Skip to main content

Gianna vs. Wikipedia

Although it isn't news anymore that self-righteous pricks enjoy removing useful information from Wikipedia, I thought [the discussion on Wikipedia on whether to delete the article for The Noob] was interesting for a few reasons.

First of all, one of the guys targeting her for deletion actually wrote articles on other webcomics, including such strips as Fetus-X, which (despite being universally recognized among cartoonists as Fine Art) definitely doesn't have anything like the readership of The Noob. [XEREXES: Although there is no question The Noob has a substantial readership it really isn't appropriate to compare it to Fetus-X since I have seen no evidence to confirm or deny the readership numbers for either comic.]

Second, if you scroll to the bottom, you'll see that Gianna is trying to debate him by offering a well-reasoned argument. Go check it out, read the stances and maybe offer some support.

[UPDATE from XEREXES: Within the span of a couple weeks about 3 or 4 people (hard to tell from the now closed discussion page but it appears to me that wikipedians Seraphimblade, Sandstein, Satori Son, and Dragonfiend actually voted for "deletion") deleted the entry for Comixpedia from the Wikipedia. This seems like a perfect example of how the current process makes it almost impossible for rational, well-informed debate to occur. Now I get to personally feel what everyone else subject to this ludicrous process has gone through. I'll be the first to admit the entry for Comixpedia sucked, but by their own standards, a more comprehensive entry for Comixpedia should qualify. It's just that the former entry didn't reflect any of that. It's incredibly easy for a wikipedian trying to delete things to say something's not notable. The wikipedia doesn't have to show that the entry doesn't reflect any of the given notability standards - that onus is on keeping it I guess. Worthless until proven notable, even if the Comixpedia entry has existed for 3+ years and countless other entries in the Wikipedia cite to the Wikipedia entry for Comixpedia or directly to a link on Comixpedia itself.

I plan to petition for undeletion, but I suppose I need to do the research to demonstrate notability. Any advice on petitioning for undeletion or helping me with evidence supporting Comixpedia's notability would be most welcome. If there are any experienced wikipedians willing to actively help me with this - That means you Kiba! :) please email me at xerexes AT comixpedia DOT com.]

On the positive side it appears that Girly's deletion was overturned and the entry for it is back in the Wikipedia. Some comments from the "Talk Page" for Girly at Wikipedia:

Dragonfiend...

There was a Deletion Review on this. The deletion was overturned. Let it go. --SuperHappy 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Expert undeletion

The AFD was clueless, an academic expert on comics has undeleted it as notable. It lives. - David Gerard 20:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank God. If this webcomic was not seen as notable enough for Wikipedia, I would have lost all faith in the project. There are way to many delete happy editors with their finger on the trigger.--Pyritefoolsgold 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it back too. -- Ryuko 09:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A pity I missed the fun. Glad to see this restored, since it's definitely notable. It's one of those "If you don't think this is notable, you aren't qualified to edit webcomic articles anymore" ones. :) Xuanwu 07:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, she does seem to be -

Gianna's picture

Well, she does seem to be - if not necessarily elitist - very biased in her views. I'm not talking about my comic, which is just one of many - but about Keenspot, which I hope that you'll agree is definitely relevant to the webcomics community. As Boxjam said earlier, this lady questioned its right to be on Wikipedia. However the same lady has flagged the article about Girlamatic as TOP. What does TOP mean? That the article in question is so important that the "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia". You can easily check these facts by looking at the discussion of the wiki article for Girlamatic and then clicking on TOP to see its definition. The fact that Dragonfiend classed it as top is in the history.

Now, far from taking anything away from Girlamatic's awesomeness and importance, it seems to me however that an objective person would have views about what articles to include in wikipedia that would be more, how to say, homogeneous when webcomic collectives are concerned:

- Someone who thinks that they don't deserve encyclopedic coverage wouldn't want either Girlamatic nor Keenspot on wiki.

- Someone who thinks that a webcomics collective is so important that it's a must-have subject on any printed encyclopedia, would then also want Keenspot on it, since the two collectives - although different - are arguably both influential and important in the webcomics world.

Instead here we have a person who wants to remove Keenspot but flags Girlamatic as TOP. MT sycophant? No, not that. It's just that the article about Girlamatic was written by none other than Dragonfiend herself.

She should expand her sentence of "Wikipedia is not a directory" with "it's my own personal sandbox - shoo!".

