GuildWars Wiki

Selected Clarifications

→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Technical

Questions & Answers

'Wow, this is...huge--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 21:25, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

What do you guys think about it?--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 21:26, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
Umm ok, not the smartest of times to set the database to read only, eye of the north was just released. How long will the database be read only? Can we get links to the new owners? -- Xeon 21:33, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
I'm currently working close with Wikia to get a copy of our sites set up on our new server. Once they've got it running, I'll set the DB to read only, make a new dump, they'll import it, and we'll switch over the DNS. The only downtime should be the minimal DNS switching time. Gravewit 21:34, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
I think it's awesome! It sucks how many times I came on GuildWiki seeking some insight and found the servers down. Although there weren't many times when this happened, I must have luckily been searching for things unexpectedly during those down times. All I can say is Bravo! The work you've done here, and allowed us, the community, to contribute to any and everything the site has to offer is just awesome! No word can better describe what the two guys did. Awesome! All I can say is, don't try and fix a system that is not broken. When the Builds section went down, I almost cried... but then I thought "Hey! These guys are forcing me to be creative and actually go throw the list of skills at the trader before buying them all!" so for that, thanks. Stimulated my brain. And I guess that's that. Thanks for everything! --MagickElf666 21:35, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
If (when) you change the DNS, the propagation time for some areas can be up to 48 hours. So you're looking at about 2 days downtime for some people, even if it's up and running fine at the new place. Biscuits Biscuit.png 04:27, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Actually you could work around that by keeping the old one up and running but editlocked, and provide a link to the IP of the new one until the DNS has resolved for everyone. Biscuits Biscuit.png 05:40, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

So for the general user here, does this mean anything? Sure, it's hosted by a different company now; but like previously mentioned, it's still the same editors and sysops. Does the licensing change at all? Will we still have advertisements on the site? Are Gravewit and Nunix still in charge of adding extensions and whatnot to the servers?

That's a pretty big pile of questions there, but in the end, I'm just curious to know if anything at all changes in the way we edit. Any changes in policy because of all this? --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 21:36, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

To the average user, nothing will really change. The ads will point to Wikia's ad code, and users will be able to take advantage of their new skin, but that's about it. Gravewit 21:38, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
I am glad you guys get a break. Readem (talk*contribs) 21:36, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia is monopolizing. Seriously tho, horrible timing for guildwiki....--Alari 21:39, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree. Could've at least waited 'til a while after EotN was released. Maybe the end of September or something. You can't set a site to read only when there's tons of new data to add. Bad timing indeed o-o the imperialist

Srry to ask but i really dont know, Wth is wikia? --The Gates Assassin 21:40, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia gaming network They recently took the EQII wiki I sometimes contribute aswell.--Alari 21:43, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Will Wikia censor or change any additions that we add?--Gigathrash 21:54, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

This will not happen. Gravewit 21:55, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Will this change make any difference with our current situation with the official wiki? Any changes to fansite status, etc... or does that all stay the same as well?

And a bonus question. Does the URL change at all? Because I'd like to know before I have to do a Google search for my own userpage. :P --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 22:03, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

As far as I know Anet isn't going to blackball us or anything. Wikia now owns all of the URLs, as well, which will be kept the same. Gravewit 22:09, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia's Guild Wars related wikis

Just curious ... will this DB dump overwrite Wikia's existing (tiny) English wiki for Guild Wars, or sit along-side it as an additional wiki on their network for Guild Wars? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:46, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

We will be moving to our own servers within Wikia, and let the communities discuss how to take care of merging the sites, should they want to. We're going under the assumption that GuildWiki will take over the existing Guildwars wiki. It is not going to be a mandate, however. Gravewit 21:48, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
Hi. I'm one of the founders of Wikia. I'm pleased this community is joining us. Wikia's old Guildwars wiki has been moved to Because the two wikis use a different license, the content can not be merged. The old wiki was not very active and I'm encouraging anyone who was editing there to join this one instead. The old content will be kept in case anyone who used to be involved in that wiki wants to see it, but this wiki will take over the primary URL. Angela 12:26, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Wikia's other content-similar wikis

GuildWiki is the big one, no doubt. But the other GameWikis projects probably have parrallel projects already active on Wikia as well -- I know there's one for Warhammer Online. Amusingly, I very recently blogged a bit about that one. Maybe EA Mythic knew something about the future of GameWikis that the rest of us didn't? (Don't answer that.) At any rate, there seems to be potential for issues and territory wars and general wagging of epeens. Has any thought been put into figuring out how we are going to resolve those potential conflicts? I have a feeling it is not going to be in anyone's interest to have parallel Wikia projects running in the future. --Bishop 03:46, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

