Of course this statement about the publisher running the wiki comes from an expectation that the publisher would be able to up their web presence, and that the publisher would be able to run a wiki better than the people that are already running it. The idea is quite interesting, but there are a couple points to be made:
- If the publisher would be interested in having a better web presence, why is the publisher not doing it already?
- If the publisher would run the wiki, what would the incentive be to cover smaller regions, local scenes and tournaments and less known teams and players?
- If the publisher runs the wiki, would he be able to innovate in the same way the independent wikis are innovating?
- If the publisher is the driving force, would he get people to help out with updating the wiki?
Part of why Liquipedia has grown so much is that there is a huge knowledge transfer between games and between contributors. You will regularly see people help out on other wikis that are not their main game, and these people help setting a common standard of quality between the wikis. The different wikis also profit from code transfer. If someone on one wiki codes an awesome feature, it can be used by all the other wikis as well. Especially smaller games with less contributors will hugely profit from this, as they can build on the base that the bigger wikis have outlined for them. This of course does not mean the other direction does not happen, some people would be surprised how many things on the Counter-Strike wiki for example originally started on the RocketLeague wiki.
Now a company like Blizzard that has a couple games could look to have some of this cross wiki knowledge transfer, but on an independent wiki, there are way more games than just the games by a single company. Generally a single publisher will never have the same amount of depth on different things that can be done, as when you compare across all possible games, and because of that independent wikis will have the upper hand here.
Another point here is having a look at companies’ business plans. A company that publishes a game now might not be interested in the game anymore 10 years from now. Games like StarCraft Brood War however have shown that games can be around for a long time. In a purely commercial world, running a wiki for a game you are not interested in will not always work for a company. If the wiki just vanishes however, that would be a huge blow for the games community. Imagine Liquipedia just being gone, a lot of people might not even know which tournaments are on anymore.
Because of the mentioned crossover effects, wikis in a group will usually do better than if they are on their own. A wiki group like Liquipedia will always have more crossover effects than a wiki group that focuses on a single publisher.
As a conclusion to take away from this: Generally having a publisher run a wiki themselves is likely to not have the same quality you can get from the more established wikis. Such a wiki run by a publisher also is at a risk of being taken down once interest vanishes. In my opinion we generally should not look for a publisher to run a wiki, it will likely not go well. In the end, why would a publisher care about a game that does not make money. Realistically they do not, and that is why wikis should be independent.