The Problem with Reception Wikis

About late last decade and early this decade, there was a trend of wikis called “reception wikis”, where each page is about the overall fan reception of an aspect rather than the actual factual information.

Here is an example of what counts as a reception wiki:

• ScumBob Wiki

And here is an example of what isn’t a reception wiki:

• Encyclopedia SpongeBobia

Both wikis are on Fandom, formerly known as Wikia, and they have information about the TV show SpongeBob SquarePants. Encyclopedia SpongeBobia was basically the main wiki about SpongeBob SquarePants and has all information about the show. When it goes over the episodes, it goes over the recap, production facts, on-camera events, and even shows a few quotes. ScumBob Wiki, as well as its positive equivalent, Anti-ScumBob Wiki, are more about why the episodes are good or bad, one thing Encyclopedia SpongeBobia does not have information about.

Take for instance, the SpongeBob episode “One Coarse Meal”. Encyclopedia SpongeBobia has a lot about One Coarse Meal, including interesting facts and the synopsis. But it has no information about how it’s poorly received and why it’s a bad episode. ScumBob Wiki does have the facts about why people hate it. It lists everything wrong with it, such as jokes about suicide (which is extremely dark for a kids’ show) and the fact it needlessly tortures Plankton. As informative ScumBob Wiki is, and despite many people agreeing that the episode is not good for SpongeBob or kids’ cartoons, the way the wiki was written was like if one fan was reviewing it and explaining why he/she hates it. And it’s written like an official page rather than a fan review. In other words, it posts opinions as facts.

That is what’s wrong with reception wikis. They post opinions on media as facts. While you can find ScumBob Wiki on Fandom, most of these wikis were moved to Miraheze, and then later part of one big wiki called Qualitipedia. But some have not seen the light of the day again.

Here are some wikis that I’ve seen:

• Greatest Movies Wiki
• Awful Movies Wiki
• Best Shows & Episodes Wiki
• Terrible Shows and Episodes Wiki
• Awesome Games Wiki
• Crappy Games Wiki
• Magnificent Literature Wiki
• Dreadful Literature Wiki
• Delightful Music & Songs Wiki
• Worst Music & Songs Wiki
• Incredible Characters Wiki
• Loathsome Characters Wiki
• Fresh Websites Wiki
• Rotten Websites Wiki
• Healthy Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki
• Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms Wiki
• Talented Deviants Wiki
• Atrocious Deviants Wiki
• Amazing YouTubers Wiki
• Atrocious YouTubers Wiki

The worst of these wikis were Atrocious YouTubers Wiki, Atrocious Deviants Wiki, and especially Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki. But other reception wikis have their problems as well.

Why They Have Terrible Reception:

I’m going to go ahead and use a creative title for this section. Basically, the real name of the section is “Bad Qualities”. But many pages have creative names for each section about reasons why they’re good or bad. For instance, let’s say I ask you a question about the 1995 film Pocahontas. My question is, “do you like it, or do you hate it?”. A more creative spin of saying it is “would you paint the colors of the wind, or is it not steady as a beating drum?”. A whole bunch of reception wikis have used titles like this on all their reasons section. So if you ask why I labeled this section is “why they have terrible reception?”, it’s to copy their styles.

So what are the reasons why reception wikis are bad. Well, here’s the reasons:

1. They post opinions as facts. If a movie, tv show, game, or whatever is highly popular, then they will say that it’s a good movie, show, game, or whatever like if it’s a fact. If it’s heavily criticized, then they will say that it’s a bad movie, show, game, or whatever. The good ones start with the reasons why they’re good, while the bad ones start with the reasons why they’re bad.
2. Piggybacking on the first reason, not everyone can agree if something is good or bad. Unpopular opinions are basically invalid on these wikis. That means, if something is bad, they’re not given a chance.
3. Even by the standards of these wikis, some of the works don’t belong on their wikis. For example, Pokémon Sword/Shield was on the Crappy Games Wiki instead of the Awesome Games Wiki. Since it had mostly positive reviews, it would belong on the Awesome Games Wiki. But because not all Pokémon species are supported in Pokémon Sword/Shield, it was on the Crappy Games Wiki, a wiki for really bad games.
4. They are actually unnecessary. Wikis made for movies, tv shows, games, or other things like that generally provide facts about production, on-camera events, off-camera events, and even help (in case of gaming wikis). They are useful and beneficial. But reception wikis are useless, as the information in these wikis are better off if you found them in online reviews.
5. The negative wikis are very toxic and overly critical. And they’re very biased.
6. Due to the nature of these wikis, edit wars are predictable (if not, frequent).
7. It’s actually considered bullying to have reception wikis about other people or groups (especially the negative ones) since it would invade their privacy or publicly shame them.
8. Sometimes, the reasons can get off-topic.
9. Some of the reasons may be exaggerations or even fabrications.
10. In the case of the Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki, some of the reasons why the groups are toxic are legitimate praises or criticisms towards the art. For instance, the page on the Pokémon Sword/Shield Hatedom labeled the haters’ distaste towards the $60 price tag as a reason why they’re toxic when Pokémon games never really lived to the $60 price. There was also a page dedicated to the SpongeBob Seasons 6 to 8 Hatedom when those three seasons were really SpongeBob at its worst.