There's always the chance that it'll turn out much the same as GuildWiki and GuildWarsWiki... both side-by-side. Most contributors on one are on the other as well, and the two both provide information in their own way (GuildWiki's been here longer, so more info, but GuildWarsWiki is more connected to ANet, so more questions answered). Other wikis won't have such benefits to set them apart, but it's still not going to turn into a turf war, I don't think. --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 03:54, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Will be any changes in the licenses? It would be cool if they changed to a Guild Wars Wiki-compatible license, so some data could be shared freely between them. It's a bit tiring having to patrol for copypasting TT__TT. Mithran 15:19, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
No, the users here have made their contributions under the by-nc-sa license. In order to keep that content, the new site will also need to operate under the by-nc-sa license. If they changed the license, it would be the same issue as on GWW - the old content not being compatible with the new license and it would need to be deleted. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:43, 11 September 2007 (CDT)


→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Technical

How Much?

→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Gravewit's compensation


→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Technical
(discussion was mostly about blocking ads, only one unanswered question about ads vs BY-NC-SA)

username cross-over

→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Technical

The question you never answered...

→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Gravewit's compensation

Big news tonight

Hey guys !
That move is big news ! Yes it is. At least for me. I'm the founder of the french guild wars wikia, as some of you might already know by seen my user page. I know wikia very well, i think. But, since you said it's will be like Memory-Alpha, your "new" wiki will not be a wikia like mine. I mean, your domain name wont be somethin like isn't it ? Will it be the same as right now ? If not, that mean we will have to adapt somes thing in our french wikia because there was a sort of linking system to here.

Anyways, i hope been on your own server will prevent the bigs slowdown we experience often on the french wikia and wellcome to our big familly. TulipVorlax 01:03, 11 September 2007 (CDT)


Wikia's going to need to update this page; we just rolled the Star Wars Fanfic wiki off the top ten biggest Wikis list. :P We also shoved the Muppets and Star Trek Spinoffs down a notch. --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 03:59, 11 September 2007 (CDT)


What does this mean? Does it effect me in anyway at all? --The Gates Assassin 05:44, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Umm.. Did you read the article? most of it is explained there. -- Xeon 05:58, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
=) K so not at all. --The Gates Assassin 13:39, 11 September 2007 (CDT)


→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Technical
(server speed stuff)


→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Technical

Termination due to breach of contract

→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Gravewit's compensation


scares me. it's one of those overly-friendly communities 0.o The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs). 18:29, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

I don't do well with overly-friendly people! D: I'll probably have to erase my entire userpage and leave a flame on my talk page that says that only people from when we hadn't moved yet can post otherwise I won't like you.--Gigathrash's sig.gif 22:16, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Like it matters - this wiki has limited value anymore

Does anyone really care? Aside from having virtually no impact to the user. Lets be honest here, the wiki itself has limited value now.

The last add-on to the original Guild Wars series has been released. Sure, there's the upcoming bonus mission back, but that's only four add-on missions, nothing compared to a campaign or expansion. After that notta, nothing, zippo, zilch. In 2-3 years we should see Guild Wars 2; but that should be built in its own wiki. It'll be an all new game with all new game mechanics, only the game universe will continue into that one.

Then consider that ArenaNet now has the official Guild Wars Wiki, which already can open a related page in your browser directly from in-game links. Already, a large percentage of users who originally contributed here have migrated to that wiki. Some have boycotted that one, planning to stay here but the core users who contributed the current content here are now on that wiki which has better extensions to make better interfaces, etc. Many of their articles are less complete, but those are improving daily. For a wiki that has existed for just over six months, that one has grown phenomenally well. And the in-game links and links ensures that newer users will find that wiki long before they find this one.

Sure, okay, so by buying GuildWiki, Wikia can be sure to be more attractive when GW2 comes out. But ArenaNet has already said that the official guild wars wiki is basically a test bed for better integration into GW2. When Guild Wars 2 does eventually come out, where are new players more likely to go? A wiki which is directly linked from in-game and from the game developers website, or a third party wiki?

