User:AttemptToCallNil/Statement on the future of Gamepedia

This is a rewritten version of the statement I originally posted as the answer to the survey on the future of the Gamepedia brand. Maybe I'll expand it in the future with more details.

Statement
Let's go back to the time before Fandom acquired Curse Media. Back then, the for Gamepedia's community, Gamepedia as a concept meant: Yes, Gamepedia was smaller. It only covered games, but not many other subjects Fandom included. On Gamepedia, only staff could create wikis, while on Fandom, anyone could create a wiki in no time. So while Gamepedia didn't excel in size, it was like a more "elite" area than Fandom. In such an area, there were less editors and wikis, but that meant each editor or wiki could have more resources for themselves.
 * having more advanced technology than on Fandom;
 * having greater quality than on Fandom;
 * having less staff interference than on Fandom;
 * being more open to users than Fandom.

But there is no more certainty about the future of Gamepedia after it was acquired. Some things that have happened already may be viewed as troubling signs. Signs of that Gamepedia users will lose a noticeable part of GP's advanced tech, or that staff won't be as open and willing to listen as before.

Taking apart the identity of Gamepedia, however, would be a massive blow to the GP community. Having a separate identity for a small, more trusted group gives them some benefits. Not all of these benefits can be safely given to everyone outside that group. Yes, some of them can be granted to everyone, but some would have to be lost for everyone. So should Gamepedia as a concept be dissolved, any its advantages that rely on a separate identity will be gone forever.

I am, however, concerned not just with Gamepedia's branding and the tools editors have. In my list above, the one with Gamepedia traits, two of the four points center on a whole other part of Gamepedia: its staff. There are the "purple names" on the F/G server, who handle the most significant tasks. There are the "orange" Wiki Team members – wiki managers – who help wiki communities with day-to-day activities. (CTMs are "oranges" too, but I don't think they have much relevance to established communities.) I would go as far as to list GRASP here, even though they're certainly not staff.

Many members of these groups are strongly associated with the Gamepedia identity. They have shown they are willing to listen, not just take the path easiest for the corporation at the expense of users and editors. For that reason, I would prefer them to stay where they are, where they can ensure the well-being of the community.

However, I believe that for these same reasons, these people are unlikely to stay. Disintegrating the Gamepedia identity may make them redundant, and even if not, would be a great opportunity to lay them off. Chances are, should someone come to replace them, the replacements will be far less community-oriented.

I wish to ensure that the Gamepedia community sustains the least losses possible as a result of the changes coming with UCP and whatever happens later. I believe it's essential for GP's survival as a concept to maintain a strong separate identity. There was also an interesting related idea raised on the F/G server (and not just by me, so it's not necessarily invalid). This idea was to maintain two separate trust levels on the new platform. Otherwise, as I said above, whenever someone can't be raised to the higher level, everyone will have to be dropped to the lower one. Including those who have shown they don't deserve such distrust.