> 5. Despite nominally being Wikis the Fandom wikis have effectively zero Wiki-like intrapage or interpage navigation.

The site mechanically sucks, with all the ads, needless videos, comment sections, "related content", etc, but this one is up to the writers to do. It's not Fandom's fault if writers don't integrate wiki functionality more thoroughly.

I personally never even noticed Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha switching to Fandom. They seem about the same as they always have.

I should instead say "when Wikia switched to Fandom". Wikia used to be pretty standard MediaWiki instances. Then they moved the format to a more custom layout until they became the absolute trash Fandom layout of today.

When Wikia was more standard MediaWiki layout both sites were extremely usable. The Fandom trash styling makes both very difficult to navigate now. They're unusable without an ad blocker.

Really? Because I found the transition of Memory Alpha switching to Fandom extremely jarring. Maybe it will improve after WWIII and First Contact, when profit ceases to be a factor.

I truly can't remember even noticing a difference. I didn't even realize it had ever been hosted anywhere else until this thread.

#5 is entirely dependent on the wiki itself, which is community-driven. Fandom only provides the infrastructure and platform, which support the feature.

But the platform affects the contributors.

The dark patterns must drive many people away completely. You have to fight them every step of the way if you use the site. Who wants to see their creative work featured on such a site for sore eyes?

If it paid some people might overcome all that but to do it for free?

This is a stretch at best.

I get it, Fandom sucks. The rest of the points are completely accurate. But the amount of interlinking isn't their fault.

I mean, if they push their GUI editor and their GUI editor makes it hard to interlink, arguably that does make them part of the problem.

I mean, it’s the same VisualEditor that’s used across MediaWiki sites, including as the default on Wikipedia.

How is it only a problem on Fandom?

I was surprised by this claim, as I didn't remember them being the same. And I checked, as a logged out user, on a wikia site and on wikipedia, and...

No, they're not the same by default.

Wikia/Fandom defaults to a WYSIWYG editor, linking is a 4-click process.

Wikipedia has a toolbar atop a wiki code view. It does offer the option of a WYSIWYG editor, but it is _not_ the default. Linking is [[some article title]].

I'm a logged out user on both sites, so it's not a preference I've set.

I said it’s the same VisualEditor. As in, it’s literally the same extension. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor I never claimed the defaults are the same. VisualEditor will likely become default on Wikipedia at some point in the future, as it’s an opt-in feature. And it can be turned off on Fandom, which I’m sure core contributors are likely to.

As a platform, Fandom provides the same visual editor that is provided by MediaWiki. That was the claim.

No, you claimed that the visual editor was the default on wikipedia.

> I mean, it’s the same VisualEditor that’s used across MediaWiki sites, including as the default on Wikipedia.

I mean, I guess you could claim technical correctness if Wikia was defaulting to a non-visual editor, but that's going on a wild tangent and the opposite of the real situation

I'm not sure how the opt-in visual editor on wikipedia being the same as the default editor on wikia would disprove the claim that the visual editor's more difficult linking would cause people using the default experience on wikia (wysiwg editor) to link less compared to those using the default experience on wikipedia (source editor) with it's less sidelined linking experience.