If Gravewit got more than several months hosting costs in exchange, he made out like a bandit. And I'm sure he did get more than just that. This sites Alexa rankings are still strong, but between having increasing competition, plus no significant new game content on the horizon for at least 2+ years, he basically cashed in on the big payout at the peak. -- 22:11, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Though ANet has it's own wiki, there's still some valuable content on this wiki that isn't in the official one, though with the lag that the wiki seems it'll be hit with when moved over, that may change. >_> ~ GeckoSprite.gif Pae 22:21, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
This wiki still has a ton more information than the official wiki. It will probably take the official wiki ~1 year to catch up to us, and by that time, this website will pretty much be read only, as there will not be much new content to be added, like you said. These "major contributors" or whatever you call them are still plentiful here. Sure, GWW has an ingame link, but I know a lot of people don't even know its there. Plenty of pages have little information on them, making GuildWiki more desirable. Anyway, this won't really be bad for the wiki, but if there really is lag like people say, then....umm...that'll suck. Gravewit was not in this for the money, as he stated, and even if he did, who cares!? This is still a great wiki, and it still will be strong as ever. We will not falter, and we will not fall. We will stand strong. GuildWiki FOREVER!!!! PaintballerSig.jpg The Paintballer (T/C) 22:33, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Capitalism trumps morals so in that sense, no, it doesn't make one bit of difference. GWW has ugly skins and color schemes anyways. Thank the gods for User:LordBiro. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
I have a firm guide line when it comes to fansites. Fan hosted always beats official. Has been proved countless times before on other games. See no reason it wont be proven wrong with GW. Guildwiki was first(successful first anyways) and GWW is a mere copycat attempt with fancy decorations.--Alari 22:54, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
If ANet decides to start an offical GW2 wiki the day GW2 is out, preferably earlier, then I'll probably use that one above all else. But in the current situation, despite the benefits of the offical wiki, it's always going to be second fiddle. The most it can ever do is catch up, but I don't think it's possible to catch up and/or pass this one by, not before GW2 comes out at least. --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 23:16, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
The user that started this conversation is assuming that everyone will buy and pass to GW2 when it's out. I wont. Or at least, i wont if Anet dont change is mind about not permitting to walk with mouse. Even in GW1 i mostly never walk with mouse. I use it only when clicking the ground become difficult like when traversing some doorway in Sorrow Furnace. Aside that i use keyboard to target the nearest (C) followed by attacking with space.
I think that somes users that can play GW even though they have some disabilities to use the keyboard or else, might no be able to play that GW2 that will be designed to be more immersive as they said. But, when i think about this a little bit more, thoses peoples might just be too few. TulipVorlax 13:09, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
If he's guilty of assuming that everyone will move to GW2, you are also assuming that not many people would. I daresay that at least 50% of active players will move on 2 years down the line. And you're also ignoring the fact that GW2 is going to attract new players, while GW1 won't 2 years down the line. While GW1 may certainly live on for many more years, it's an undeniable fact that it will start to decline drastically when GW2 comes out.
And to PaintballerOWNZ, saying "who cares?!" is a rather insulting way of brushing aside the unfairness that long-time contributors are now subject to. And to Alari, well, Guildwiki now is fan-hosted. Once it moves to Wikia, you can't really call it fan-hosted anymore... :/ --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig.png (msg Aberrant80) 20:31, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

I do hope that you know I was not trying to be insulting, but merely saying this. GuildWiki IS about putting up information about GW and doing our best to keep it updated and in useful condition. However, I, personally, and I beleive many others will agree, GuildWiki is also largely about the community. I know that if there were no such thing as talk pages or User pages, I would not be here. The people here are awesome, and I think that THAT is what it's about. Sure, we dont have Phil as the owner, but as long as we are still here as a community, why does it matter? What harm is it doing to them if Phil doesn't own it if we are all still the same? PaintballerSig.jpg The Paintballer (T/C) 23:59, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Quote For Truth. Hell, even any members we get from Wikia will technically become a part of our community, not the other way around. If we had the same discussion page policies as Wikipedia, comments like this one right here might not even exist; the fact that we can post "this skill sucks!" "no, try this awesome combo with it!" comments is reason enough to stay here. --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 00:45, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Don't forget that Wikia hasn't just bought GuildWiki, they've bought all of the GameWikis wikis. Although Hammerwiki is still relatively small, if it becomes the de facto wiki for Warhammer Online it could potentially turn out to be another massive revenue stream in the future which would more than make up for the decline of GuildWiki. Ultimately, the value of any asset is the amount of money people are willing to pay for it. Wikia is funded by big venture capitalist money, which allows them to swallow up any promising wiki projects that start up. No matter how good peoples intentions are to start with, at the end of the day everyone has a price.-Pendrako talk 04:46, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Wow, I uh... guess I need to change what I said. I thought that money being exchanged here was merely hundreds, at max a thousand dollars. Reading the newer posts, I realize it's much bigger. So yall, I take back what I said about "who cares" up there. PaintballerSig.jpg The Paintballer (T/C) 18:26, 18 September 2007 (CDT)


So, the link seems like it'll stay the same. What about the appearance? Wikia has some pretty bulky content (footer area w/ hubs). ~ GeckoSprite.gif Pae 22:21, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

See Talk:Wikia_Move#version--Alari 22:49, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Users will always retain the option to choose their preferred skin in their preferences, meaning you can keep the site on Wikipedia's monobook skin like it is now, or choose one of the new Wikia skins, or develop your own. Angela 21:18, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

What if...

