for example, there are two runescape wikis, because the official runescape wiki used to be hosted on fandom. they moved in 2018 because fandom is terrible, but the inferior fandom copy that is largely mothballed still exists (and still turns up 3rd if you search “runescape wiki”) because fandom basically won’t let you unilaterally close your community’s wiki, even if you want to move.
How exactly would that be different with nonfree licenses though? If each person retained control of their contributions like is typical for other user-submitted content, moving to a new one would be an absolute nightmare and basically impossible unless you got everyone who ever made a contribution on board to revoke the fandom wiki’s right to use it and then moved that onto the new one. That seems like an even worse situation which puts anyone who wants to move at a disadvantage in content.
Do you know details on this? I don’t see how that would work under CC BY-SA, as long as they’re giving credit and are using the same license.
for example, there are two runescape wikis, because the official runescape wiki used to be hosted on fandom. they moved in 2018 because fandom is terrible, but the inferior fandom copy that is largely mothballed still exists (and still turns up 3rd if you search “runescape wiki”) because fandom basically won’t let you unilaterally close your community’s wiki, even if you want to move.
How exactly would that be different with nonfree licenses though? If each person retained control of their contributions like is typical for other user-submitted content, moving to a new one would be an absolute nightmare and basically impossible unless you got everyone who ever made a contribution on board to revoke the fandom wiki’s right to use it and then moved that onto the new one. That seems like an even worse situation which puts anyone who wants to move at a disadvantage in content.