Redeeming Qualities:

Of course, each page on the reception wikis have counter-reasons to balance out. To show that they don’t have full bias, they give reasons that prove otherwise, despite not as many as the reasons as the main one. After all, even the good movies have bad things about them, and the bad movies have good things about them. This section will explain what’s great about reception wikis.

So here’s why reception wikis are good:

1. They are informative, as they give information about what most people think about the art.
2. Many pages have counter-reasons. If it’s on a positive wiki, they point out the bad qualities after listing all of the reasons why the art is good. If it’s on a negative wiki, they point the good qualities after listing all of the reasons why the art is bad.
3. They also have additional pages on what makes works good and bad, not just the individual works. For instance, the Crappy Games Wiki has a page on fake difficulty, which is about stuff that make games harder for the wrong reasons.
4. The titles that name each section are creative.
5. Some of the facts they posted as reasons are something many people can agree upon.

Interesting Facts:

To sum this up, reception wikis aren’t really beneficial, as they post opinions as facts, are written with bias, and don’t provide any useful information. But I do want to cover some of the additional stuff.

First, the Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki tends to be biased and bully people as part of the fandoms or hatedoms, which is why many people hate this site. But some of the articles were well-written. Take for example, the one on the Pokémon Sword/Shield Hatedom, it provided many facts about how poorly the fandom behaved when Pokémon Sword/Shield came out. While it’s a bad decision on Game Freak’s behalf to cut the Pokémon, and the criticism is understandable, the haters have gotten really aggressive, and sometimes even offensive. The most toxic attribute is that they harassed Game Freak’s employees. They’ve sent death threats, made a false rape accusation, and even wished that they fell to COVID-19, and during the time of the Pandemic (which is like wishing that someone got rounded up by the Nazis and sent to Auschwitz). This is extremely hostile behavior. They also went to extreme lengths on trashing the game on public profiles like vandalizing its Wikipedia page, creating a White House petition to get it banned in the United States, and spammed the BringBackNationalDex hashtag on official social media pages of Pokémon, even when it wasn’t about Pokémon Sword/Shield. This tells people that they really hate the game. But it’s not because the game was that poorly made and filled with almost everything that makes a bad video game. It’s because of the very decision that not all Pokémon will be supported in the game’s data. So while a wiki about how bad hatedoms are isn’t necessary, it did provide information about one of the most toxic fandoms or hatedoms in all of history.

Another thing I wanted to point out is that even Conservapedia, a far-right conservative alternative to Wikipedia, has a few pages on describing why certain movies are good or bad. So in a way Conservapedia can be a reception wiki, but only politically motivated and sometimes even misinformed about the art. It also got offensive at times. What makes Conservapedia worse than most reception wikis is that it looks at movies and shows in a political way, even when the work has nothing to do with politics.

TV Tropes is also a reception wiki in some way. In particular, the YMMV pages. But not like most reception wikis, they write them in an unbiased manner. If it’s something that people generally hate, some tropes include “It’s The Same, Now It Sucks”, “They Changed It, Now It Sucks”, “Scrappy Mechanic”, and “Americans Hate Tingle”. If it’s something that people generally like, some tropes include “Awesome Music”, “Best Levels Ever”, “First Installment Wins”, and “Even Better Sequel”. But if it’s something that a lot of people like or a lot of people hate, or something that people can’t agree on, one of the tropes is “Broken Base”. They also have some on game difficulty, like “Breather Level” and “That One Level”. Given how they cover the reception part and how it’s also a factual wiki, this is basically “a reception wiki done right”.

And that’s all for today’s entry.