What if someone were to offer to host GuildWiki on a dedicated server and domain, without ads? --Toxik 05:28, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

That's what Gravewit did in the beginning, and he had to take donations in order to pay for the hosting/bandwidth costs. With how much traffic the site is receiving now, which is orders of magnitude greater than what it got back then, trying to host it like that would be quite infeasible. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 08:56, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
I would like to know how much bandwidth and space we are actually talking about. Any way to get this information from the wiki itself, or is it just the owner who would know? --Toxik 11:56, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Pretty insignificant but...

Will the yellow bar that says "GameWikis is now a part of Wikia. See Wikia Move for details, and to ask questions." be there forever? It's really annoying me for some reason. Lyra Valo LVS.JPG 10:46, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Doubt it. Lord of all tyria 10:52, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
If you have the know-how, you can edit your skin css to block the "siteNotice" element, and it should go away. ;-) Biscuits Biscuit.png 14:24, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
It will just be there until the wiki has moved to Wikia. In the newer version of MediaWiki, there is be a dismiss link that lets you hide the sitenotice once you've read it. Angela 21:19, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

PvX Wiki

What's going to happen to it? Assimilation, dropping or other?--Gigathrash2 Sig.gif 17:21, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

PvX Is ran independently but with inter links back here, Doubt anything will change.--Alari 17:25, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

A for-profit company displaying ads over the content isn't commercial use?

I'm an idiot, so someone explain this to me: "couldn't" buy the wiki and use it in game due to licensing issues -- the content can't be used for commercial purposes. But a for-profit company can make money off the content by displaying ads over them? Really?

Also, how exactly does a non-profit enterprise made up of monies from multiple parties suddenly become the sole property and for-profit enterprise of an individual financial contributor?

I am far from being a lawyer (I'm more of a high school dropout, sort of), but it seems to me that out of pocket financial contributions of donators (excluding monies earned by site via ads)represent various stakes in the enterprise. It is arguable that this enterprise doesn't belong to a single person -- and yet that single person has sold the sum total of assets belonging to the enterprise?

The contract is probably null and void by virtue of being made with a party with no right to sell an enterprise he doesn't own. Lawyers should look into this on all sides. Even if the actual domain name is considered the private property, the essence and workings of the wiki surely is not.