 

-------- Gianna Masetti thenoobcomic.com

--------
Gianna Masetti
thenoobcomic.com

Gotta disagree with you, Wiztoast

Sean C's picture

I respect your argument, Wixtoast, but I just don't agree with you on this one.

They may be enforcing a set of standards, and a lot of it is subjective, but the editors have willfully and knowingly ignored their own rules to make deletions. Articles that have met their standards have been brought up for deletion, and some have been deleted.

What burns me, and others, is that there's such an overly dismissive tone to it all. "Comixpedia write-ups and WWCAs are trivial". The WCCAs are a big deal now - having been televised; this really appears to be a double-standard as reality televsion programs can get in-depth coverage, yet a televised awards show doesn't rate?

I never said "intellectual" as if it were a bad thing - that was not the intention. I did mean "pseudo-intellectual" as someone more driven by personal feelings than fact. I want to clarify that. It's why I decided to drop the "elitist" bomb - there's an atmoshere of hostility. Just look at the Eric Burns/Checkerboard Nightmare battle. That boiled down to, "This expert didn't write about it enough.", but when said expert spoke up and defended the Chex article, Burn's opinion was outright dismissed. That kind of bull is what did it for me. It didn't come down to whether or not Chex could be justified, or if the article met the standards. It was just a case of "We don't want this here." The Chex article survived, but the opinions of the editors in question was clear.

As I said before, if you don't go specifically looking for a Wiki article on any given comic, it's very unlikely you'll just happen upon it. I can't see Wikis raising awareness among those who don't know about webcomics. If anything, an ongoing battle with Wikipedia will make US, the web cartoonists, look like the bad guy, as if we were trying to taint Wikipedia. I think that would hurt the webcomics community rather than help it.

All I'm saying is that webcomics is on a good track. We're raising awareness of the medium, and we've done okay for ourselves. This Wiki War is counterproductive to those efforts, which could make it appear that we're wrong and we're the bad guys in that battle. It's obvious not every comic will get Wiki'd, but there are a number that are denied their due. Honestly, if they don't want us there, we really don't need them; webcomics got recognition without Wiki. We'll keep making progress, and then they'll have to accept us, since they won't be able to deny the relevance of webcomics anymore; that would be the sweeter victory.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate. My brand new comic: http://cain.bombsheltercomics.com

My Question is, "Do we want validation from these people?"

Sean C's picture

Webcomics have been trying to prove their relevance and have sought validation from the public for years, and it's a battle we're winning. Just what is so important about Wikipedia? If you don't go directly looking for any given entry, you likely won't stumble upon it, and if you're even SLIGHTLY familiar with webcomics, then you WILL learn about Comixpedia.

So why the big to-do over entries in some "encyclopedia" run by a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals that consistently prove their own ignorance by operating on the most elitist of systems? Why do we NEED to prove ourselves to a few choice pricks? Webcomics are getting attention from the print companies now, more (not many) creators are doing it as a career, and new readers are flocking to the medium. Is it simply because anybody can do a webcomic that we are rejected by Wikipedia - that if there is not some overly elitist system in place already that they will discount an entire meduim complete with thousands of creators, with more joining the fold every day?

Webcomics has its superstars, and its major sources of information. Comixpedia is a hub of the webcomics world, and if they cannot recognize this now, they simply will NEVER get it. People who live with their heads up their asses tend to fear the light of day - and the editors dropping relevant articles that meet the requirements of THEIR OWN SYSTEM are just simply biased and prejudiced - there really isn't any better explanation. So, why not just do what we need to do; say "Screw them!", and move on?

Remember that the academic and intellectual worlds discount and dismiss the relevance of Wikipedia. Do webcomics really want to be involved in a struggle within a struggle that's rife with elitist assholes? For the good of the medium, I vote no.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate. My brand new comic: http://cain.bombsheltercomics.com

Elitist?

I don't feel Wiki as a whole is elitist. It's a great body of people who are trying to enforce a system of standars. It's hard to do, and obviously some blood will be spilled along the path to success.

That said, I think it's fairly obvious we DO want their recognition, or at least I do. I want everyone in every medium to respect the Internet as a way to distribute content that is equally as valid as more traditional modes.

If we start calling people who don't like us "elitist" (and, good God, using the word "intellectual" as if it's a bad thing), we only stand to isolate ourselves from a broader potential audience.

Furthermore, as this case shows, the people shutting down webcomics Wiki articles aren't always far away snobs. Dragonfiend herself has written and edited a number of webcomics-related articles.

