has been said at least a dozen times on this page already. —Dr Ishmael Image:Diablo the chicken.gif 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying it a dozen of times doesn't make it right. A.Saturnus 08:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion.Edit

This is not originally my idea, but I believe it's the best so far.

Let us donate the money to ArenaNet in return for Linux/Mac compatibility -- specifically, an OpenGL game client. GuildWiki's final act for the community can be to ensure the whole community can play.

If the community supports this idea, I'll get on the horn with ArenaNet and work out if it's a possibility.

—Tanaric 14:09, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Boot camp is free and I can ask DE or whoever those Linux users are to post the walkthrough of getting Guild Wars to work with Wine or Cedega. Still, it would be nice. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 14:11, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm one of the Linux users. I can get it working in Wine, but it's mediocre at best. Cedega is not free -- nobody should have to pay an extra monthly fee to play this game. —Tanaric 14:25, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

The official wiki has such a guide. However, as Tanaric says, an OpenGL client is a far better option for all concerned. I'd be ecstatic if this worked out. - 71.224.123.149 01:34, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this idea is obviously the best so far. There are two possible snags that I can see, one that the money isn't enough to pay for the porting effort (I don't think Anet has much Mac or Linux expertise), and two that ArenaNet might not want to risk exposing their game to more attack vectors. But it is definitely worth a shot. Well done, Tanaric. Where do I sign? 193.52.24.125 14:46, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

I think it's a fantastic idea. Whoever thought of it wins one free internet.

150px

  Image:Riven-sig.png   19:15, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Here, here! Whose idea was that, Tanaric? Easily the best I've heard so far. No-one can complain that it does nothing to help their interests, since if you're interested in any of the three Wikis you care about Guild Wars itself. I know more than a handful of Macintosh/Linux users that have had to buy Windows OS just because ANet has refused to support GW much on their systems. It really would "cement our legacy" of GWiki working for the community's benefit. Image:Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 23:26, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Congratulations to you, Tanaric. I am also a Linux user and I too find this the best idea so far. Since gw.dat is one big blob anyway I imagine we would only need a native client (or so I'd hope). Cedega is one of the worst things to ever have happened to Linux. --Toxik 03:23, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Add: Wouldn't it be awesome if we could be beta-testers for Tux-GW? :P --Toxik 03:24, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm in, indisputably the best idea yet! (*Crosses fingers*) Although I instinctively don't like agreeing with people... bah humbug... ;-) this is just the perfect solution! Image:Raxous wiki sig.png- Raxous -Image:Raxous wiki sig.png 04:14, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry for all the Linux users out there who think this is the internet winning idea, but I just don't see benefit to more than a few users (who are playing the game even without Linux support now or are just contributing here without playing). -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:08, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

The thing here is, are Intel graphics chips better running DX or OpenGL? Most people who play Guild Wars run off of Intel Integrated Graphics chips and while an OpenGL client would benefit say, 1% of the population of Guild Wars, may possibly edge out well over 20-30% of the population. Some tests would have to be conducted but it is a point to consider. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 09:26, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

I didn't mean replace the existing client with an OGL version. I meant simply offer an OpenGL client as well as a DirectX client. —Tanaric 11:08, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

As a Linux user myself this would be the most awesome thing to happen ever. However I'm pessimistic as to whether $62k will be enough to motivate ANet to develop a whole new client and maintain it. Maybe they could make it open source and have us develop it :P And BTW with Intel and ATI finally catching up to nVidia with good linux video drivers the future of linux gaming looks good. --MasterPatricko 11:20, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

There are a lot of reasons to be pessimistic about it, but it's worth a shot. I think ArenaNet will find it hard to ignore a group of die hard fans willing to put a large amount of money behind their words. This isn't mere whining on a forum or whatever. $62,000 (less taxes) can pay for one full time dev, more if ArenaNet devotes some funds of their own to it. That should be enough for a port, unless their code is rubbish, which I doubt. They might still turn us down because they consider keeping two or three versions of the client updated to be too much work, or if they have other priorities. (If they are planning to release GW2 on consoles, like some rumors have said, this will be the perfect way to tune their internal processes.) On your last point, I definitely don't think opening the client source is a good idea- it would be a botter's wet dream. 193.52.24.125 16:19, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