In fact, I wonder if the profits from ad revenues (if any) belong equally to all donating parties. It probably depends on the terms by which the donations were originally made, and what changes were made to the enterprise following the change from a non-profit to profit-making company. (the actual change itself may have been illegal, esp. since what we could call the board of directors by default were apparently not consulted.)-- 18:52, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Karlos's arguement from above topic makes total sense. Gravewit (Phil) basically said he would host the wiki, and it was a non-profit "organization". He accepted donations for server costs, and (hopefully) used them in the correct way. He then stopped taking donations. Oh well, right? Wrong. He soon deleted the ledger of donators and how much they donated. He then put ad's up, to make money for servers instead. But, ladies and gentlemen, the grand finale! He decides to sell the website, and all people who helped pay server costs are not being reimbursed. Gravewit from the wiki policy, and sold the work of others. Timeout for you. the imperialist
Regarding the issue of whether displaying advertisements is considered a commercial use or not: Xeon has asked that question directly to Gil Penchina, and I to Angela Beesley, the two Wikia guys who seem to be more involved in the GuildWiki move. Neither of them has answered yet; I hope that they're talking with their lawyers and whatnot (even though it seems kind of late in the process to be doing so).
Oh, and the CreativeCommons wiki has an article dealing with the NonCommercial clause, which seems to indicate that displaying ads like the wiki currently does is indeed a commercial use, and a violation of the license. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so it'd be great if the Wikia guys can chip in here with their thoughts. --Dirigible 20:07, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Why would the wikia guys try and prove what they're doing is illegal. And may I point out Gravewit has yet to respond to anything here. the imperialist
If the creative commons take on the issue is accurate, then what is happening here is a clear violation of that license. As in the violation is occurring, right now. It's apparent, brazen piracy of copyrighted works; maybe open to takedown notice via the DMCA and maybe open to civil damages.
I bet people (like at Groklaw, for example) would be interested in the details of this dispute. Very unusual scenario.-- 20:32, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
People, lets not jump to conclusions, I have informed Gil of the problem on his wiki talk page and emailed him a copy, so i expect a response soon, I expect he is seeking legal advice about the situation but some acknowledgment about him knowing the issue would be nice. Until Gravewit, Gil or Angela post here, they can nothing about shifting the servers. Infact i would rather see them post soon because this silence is irritating. -- Xeon 20:43, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Do I understand this correctly, people are now talking of legal action over a online fansite...? I just can't fathom anyone taking a dispute over a game fansite that far. Some accuse gravewit of greed but the mention of damages above make it seem others are also affected by greed. It's a video game documentation published for free on internet, what effect does it have on the world? It's jsut astounding people take things like this so seriously.--Alari 21:14, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
I have zero meaningful edits on this particular wiki. I simply amused and musing over the implications. I do believe that protecting the intent of the license is important however.-- 21:18, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
It's not about getting money for damages, or simply starting a fight for the sake of it; the point remains, many, if not all, of the contributors made their edits under the pretense that they were doing it just for the fans; what it's starting to turn into is a way for other people to make a profit. The scale of the problem has nothing to do with it, it's the fact that there is a problem. Wikia stands to possibly make money off of this; Gravewit has probably already made money off of it. And none of them did the vast majority of the work here. To put it simply, the general contributors are slaves; unpaid, doing work for others' benefit. That needs to be cleared up, one way or another. --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 21:19, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Ask yourself what are the difference between this, and someone allowing people to download a song from a major record label or two from you. In this case we have more content being transferred, more people having their copyright ripped off and the person allowing the transfer is profiting from it.
that's completely irrelavent and a bad comparison. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs). 21:29, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Why ?
Fact is, if I download a song, then sell it to a friend, then I'm making an illegal profit. Chances are I'll never be caught, but that doesn't lessen my wrongdoing. In this case, we can see what's going on for the most part, and it is a violation of a law, as it currently stands. Any reason why we should just ignore it? --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 21:32, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
We do work and Gravewit sells it. This is commercial, because I do not believe that Gravewit would have gotten the same amount of money for a wiki he works on only himself. I neither like what's going on here nor do I like the GWW. --Warrior's Endurance.jpg numma_cway 17:28, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

An Open Letter to Gravewit

→ Moved to Talk:Wikia Move/Forking
(the discussion side-tracked into forking by the second reply)

Are We serious

without gravewit this site would never have existed. /support, gravewit. 12:43, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Says the user whose only contribution to the wiki has been to congratulate Gravewit for selling out every other user's contribs for his own profit... - Candle.jpg Krowman (talkcontribs) 13:17, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
i've read this wiki since b4 i started playing. you guys didnt have to contribute, as i certainly did not. now your mad because he's making profit off a site that he started? i dont claim to know much about this, but at face value i see this as total bullshit that you guys are complaining. 13:51, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You should read up more on the facts of the wiki's past. Fragments can be found in talk pages throughout the wiki, but Tanaric did a nice job of summing it all up on Gravewit's talk page. Not only would the wiki have existed without Gravewit, it would have flourished at least as well without him, if not even better. It would not have existed without the other founders who were involved with its creation, who made much more significant contributions to the wiki's formation and development. -- 13:54, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Interesting, the domain has been transfered to Wikia, but the domain appears to be owned by someone else yet. If Tanaric's history is true, then that domain may not even be Gravewit's to sell. Potentially, the community could get a database dump and build its own wiki around that domain. -- 14:29, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
From what I know all Gravewit has done is host the server, someone else would have done that eventually. He then got fyren to do server maintenence after he stopped doing anything at all. Lord of all tyria 13:58, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
I think you're a little confused. Sure he paid the server costs, but without US, the COMMUNITY, there would've been no site to use. Besides, what he's doing is (probably) illegal, under-handed, and immoral. I spend about half of my free time helping new articles get built up and game updates. Other people paid for server costs. Phil only hosted them, and they were paid for by the community, and then by ad's. So you might want to know what you're talking about before you go supporting the bad guys. It makes you look stupid. GG. the imperialist
"It makes you look stupid. GG. " Ummm if you say someone else looks stupid you must be right!
And just to be blunt, many people would find the fact of being so serious about a website "stupid". --Alari 16:44, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
I don't think the people who got scammed out of their money and got several hundred hours of their life sold and made no profit, while having the site creater who put the liscence into place directly breaking think this is stupid.
Quite. The people who were active here will probably leave in protest over to Official Wiki in no time. Consider it spot-on fortune telling. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/ 17:15, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

(resetting indent)The only thing preventing me from releasing my contributions into the public domain is the fact that Wikia would be able to use it O_O Wikia Hater

Grinch i remain more optimistic. if these people really care that time they didnt have to put in to wiki they didnt have to support is now being sold, then so be it. wiser heads have always prevailed. The fact that gravewit is seen as a crook is hilarious. i see him more as human. theres not one person here who wouldnt do the same as him. wikia has done sound things for many a wiki, and are they truly "buying" our wiki. more like they're hosting it and taking the ad revs.... another middleman. i still support gravewit because i see the wiki as more than these petty squables. when gww went up,a huge amount of fags left. gem, etc. fuck them. same to the people that leave this time. they care more about their share than actually helping people. guildwiki will never die. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (contribs) .