Don't go out writing your manifestos just yet. A lot of problems, as with most communities, stand among our own ranks. Why? Because most people who don't know about webcomics just don't give a shit, and getting more of us Wikied might help change that.

I'm happy to say that I've

Gianna's picture

I'm happy to say that I've just seen that my article (the noob) is no longer up for cancellation - the AfD was closed for lack of consensus. I found the whole experience humiliating (one of the people pro-deletion even contacted me in google talk demanding to know if I was impersonating one of the people asking to keep the page - wtf?) and I'm glad that it's over for the time being (surely there will be more deletion requests to come, unless I get interviewed by Sheep! Magazine, the Tampa Cyclist or other mainstream publications that fullfill a notability claim - not like that trivial Comixpedia that has nothing to do with comics). Bitterness aside, the feeling remains that this 'not notable enough, wiki not a directory' label is applied only to entries that had the misfortune of being written by a website's readers rather than established wiki editors. Going through the list of articles written by these editors, there's a good number who would fail their own stringent notability criteria if someone was anal enough to challenge their right to be on wikipedia.

 

-------- Gianna

--------
Gianna Masetti
thenoobcomic.com

Phew! Well done, Gianna

Phew! Well done, Gianna ... I guess all's well that ends well. Smile

Are you sure you should be announcing it here at Comixpedia, though? Wouldn't you rather let people know through a forum that's still considered "notable", rather than a site that's been deleted? Wink

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

This is the first time I've

WillieHewes's picture

This is the first time I've felt glad not to be on wikipedia. Not that I'd be noteworthy in any way, mind... Glad the noob can stay though.

I can't say I've followed this particular riot in detail, but in an earlier discussion on noteworthiness on wikipedia it turned out (after three pages of forumposts) that actually the complaint wasn't so much that the subject wasn't noteworthy, but that the article wasn't any 'good', that is, not up to wiki standards.

These standards seem mysterious and arcane to me, so I'm not touching it with a poking stick. Who would use wikipedia as a guide to webcomics anyway?

Comics by a girl who likes sad things (but sometimes they are funny) - http://www.williehewes.co.uk

Comics by a girl who likes sad things (but sometimes they are funny) - www.williehewes.co.uk

Comixpedia's entry

Erik Melander's picture

While I am not a wikienthusiast, shouldn't it be possible to use as argument for Comixpedia's notability that it has had a number of contributors who have wiki entries and as such must be deemed notable? The two that first pop into my head is Kristoffer Straub (Chex entry was up for deletion, but survived) and Eric Burns. I'm sure there are others, Shaennon Garrity perhaps.

Vir Bonus

I'm sure there are many

I'm sure there are many criteria by which you could argue that Comixpedia (and - to take this thread back to where it started! - The noob) could be classified as notable. From these posts, however, it seems that the real issue is not whether there are arguments but whether the Wiki procedures/panellists are actually able or willing to acknowledge them, once a small handful of unrepresentative eedjits have raised their voices against.

(Damn - I guess that makes it unlikely any of my comics will ever be considered for inclusion. Although, thinking about it ... maybe not being associated with such a flawed organ is a good thing!)

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

This is probably a terrible

This is probably a terrible admission but, you know, I've never visited Wikipedia. For anything, let alone webcomics. (Well, actually, I have visited it once - to see what this thread was all about!) My understanding of the way it's supposed to work, though, is that those who do use it can submit their own articles.

If that's the case, couldn't you guys just re-post the articles? Or, since some of them (it says here!) weren't very good/accurate anyway, post new ones? Sure, there's a principle involved but, given that the reinstatement procedure seems (bizarrely!) to be far more difficult than the deletion procedure, it might just be easier to just keep re-posting.

Maybe if something gets re-posted often enough, they'll finally get the message and stop listening to the oily oiks who have nothing better to do than to petition for the deletion of other people's perfectly valid entries!

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Dagnabbit-Head on a Stick

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Geez - even the Noob discussion for deletion includes (as a positive I'll add):

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - this has been shown, specifically a review in http://comixpedia.com

Clarification Even though Krator wont, I will assert that it does not fail WP:WEB, as it meets #1 of that policy being reviewed to critical acclaim by http://comixpedia.com, a consortium of webcomic peers that has been around for three years, and includes more than 90 constant contributors on a daily baisis. That means it meets TWO criteria of WP:WEB, when in many articles on wikipedia, it only meets one, yet the articles have remained. Timmccloud 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Are reviews by a now "non-notable" source a good or a bad thing? Surprised

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

I believe Dragonfiend is a

I believe Dragonfiend is a "her" and not a "him", and yes, she's a total indie-jerk Modern Tales sycophant.