I say, people who want that linux client should ask Anet what they think about this. The worst that can happen is obtainning "no" as a response. My opinion in that matter should not retain people asking for this. But i'll state it anyway. Anet already explained why a "they cant" do a linux client. Not sure where was that though. Altough money can motivate them, we all know that they already are busy enough with theirs next big project. Finally, i think a sort of opensource client is not possible because anybody could program all sort of more or less malicious functions in it like duplicating item or even worst. TulipVorlax 18:47, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

An open-source client would _not_ allow that. All that is handled server-side. —Tanaric 21:31, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Opening the client would make botting a hundred times easier. Bots would not need to decode graphics and simulate key presses any longer. Also it would allow malicious mods; imagine a Psychic Distraction bot interrupting everything, or the most amazing Infuser ever, or blowing enemy monks up to 2x height and width for easy targetting. I just don't see them opening it. 193.52.24.125 21:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I was referring only to the post directly above my own. Obviously open-sourcing the client would make botting quite easy. —Tanaric 00:02, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

FYI User:193.52.24.125, bots that can interrupt and infuse anything etc, already exist. They're mostly private hacks that 99,99% of the playerbase will never have access to, but they do exist and I have seen them in action. [/offtopic]  Image:Riven-sig.png   15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they work by detecting pixels on the activation bar, which requires the player to guide the bot. I'm saying interrupt any skill on anyone because the client will know what all characters are doing (to show the skill activation animations). No current interrupt AutoHotKey macro can do this. 193.52.24.125 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it wouldn't take much work with a traffic analyzer and some free time to implement your own scripting client using the GW protocol. —Tanaric 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and then, Anet changes the protocol. I just think releasing the code is not possible. Does making a linux client imply that they have to release the client sources ? I dont think so but i might be wrong; i dont know Linux world well enough. Well, i hope not and that a Linux version could happen. Good luck with that. TulipVorlax 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, making a Linux/OpenGL client does not mean they have to release the sources. Our conversation about open-sourcing the client is totally separate. —Tanaric 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest hammering out a formal proposal to Anet like the fansite program petitions back in the day? Secondly, I think it would be proper to get all persons who have been nominated on this talk page to receive a chunk of the cash to sign on to this proposal first, relinquishing their possible claims, so no one feels stiffed. Lastly, what are the logistics of transferring this money between parties, assuming Anet is willing (fingers crossed)? 193.52.24.125 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ArchivesEdit

As promised, the GuildWiki (and other GameWiki) dumps are now available from my personal mirror. —Tanaric 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken LinksEdit

My Firefox Search Engine now no longer works with Guild Wiki. It only stopped working after this came up, thoughts?--Gigathrash 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "Firefox Search Engine"? The "add a keyword for this search" Firefox feature has not been affected on GuildWiki. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe he means the plug-in that adds Guild Wiki as an option to the search bar in the upper right of Firefox (ie, where Google normally resides). If so, I don't have an answer, because mine still works. ScionOfErixalimar 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No more secretgw?Edit

Now I don't know where it came from or why, but for a long time there has been an alternate URL for this site, namely http://secretgw.gamewikis.org. This no longer exists and instead sends you to the Wikia 404 page. I loved this URL because it was seemingly "untagged" or maybe uncategorised; I could access the damn wiki from work without the damn nanny filters kicking in. Now this has gone the way of the dodo, I can no longer contribute in any useful quantities. This sucks big time :( --SnogratImage:User Snograt signature.png 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating - I'm at work now and although the "secret" link is still void, the usual URL is no longer blocked by big brother. There is a god of wikians? -SnogratImage:User Snograt signature.png 22:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikia now owns the gamewikis.org domain, which means they have control over all subdomains, such as gw.gamewikis.org and secretgw.gamewikis.org. Apparently they didn't re-establish the secretgw subdomain when they took control.

As for your filter no longer blocking GWiki, the URL is now pointing to a different IP address. Nanny filters usually work on IP addresses instead of URLs, I believe, which is why you can access GWiki for now. Unfortunately, it's probably only a matter of time until the filter updates itself with the new IP. Bah, I realized the stupidity of that right after I hit submit: if it were IP based then secretgw never would've worked in the first place. —Dr Ishmael Image:Diablo the chicken.gif 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikia probably isn't under a few of the categories Gamewikis was, so it's getting through. When's the last time Wikipedia got blocked by your parental controls and whatnot? Wikia's probably about the same way. --Image:GEO-logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked Emil, one of our engineers to build a mirror of gw.gamewikis.org at http://secretgw.gamewikis.org We simply didn't know it was there. Sorry about that. Penchina 23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It should work now: http://secretgw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page 68.124.22.10 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)