Black and white. Law is law, licenses are licenses. This site isn't allowed to be sold for monetary profit. As he has ALREADY transferred the information, he's in direct violation of the license. Direct violation of contract/license = breaking the law, which is similar to a "crook". ~ Lutz 01:24, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

/support gravewit. —ShadyGuy 09:28, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Still listening

I'm reading the various discussions and trying to determine what if anything we can do to resolve the myriad issues people appear to have raised. There is obviously a great deal of passion and anger some people have and I apologize for our part in that. Some updates:

  • We have transfered the DNS of gamewikis
  • We are working on uploading a copy of the information
  • We don't currently have any plans or reason to change the urls - although we may offer a copy of the same content under the wiki URL as a mirror
  • We will keep GW on it's own server to try to improve speed issues
  • We will have monobook for those who don't like the new wikia skins and widget tools, although I think they're kind of cool - I admit I'm biased
  • I will talk to Phil about some of the issues being raised. Obviously as an outsider it's hard for me to fully come up to speed on 2+ years of history - that's my excuse if I appear slow or dim witted, but he and I will have a long conversation SOON
  • I can tell you that our goals are to make all information free and that we view guildwiki as an important part of that effort.
  • A number of people have asked questions about the ads - For now all I can say is that we want to reduce the number of ads without eliminating them, but that I am listening to a number of people who have raised issues about advertising and trying to see what the fair and proper thing is to do here - albeit perhaps at a slower pace than some people would like.
  • For those with concerns - please keep contacting me, for those who are nervous about change - please trust that Jimmy and I are focused on serving the needs of gaming communities and we're committed to giving you the freedom to build the best resource for gamers. We serve over 400 gaming communities today and it's an important part of our vision of making ALL information freely available.

Penchina 16:45, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

You do not get a choice to have the ads or not to have them, those ads are in violation of this site's licensing terms, and need to be removed. - User:Nex(not logging in, in protest.)
'Ello Gil :) Do you have any idea on the "legal-ness" of all this? Some people have "shares" in GW, and aren't being consulted (I'm not lawyer, I'm just picking this up), along with several sysops going inactive and Tanaric even resigning. At this rate you'll be lucky if this site even has a community by the time the transfer is done... User:The Imperialist
You probably have noble intent Gil. But that doesn't change the fact that you bamboozled by Gravewit into hosting a site that is now in flagrant, willful violation of copyright. The ethical/legal thing to do is remove the ads in entirety until a solution can be found. You might also check over the contract you have with Gravewit. Typically there are clauses in contracts providing for warranties for just this sort of problem when selling a domain name. It's possible you could get your money back from the scam artist who sold you this lemon.-- 18:28, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
The Domain was given to Gravewit by Tabor Wells, there is no proof at all that he has made money off of the amount of bandwith that is used by everyone who uses this wiki daily. That is a lot of bandwith being used, and he has to pay for it all, 2 cents an ad might not cover all of that, seriously, I don't see that it's worth making legal action out of a FAN SITE, you've taken this way too far, just let them move, and if you don't want to use it anymore, don't, plain and simple, it's a fansite, live with it or go to the official one. 19:55, 14 September 2007 (CDT)(edit: Also, everything on this website can be used by Wikia without any cost, sure, he made a little money by selling the domain name and some of his coding(if he had any) but seriously, THIS IS A FAN SITE, why bring legal action against a fan site?)
Because he didn't build the entire site, and doesn't deserve all the money. This has already been discussed, however. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090 (contribs). 22:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Wrong. Wikia cannot use this information without written consent from every single contributor no matter how small, because they are a COMMERCIAL site. Likewise, Gravewit cannot sell this site without written consent from every single contributor. And yes, that means he must contact every single person to use this site's content. ~ Lutz 16:59, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Background links

Gil and other parties involved ... to help get caught up on the issues, please see:

  • This posting to Gravewit's talk page covers the founding of this wiki, and how other co-founders and financial contributors to the wiki have been, for lack of better words, cheated and deceived by Gravewit's actions, including the sale.
  • This post on Gravewit's talk page addresses one of the more vocal user's legal concerns. Especially around the site license, which is explicitly non-commercial.
  • This post on Tanaric's talk page covers a potential route for the community to create their own branch, as Gravewit is believed to have never owned the domain (even though it was the domain under which this wiki operated for quite some time).

