Quote Originally Posted by Sparthos View Post
And yeah, the amount of information lifted from BG is astounding. The same thing happens with info originating from ZAM.
It's meant to be like that, and that's good too. It's a hub, a central place where information converges from all directions, to be easily accessible to everyone. Finding info on a forum is nearly impossible. ZAM employs a database model and would much prefer that, if it wasn't slower to edit and wasn't as complete as the wiki (or any wiki, by design). The problem with FFXIclopedia is, that it is horribly mismanaged, mainly by Charitwo.

Quote Originally Posted by Greatguardian View Post
Which is fine, until Wikia profits from information stolen without citation from a non-profit licensee. Then it becomes illegal.
Is it? I'm not entirely sure, but I thought it depends on the licensing. And I didn't know that forums were usually licensed for their content (or if that's even possible, since it's input by different users and not the people who host/run the forums).

Either way, if that information was actually licensed and not available for free reuse, it would make those sites look even more ridiculous than they already appear. Citing content is good for verification purposes (preferably in the background, footnotes or something), like links to Kaeko's enmity testing on the Enmity page, but crediting people with providing information is just stupid. I sometimes log on just to remove lines like "(information gathered by bla of bla server)" because they reek of smugness (and are sometimes put in by that same person, can guess why).

Edit:
Quote Originally Posted by Khajit View Post
That thing is complete trash. Used it for 15 minutes before it became apparent that there was just about no relevant information compared to Bgwiki. post patch bgwiki has been updated rather decently.
It's the same information as on FFXIclopedia (since it was taken over from there), plus some new information. BG wiki is still as empty as it has always been.