So why would I use wikia rather than wikipedia? As either a reader or an author? 207.114.163.138 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a comparison:

Wikimedia	Wikia
Hosts generic wiki	Hosts wiki on focused topics
Hard to create a wiki	Fairly easy to create a wiki
Non-profit	For-profit
Policies are made by the general community	Policies are made by the individual communities

Hope this helps! Glacier Wolf 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think i've also read somewhere "Wikia has point of vue wich Wikipedia dont have".

(I also made the table prettier)

But when the guy ask "why should i use wikia over wikipedia" it think he should not. I mean, he should use both. Wikipedia is by far a greater source of knowledge that cover most aspect of humanity and it's world. But some topic just cant get treated as deep as it sould on wikipedia and that is where Wikia is a good choice.

Gamming is one of thoses topics. 3D modelling another. Lord of the Rings universe a third. And so on. (I dont know all english wikia, sorry) — TulipVorlax 01:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I find WPers argument is that all Wikia content belongs at WP. Hilarious isn't it? -- LordTBT ^Talk! 07:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time i recall the Ads that we see at wikia is for maintaining wikia it self oppose to wikimedias where they are slave of voluntary contributions (i mean wikia at does not charge for any wiki if it did then we could say its for profit). Also wikipedia is a facts based knowledge database (cannon?), while wikia is community facts (hence the individual rules) knowledge database (cannon, fannon, etc?) --Cizagna ^(Talk) 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)