Of course, once legal and ethical questions began getting raised, Gravewit once again pulled his silent treatment and ignored the community, and has not replied to a single post since then. That has been his standard operating procedure for the last couple of years whenever his actions (or lack of action) has been questioned. That behavior is a large part of the frustration that has triggered the community complaints on this transaction. Past issues have never been resolved, and now he has been paid by you for something which he was really only a bit player in creating and managing. -- 17:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Community Poll

Moved to Wikia Move/Community poll

Cataloging which pages need to be deleted/rewritten

I have been informed that helpfully cataloging which pages are currently in violation of copyright is "vandalizing". As the process will need to occur eventually in order to delete/rewrite all content (on the Wikia fork, even if it's the only version available):

  • when will the license be changed to one friendly to for-profit use?
  • when should the cataloging start occurring? many of the pages on this wiki are breaking the license in the present tense.
  • how should this monumental task be approached? --
Once the license is changed then someone will need to acquire permission from every single contributor to change over to the new license, including all anonymous edits. If someone refuses, can't be contacted or doesn't respond then I don't see Wikia having any choice but to delete their edits and any edits derived from them in such a way that someone else can't simply come along revert the change. With the possible exception of minor changes (like correcting formatting) which will need to be identified on a case by case basis, this would mean reverting all pages to before they were edited by any contributor who hasn't given permission. If they made a new page, this means the page will have to be deleted, since no matter how much work other people did, its still derived from them making the page in the first place. The page can then be remade by anyone under the new license. So the first step will be finding out which contributors will give permission to change the license. Then once they know who those people are, delete everything else.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (contribs) .
At the moment, there are a fairly large number of contributors (myself included) who released their edits to public domain, as help to GWWiki when it was first starting off. Basically, Wikia will need the same thing from everyone else, which is a much larger task, obviously; in the GWWiki case, it was simply a matter of, if information was released in that way, it was safe to copy; if not, big deal, someone could write the article themselves. The problem here is, the info's already here, but the license is changing, so what we'll probably need to do is go through what can stay, and wipe everything else. Which, like the original poster said, is a monumental task to say the least. --GEO-logo.png Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 00:14, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
Wikia is not planning to change the license (unless the community decides in future that is the best option). We're obviously looking into the issue of what counts as commercial use in terms of covering hosting costs via ads rather than covering hosting costs by charging for hosting, but either way, there should be no need to delete any content that the community wants to keep here. Angela 21:27, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

License termination due to breach of contract

According to Project:Copyrights as well as licensing information displayed at the bottom of the page (All contributions to GuildWiki are considered to be released under the CC 2.0 by-nc-sa license (see Project:Copyrights for details).), all contributions have been licensed under the Commons by-nc-sa license. Usage of said content in a commercial/for-profit environment, including sale or showing advertisements for with the intention of profit is in violation of said license (See Commons 2.0 by-nc-sa license legalcode Section 4, subsection c: You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation) leading to termination of the license and any rights granted by it. Continuing to use the content, without explicit re-licensing to permit commercial use, is violation of the copyright of the content's creators and may be subject to DMCA notices and other legal remedies.

To sum it up: If you keep using the database without getting ALL the contributors to re-license to content people may sick their lawyers at you. And no, a "if you don't respond, you agree to relicense" notice won't cut the custard. 08:00, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

To sum it up: If you keep using the database without getting ALL the contributors to re-license to content people may sick their lawyers at you. And no, a "if you don't respond, you agree to relicense" notice won't cut the custard. 08:00, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
They are aware, I and others have already brought this up with them. They are allowed to host the content currently if the revenue from the ads does not do anything other then support the Gwiki hosting maintenance costs and they do not link to their company page. They are looking at solutions for this issue. And why are these topics being posted again? They are already mentioned in above sections. -- Xeon 08:12, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
Hm... changing of stance slightly from Xeon... Others soon to follow? Hypothetical question: How many individuals would Wikia need to pay off to make this go away..?
Addendum: If YOU know all this about what Wikia are "currently" doing, why aren't you sharing that info transparently..? Are you receiving emails direct from Wikia..? Isn't this lack of transparency, "greater good", "its being taken care of" attitude what led to this shitcan in the first place..? The community deserves ANSWERS, OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY ... and it deserves, for the first time in 2 years, the TRUTH.
I never really took a stance except the one i have mentioned on gils page. I dont care who hosts the information as long as they abide by the license details that the information is placed under, the Gravewit issue is now entirely separate, Gil mentioned that he will talk to Gravewit soon but frankly, nothing will come of it because the transaction has already proceeded.
Btw my emails were one way, where i was informing him about the issues from this page mainly and encouraging him to update us more, which he acknowledged, not sure if others have written to him as well but it is one of the reasons why he posted that updated yesterday. If you also read my msg to Gil on his page, i have noted the exact same thing there as I have in my last reply. If you are suggesting I got paid to change my stance that "hasn't" changed, grow up, sarcastic remarks and childish comments should be left out of all of these discussions. If you really want me to post the emails, i will but you will just be wasting your time and mine if i have to. -- Xeon 09:27, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
Its hardly "sarcastic" or "childish" to pose a hypothetical point, unless you have something to hide. Using the "grow up" gambit is also a lose, as frankly we've seen it all before from Gravewit. What I am saying is, do not post "They are looking at solutions for this issue" etc when you have no more proof of that than you have that G-d exists.
Read ,he mentions the ad revenue problem and trying to find a solution. Nothing i say will please you it seems, I am just another user that wants the content hosted correctly and publicly, my admin status means nothing in these talk pages Project:Administrate users, not content. People need to give Gil and his team more time to sort things out, legal matters do not take a day or two to work out, especially with the complexity in this case. If you want more details then i suggest you contact Gil, i suggest you use his email method, as that seems to be the fastest way to get a response. -- Xeon 10:31, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Did Gravewit actually own the domain? Questionable.

What paid for the domains and server's upkeep? The ads and donations. Where were the ads served? Over the top of content that cannot be used for commercial gain. Why did people give the donations? To serve this content that cannot be used for commercial gain.

Who maintained the servers and the community? Unpaid employees.

So how the hell can a person sell something paid for by money that can only be used for non-profit uses -- FOR A PROFIT?

The copyright holders donated their content to the wiki, and the wiki used the content to pay for the domain name. In a sense, these donators are a party to a contract they are not allowed to see; since it is via THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS EFFORTS AND DONATIONS THAT THE DOMAIN WAS PAID FOR, under the assumption of a license that DISALLOWS commercial use of their works. Silly.-- 08:08, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Pissed off all about this smoke and mirrors play? File a DMCA takedown notice!

Well, since Mr. Gravewit has been rather quiet and only gave no-answers, here's how you can get him to pay attention to the community:
File a DMCA takedown notice. Check the link, there is an very good example notice there, just copy it and fill it out then send it to him, Wika and perhaps post it here too. Sorry, but I don't believe that Mr. Gavewit did not make a bundle of dollars by selling YOUR contributions to Wikia. Maybe letting him feel the legal burn of license violations will make him rethink his actions (or at least proof that he did not sell you out, but "only" broke even.) Interesting fact: Not only is Wikia not allowed to use the contributions for "for-profit" purposes, but also Mr. Gravewit did not have the right to "sell" the database in the first place - once he aims to gain financial gain from the transaction his license with immediately terminates. 08:19, 15 September 2007 (CDT) I guess you were absent for most of the discussion. Officially, he didn't sell the database, only the domain names. So, officially he didn't do anything and any grievance you fire will just be thrown out.--TheDrifter 21:13, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

You've lost already by the looks of it

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...

You need

To follow this link Starving Artists

Thanks Sysops

I really am amazed at you guys are standing up and fighting for what you believe in. I think you guys are doing the right thing by providing stable ground in this whole thing. I at least know I can look to you guys for guidance through this whole thing, and I think we certainly do need it. This is the times when we need people like you sysop's, because this certainly isn't going to be easy...

Like my father always says "Problems don't build character, they reveal it." And I am impressed by the amount of integrity and gut you guys have. So keep up the good work and gogo ;) The Imperialist

This page is on slashdot

For those that don't know. They got the story a little wrong, claiming the database itself was sold.-- 10:15, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

And there posting all over this page throwing out advice to a community that really just needs time with itself to work out what's happening --Nela 11:43, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
Ah so that explains all of the recent comments that have been reposted again, I was wondering when that would happen, thanks for that info. -- Xeon 11:58, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I will come fully clean: I submitted that story to Slashdot. It was probably unwise of me. I truly didn't think they would run it. There have literally been hundreds of much worthier submissions of mine that were rejected outright. Yay Murphy's Law. Yeah, the commenters are getting many details wrong, but that's normal for Slashdot. BftP 12:11, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

rofl. Bullshit Bftp. -- 13:24, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
Why the hell did you do that? >:| We already have enough to do here without worrying about the validity of an internet news article. Good going. The Imperialist 13:26, 15 September 2007 (CDT)