MicroWikia admins seek, then dismiss, change

MICROWIKIA (CS) | A recent discussion prompted by MicroWikia administrator Andrew of Sabovia challenged the community to reflect on its failings, though it is unclear what, if any, changes will follow in practice.

The “Where’s the Community Gone?” discussion began as a result of Andrew confronting the community about its haemorrhaging of contributors since 2012, when “hundreds of users [joined] a day.” He postulated that the loss of participants on MicroWikia started with the implementation of stricter rules, a strict enforcement of the administration’s policy against personal attacks, and a purge earlier this year by Joseph Kennedy which saw a number of contributors “unfairly blocked” from the wiki.

More than half-a-dozen other participants provided feedback, with several taking Andrew’s side that strict enforcement and rigid rules have had a negative impact. Said one participant, “I’ve seen people leave because of the ‘outrageous standards’ their micronation has to live to [in order to be allowed on MicroWikia].” “Some hostility is a good thing because it’s interesting to watch things like that,” mentioned another. Still another proposed that declarations of war be permitted to be made on the Wiki, given that it exists as the primary medium for interaction between its micronations.

Another aspect of the discussion focused on the desire of several contributors to see the ban on fantasy nations (i.e. Simulationist micronations) rescinded. “A micronation is a micronation, no matter how it is, fantasy, small or cyber-nation,” opined one participant, who was sharply rebuked by Andrew who dictated that “fantasy nations are not coming back … according to the community, fantasy nations and cyber nations are not micronations,” noting that a separate wiki existed for such endeavours on Wikia.

A number of contributors also noted that the administration of the community is unfriendly and difficult to work with, often closing discussions without any explanation to the membership. The administration proceeded to demonstrate some truth to the accusation during the discussion. Despite being approached by Andrew to share their opinions on how to revitalise the community, Andrew and fellow administrator “Deutschlandkaiser” proceeded to show a general unwillingness to actually effect any change based on the feedback provided by the membership.

Andrew quickly dismissed the proposal by several contributors to review the ban on Simulationist micronations. Said Andrew, “fantasy nations are not coming back … according to the community [in the past], fantasy nations and cyber nations are not micronations,” noting that a cyber nation wiki already existed on Wikia and that he had just created a fantasy nation wiki for those who want to start such endeavours to do so elsewhere.

Deutschlandkaiser was equally dismissive of considering the proposal to allow declarations of war to be posted. “Hello there. Thank you for your feedback, however declaring wars should be done somewhere else …. Good day,” he bluntly told the contributor. He also suggested that relaxing rules of decorum was a non-starter, noting he did not wish to see MicroWikia return to the days when “there were so many people making accounts and pages for [a laugh].” He went on to proclaim that “we [the administrators] here at MicroWiki wish to be a professional encyclopedia,” despite the evident popularity among the members throughout the discussion of a less rigid atmosphere being implemented.

“We can get MicroWiki better,” proclaimed one contributor at the start of the discussions; “Become a community again!” said another. By the enforced end of the discussion barely 24 hours later by the administrators, it seemed evident that “better” and “community” would be defined by them and not the membership. Nonetheless, the administrators “will be friendlier” noted Andrew in his closing remarks.

MicroWikia admins seek, then dismiss, change

2 thoughts on “MicroWikia admins seek, then dismiss, change

  1. Interestingly enough, a member of the MicroWikia community referenced this article to present a further discussion on the issues raised in it, only to have Andrew delete the thread because including the link to the article constituted, in his opinion, “advertising” (link provided from the CS’ referrals record, as any active link to it on MicroWikia has been removed as a result of the “deletion”). I think the more accurate justification would be “censorship”.

    This article aimed to raise awareness of the perceived contradictory nature of the MicroWikia administration’s desire to have an open discussion, yet throw up barriers to their responding members at most every turn. As a result, the administration is now censoring a contributing member of their community for simply wanting to raise and discuss both points in support and in opposition to the content of the article and further the original discussion, which as noted above, was quickly shut down by the administration.

    On the positive side, Andrew has contacted me to express his interest in responding to the original article and I hope to report more on his position and arguments in a separate article, should he not take up the offer to post his comments directly in reply to this article.


  2. Sabovia says:

    I believe you have a rather construed meaning of the word “Censorship”. In response to removing the aforementioned thread; the user in question that posted such is purely regurgitating parts of your argument onto MicroWiki’s forum – an act which might easily be considered in violation of our clearly worded Forum Policy that states “No Advertising” yet this thread posts a link directly advertising your own very website and also “No Ranting/Slander”, implying that threads and points of view should remain succinct and civil. The user’s response would’ve been much more gratefully received had he put it into a reply to the very thread you mention in your article and had also been less of an essay. In greater response to your article, in the second paragraph you describe MicroWiki as “the primary medium for interaction between its micronations”, this is incorrect. In fact, we encourage our micronations to continue diplomatic, trade-based and off-topic discussions off of our wiki as it is, as stated, a wiki designed to host factual information about micronations and although we have a forum for such use it is not often used to discuss micronationalism at all. Looking further to your discussion about cyber nations, the community itself agreed that fantasy nations should be kept off of the wiki, and a singular user wishing them unbanned will not outrank that of a community consensus. We do not allow declarations of war to be posted because in 2012 we were directed by Wikia, our hosts, that they should be banned from the site. And finally I may state that all of the above information that I have directed towards you is also readily available and in fact, general knowledge to the community at MicroWiki. To write such a one-sided article that has only the reinforcement of the whitings of users who believe the rules that the whole community has decided upon are unfair. You read that correctly, the community decided these rules yet you paint the administrators as if they are MicroWiki’s Schutzstaffel. I would recommend in future that you try and develop both sides of the argument so you actually create a journalistic point of view that represents both sides of the argument instead of the one that depopularises the Micronational site that you do not prefer, as is shown by calling us “MicroWikia” when in fact we reserve right to the name MicroWiki and our site is known by it’s users and contributors as such, it seems the credibility of this article just continually decreases. Good day.


Comments are closed.