While I've grown to understand Wikipedia's decisions a bit more, Gianna's statements that they're not as objective as they like to think they are, are pretty darn correct.

Quote:

Joey Manley's picture

[quote]
indie-jerk Modern Tales sycophant
[/quote]

Ah, see, here's the thing. When I leave this kind of unquestioning, offhand, snide, completely uncalled-for and superior hostility toward my "indie-jerk" (whatever that means) projects unchallenged, it makes everybody happier, doesn't it.

So I'll leave it unchallenged. I'll mention that Modern Tales' existence and editorial mission doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia's structural flaws, or with the Noob's disappearance from Wikipedia. I'd really rather you leave us out of this. Please. But other than that, I'll leave it unchallenged.

Happy?

I'll be staying away from here for a while -- much love to Xerexes, though.

Ta.

Joey

www.webcomicsnation.com

Sigh...

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

I thought of writing something here to respond but I've had enough drama for the day I guess.

UPDATE: Look, Joey has replied to the part of Josh's comment he didn't like - the main guy impacted by it has said his piece. I'm asking nicely that folks don't escalate some kind of drama around this. Whatever Josh meant by his comment, it's no more then his own opinion (for better or for worse) and we don't need to start a flame war over it here.

Also, I don't want to have to close this thread as I really am pissed about this deletion of the Comixpedia entry at wikipedia and I'd like to see if anyone has some practical advice for undoing that.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

Look, Modern Tales is cool,

Look, Modern Tales is cool, and notable. I don't think joshl meant it as a knock against Modern Tales. I know if I uttered that sentence, it'd be a knock against Dragonfiend. If you look at her contributions page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragonfiend#Some_articles_I.27ve_created

she pretty clearly thinks anything having to do with Modern Tales is notable, and anything else is not. She's half-right - things having to do with Modern Tales are notable.

I'd be just as incensed if there were an editor who thought everything Keen was notable, and everything else were not.

I don't know if this is relevant, but it pisses me off, so: she recently put a 'unsourced' thingy at the top of Keenspot's page (after one of the other webcomic-deleting obsessed editors put the whole Keenspot page up for deletion), and when I asked her what needed verification, she just said, 'just about everything.' It's all pretty ridiculous.

So Joey, I can't speak for josh, but ModernTales and all related sites are notable, but still Dragonfiend's a self-important deluded prig for thinking it gets a pass and other major webcomic "centers of gravity" don't.

You're right; I wasn't

You're right; I wasn't giving any opinions of MT itself... just some (not all) of its fans, and their tendency to act elitist, with a dim view of what's going on outside the circle of artists they like.

I accept the clarification

Joey Manley's picture

I accept the clarification and apologize if I overreacted.

My own perception is that MT fans are no more likely to be snotty than fans of other sites and members of other communities -- there's a small sub-group in any fanbase that can give out that vibe. Like when I went into a webcomics chat room one time a few years ago, and somebody associated with another webcomics community started chanting, for no reason I could figure out, "DIE JOEY MANLEY DIE." It was my first point of contact with that person, somebody fairly well-known in webcomics (and very talented). Name of Josh Lesnick.

Anyway.

The reason I stopped by was specifically to apologize for my snit, and hopefully tamp down any potential flamewar here. I still plan to stay away from the 'pedia for a while. Nothing against the 'pedia specifically. I just need to be elsewhere for now.

Thanks

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

Again

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Some of the comments on this thread were definitely over the line so they're gone (I'm not saying I endorse the rest of it though).

Let's try and stay civil and more importantly on topic. Thanks.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

"Modern Tales sycophant"

Look, Modern Tales is cool, and notable. I don't think joshl meant it as a knock against Modern Tales. I know if I uttered that sentence, it'd be a knock against Dragonfiend. If you look at her contributions page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragonfiend#Some_articles_I.27ve_created

she pretty clearly thinks anything having to do with Modern Tales is notable, and anything else is not. She's half-right - things having to do with Modern Tales are notable.

I'd be just as incensed if there were an editor who thought everything Keen was notable, and everything else were not.

I don't know if this is relevant, but it pisses me off, so: she recently put a 'unsourced' thingy at the top of Keenspot's page (after one of the other webcomic-deleting obsessed editors put the whole Keenspot page up for deletion), and when I asked her what needed verification, she just said, 'just about everything.' It's all pretty ridiculous.

