How reliable is this wiki? - Analysis

From Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About the Author

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.
avataravataravataravataravataravatar
6

Reviewing stuff such as video games, TV shows etc. can get tricky at times. In order for a review to be good and accurate, it has to be made from an objective point of view by judging the related media based off its' bad qualities and good qualities, rather than a personal opinion. Due to how different people's opinions and perceptions about stuff in general are, it is no wonder for reviews to be quite different: sometimes reviews are accurate, some reviews are slightly different from the truth, while some of them might be inaccurate and not reflect the media's actual good qualities and bad qualities.

Hello everyone, Necro here and this time I will make a review of this wiki. Keep in mind that this review is trying to be as factual as possible. If you guys find something wrong with it, feel free to comment your opinion, I will be very glad to hear it. Since this wiki is also growing as of recently, I also decided to compare it to other famous reception wikis, such as Crappy Games Wiki, Awesome Games Wiki or Terrible TV Shows Wiki. Without further ado, let the review begin!

So, if you guys are new to this wiki and you don't know what the aforementioned wikis are or maybe, this wiki, the aforementioned wikis are actually wikis that are made to review various media as accurately as possible. In order for things to be easily understandable by everyone, then each page is divided into at least two major headers and a short description. For example, in the case of negative reception wikis (even this one), the main headers are "Why It Sucks" and "Redeeming Qualities", or variations of it. This way, reviewing media is made into a much easier and much more accurate method, which is also accessible for everyone, without wasting a lot of space and valuable time for such information.

Now that you guys know what those wikis are, then let's get into reviewing the wiki itself with its' pros and cons.

Pros:

+Most, if not all of the Fandoms/Hatedoms there actually deserve to have a page. Nowadays, there are a lot of intoxicated fanbases and hatebases that simply need to be criticized as accurately as possible, because on the internet, such information can be hard to find. +As said above, this site is extremely useful. For example, the criticism on "The Meme Community" page is almost nonexistent outside of this wiki. This way, some people can also completely change and become better people by reading those pages and learning from these pointers.(As a side note, back then I used to be a guy who actually liked the offensive memes and such, but after reading many pages and even creating one myself about something related to it - Adolf Hitler Ironic Fandom - I completely changed as a human being.) +Most of the information is well-sourced. Some pages also have links to stuff to prove the pointers. +The wiki itself also parodies bad habits of some fanbases/hatebases, which makes pages interesting and fun to read. +Some pages are really funny as well, and in a good way. +Very good admins that do their job very well most of the time. Iceyellow in particular, is extremely good at this and even openly criticized some flaws of the wiki. +Speaking of the admins, they also keep in touch with the regular users, which is really nice.

And now, the cons:

-Not every article is well-written. There is actually a small to medium bunch of unconvincing, exaggerated and poorly-written articles, some of them with even less than 5 pointers. -Overuse of some words and phrases, such as "worship", "bash" or "'nuff said". Luckily, one of the admins (the aforementioned Iceyellow) openly criticized this in an announcement, and ever since, this flaw has started to fade away. -First-person pronouns in writing. Since reviewing on this is supposed to be objective and unbiased, this shouldn't be present. -The"Forbidden pages" list might be a little faulty at some points. For example, there should be a "SMG4 Fandom" page there. (The fandom is not toxic, but the toxic portion should have a page.)

In conclusion, the wiki gets a rough 9 out of 10. It is definitely very well-written, informative, useful and can help people who had trouble with toxic fanbases and hatebases feel better.

You are not allowed to post comments.


avatar

SpazJR61

2 months ago
Score 1

Also overusage of the reasons like, Rule 34.

Rule 34 is everywhere, good or bad it doesn't matter.
avatar

Portrock1566

2 months ago
Score 1
Don't be so slow. I banned that phrase on December 6, 2019. It'll be remembered as an individual rights battle for the wiki.
avatar

Portrock1566

5 months ago
Score 1

Loathe me all you want but this wiki's still only slightly ameliorated. One thing to be certain though is that this place will inevitably reached the equivalent of what it was in it's prime in the minimum of one year after the Miraheze elections. Anyways though the writing of the blog's impressive but I don't agree with it... yet...

EDIT: I wish Miraheze allows us to edit comments. NeptunePerson2018 has said that once.
avatar

Masson Thief

5 months ago
Score 0
You can make users able to delete their own comments. It's not very practical but at least you can rewrite them if you need to edit them.
avatar

Zenko

5 months ago
Score 0
I often do research on whether or not a fandom or hatedom is toxic before starting a page since I want to make it reliable as much as possible. I still think that this blog post is nice and well written.
avatar

Masson Thief

5 months ago
Score 2
Nice review. I too have noticed Iceyellow is a competent admin even if I visit this wiki only once in a while.