So Joey, I can't speak for josh, but ModernTales and all related sites are notable, but still Dragonfiend's a self-important deluded prig for thinking it gets a pass and other major webcomic "centers of gravity" don't.

Get the cadre of experts to

halfpixel's picture

Get the cadre of experts to try to overturn it. God knows how Checkerboard Nightmare survived at the hands of Dragonfiend and her wiki machete, but I guess enough votes made it in there to count.

One of the strikes against CxN was how little Eric Burns had written about it, according to votes to delete. Then when Burns came into the vote thread and said Keep, his vote was discounted because his Wikipedia post count was too low.

Kristofer Straub
http://www.halfpixel.com

That is hilarious!

That is hilarious!

<a xhref="http://www.kiwisbybeat.com" target=blank>Kiwis by beat!</a>

I don't know

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

I don't know about her preferences (I don't want to get into any side issues either), but Dragonfiend is handy with the conclusory statements:

Delete, no verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Comixpedia reviews and WCCAs are trivial. -- Dragonfiend 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 

She'd make a great pundit for a cable television shoutfest I'm sure...

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

Hmmm, the WCCA's have been

Erik Melander's picture

Hmmm, the WCCA's have been featured on G4techTV and referenced in the New York TImes and are still considered trivial?

Vir Bonus

Promise - my last ranting comment

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

But apparently "Dragonfiend" has such a rep on Wikipedia that this guy has titled a section of his talk page on how not to be a bad Wikipedia editor as "Don't be a 'Dragonfiend!'" It's not on the current version of the page as it was edited out by others (although his strong hints led me to earlier versions of the page).

 

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

I'm glad to see Girly got

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

I'm glad to see Girly got reinstated - I didn't know that it had and it was the only good thing I discovered poking around Wikipedia just now.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

Yeah, it was fortunate that

Yeah, it was fortunate that editors with common sense eventually got involved in the deletion review, and I think them for that. I wish it resulted in things actually changing for the better around there, but if Comixpedia's article got deleted without anyone even knowing about it, I guess it didn't.

I can see how a lot of the webcomic-related articles need work. But the editors have been going about "fixing" this in such a hostile way, it's become discouraging for anyone knowledgeable about the subject to get involved.

Don't bother; as of Monday

Don't bother; as of Monday we're all officially judged to be unimportant anyway.

Well shazbot...

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Wow - okay maybe it's hypocritical for me to get all huffy about deleting my entry (i've been annoyed if not always vocal about most of the dumb deletion fights I've read about there regarding webcomics) but it does feel like getting the shaft to have four random people delete an entry after about only two weeks.

I scanned the standards page cited on the deletion page and I think while the former Comixpedia entry kind of sucked (to be honest) as a subject, Comixpedia should qualify as notable. It just means that I have got to make the case I guess.

Deletion apparently requires no effort other than to make broad assertions. For example, its very easy to say "No assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources." but there's nothing to show that the wikipedian making that assertion has done anything other than pull that statement out of his/her assumption. I suppose it's hard to prove a negative but it would be more credible (wouldn't it?) to require that the deletion proponent affirm that he/she did some research? Make them put some of their online reputation at stake, so to speak?

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

I run this place! Tip the piano player on the way out.

Is webcomics the only

bookofbiff's picture

Is webcomics the only subject with this problem? I understand some of the past discussions where they were deleting articles that weren't really articles but just a sentence with a link. That looks like spam... someone just trying to get traffic. The editors should just make a list of "notable webcomics" that fit all of their arbitrary rules and be done with it. Leave the fans of the other comics alone with their articles that they write to show their support for their favorite comic. I don't think they are making the wikipedia better, they are just making people bitter.

 

http://www.thebookofbiff.com/

Look on the bright side ...

Look on the bright side ... the more these idiots insist on deleting articles which ought not to be deleted, the less relevant the wiki will become to anyone. In that respect, they are their own worst enemies.

Whether "The noob" happens to be your taste or not, a webcomic with that large a following is surely "notable" with or without formal recognition (and whether or not these guys choose to accept that recognition as "valid").

One thing's for sure - "The noob" isn't really going to suffer if they persist in this nonsense and delete the article. The wiki, however, will suffer because, ultimately, no encyclopedia can survive for very long if it ignores the topics its readers want to know about.

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids