Skip to main content

Trolling, Vandalism and Dragonfiend

Wiki Watch

As was noted throughout the week, T Campbell tracked down Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and webcomics-focused Wikipedia editor Dragonfiend for interviews regarding the intersection of webcomic and Wikipedia. Although the interview with Wales is short, the interview with Dragonfiend provides a snapshot of what is probably a pretty typical attitude amongst self-described "wikipedians" towards Wikipedia itself and its role and mission.

One thing that popped out at me, however, was Dragonfiend's reference to a short-lived (now deleted) Comixpedia.org article about which Dragonfiend said:

To give a webcomics-related example, if I'm trying to research webcomics over on a wiki with much more indiscrimnate content policies, like comixpedia.org, I'll find articles like this one on the webcomic [now deleted entry] . Without requiring this topic to be noted by several independent reputable sources, we won't know whether this webcomic is of any importance, or just something that somebody made up one day and posted on the internet.

Here's the thing though - within a minute of looking at that entry I knew it was an example of wiki-vandalism. The supposed external link didn't work. Google.com had no record of the URLs, title, creator or anything about the supposed comic. Within a few more minutes I knew that the user account (unlike Wikipedia, Comixpedia.org does restrict editing to those who sign up for user accounts) had been used solely to create a couple of obnoxious and completely made-up entries. Within a few more minutes after that though (all through the magic of google.com) I knew that this Comixpedia user id was the same as a user id at Wikipedia banned for creating the same kind of entries that the user id created at Comixpedia.org. (Even some of the entries and terms in the entries between Comixpedia.org and Wikipedia were the same!)

What's that prove? Well the first thing it suggests to me is a bit of bad faith on Dragonfiend's part. From picking the most obnoxiously offensive entry s/he could find to picking an entry that was so obviously false it's hard to not to assume Dragonfiend was employing emotional rhetorical tactics simply to make Comixpedia.org (and webcomics generally in her mind) look bad. But since it was so obviously demonstrably false (and one that an active wikipedian like Dragonfiend had additional reason to suspect its status as vandalism) it seems to me that it's an example that backfires on Dragonfiend completely. No one needed "several independent reputable sources," to know this was a made-up entry - it took less then 10 minutes with Google.

I think what her comment proves is that all wikis are susceptible to vandalism - it's one of the weak points in the model. No doubt Wikipedia does not like it when the largest media publications in this country present out of context vandalized entries as examples of Wikipedia "scholarship", and neither does Comixpedia.org.

Anyone who wants to have an

Gianna's picture

Anyone who wants to have an article on wikipedia for promotion not only is lame, but is also a dumbass. People don't go to wikipedia and type the name of your comic to find their way to it. When there was a wikipedia article about my comic, it accounted for something like 3 daily hits out of 30000 - and I'd wager that it was from people who wanted to find out what 'noob' means.

I think anyway that even if there may be now and then unfair deletions where non-traditional topics are concerned, the system is ultimately self-correcting and it has enough checks in place to ensure that an editor with an agenda or deletion-happy can't go and wage war for eternity on webcomics, or Dr Who fanfic, or furry morality plays, and what not. Sooner or later, if necessary, they'll come round to adapting the notability requirements to the various fields. And if they don't, WHO CARES. It's not as if any topic that you could possibly think of is somehow diminished by a lack of coverage on wiki.

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

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

I think the assumption that

Black_Kitty's picture

I think the assumption that the only reason anyone's arguing about this is because it's about webcomics and could directly affect them isn't entirely truthful. Then again, I could be the only person in this whole discussion who doesn't have an active webcomic at the moment and couldn't care less if my webcomic is in Wikipedia or not.

I think the bottomline is that as it stands right now, Wikipedia with its editing system and its formula in general, makes it an unreliable source of information. Any student who submits a paper with Wikipedia as its source will have it returned back to them. Not just because it's factually unreliable but because there's no guarantee that the source will still be there in the near future. At least with a traditional encyclopedia I know copies of it will still exist somewhere.

And I don't see why Dragonfiend's choice of alias should even be questioned in this discussion. As someone who chose their alias when they were 13 (and thought it was a grrrreat idea), I can so sympathize.

I'm a webcomic artist, and I

Chris Jeffery's picture

I'm a webcomic artist, and I think the situation is extremely unfair. I have participated in a number of AfDs and tried my best to get the notability requirements to become a little more realistic. I don't expect my comic to get an article out of this, as I'm not even close to filling any kind of notability requirements. I don't, however, feel larger more notable comics should be getting their articles deleted. Scott's right, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source of traffic, and many people participating in this "battle" are doing so out of hurt pride or to get some traffic, but there's still a lot of valid reasons to fight for better guidelines on this subject.

Chris Jeffery
_______________
cartridgecomics.com

 _______________
Chris Jeffery
Cartridge

My point, Kris, is that as

Scott Kurtz's picture

My point, Kris, is that as right as you might be, you wouldn't give a rats ass about the issue if itt was entries about Doctor Who novels being deleted.

It's only of interest to you because it affects YOUR fringe subject.

Of course it interests me

halfpixel's picture

Of course it interests me because it's my fringe subject! That's why Dragonfiend is involved with it at all, or anyone at Wikipedia is involved with anything -- it's their preferred subject. Should we install people who don't give a damn about what webcomics are to run the webcomics project? That's already the problem!!

Kristofer Straub
Halfpixel.com

Scott, I already made the

halfpixel's picture

Scott, I already made the example. If Dragonfiend runs the webcomics project at Wikipedia, she decides the truth. And she's already shown that she doesn't get webcomics. She defends her policy by saying "well, how can you tell if the webcomic Nigger Dick isn't relevant unless it's been published in three media sources?" By doing a Google search, that's how. Obviously that one was vandalism or vanity, and it was rightfully deleted.

But she wants to delete Keenspot. And Oni, and Viper, and a bunch of other legit outfits. So the entry for webcomics, which represents us all, which is an outsider's understanding of what webcomics are, will say "the only webcomics are Penny Arcade, PvP and Diesel Sweeties. There are also many amateur attempts of no interest."

This argument isn't about some guy with an MSPaint Mega Man strip with eight readers on Comic Genesis being included on Wikipedia. This is about the webcomics project being completely incorrectly handled. Even if we wanted to abide by Dragonfiend's notability policy, she'd change it later on whatever whim she's currently following. She's done it before, she's doing it now.

And to me, that speaks to an even bigger problem with Wikipedia managing up-and-coming, fringe subjects. And if Wikipedia can't even manage that which separates it from a print encyclopedia, then hand me the goddamn Britannica.

Kristofer Straub
Halfpixel.com

even if Wikipedia IS a

Scott Kurtz's picture

even if Wikipedia IS a source of traffic, people have to understand that it's an unfair use of the service. That's not what Wikipedia is for. So you can't get upset at them when they don't want you using their site for self promotion.

This totally smacks of people getting their feelings hurt. I think that if this were truly about the validity of wiki-editing systems or the way that webcomics as a whole are remembered in this new age of digital information...I dunno. Would things be so passionate?

This seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill.

None of us can really know

Joey Manley's picture

None of us can really know what motivates somebody else out there on the Internet to say what they say, but the hyperbolic rhetoric being used here and elsewhere does tend to point to that conclusion. In other words: I agree with Kurtz on this one.

Xerxes, how is what I posted

Scott Kurtz's picture

Xerxes, how is what I posted not germaine to the dicussion at hand. I thought I addressed those issues pretty well.

1) The deletion process is working as intended via wikipedia standards. And it's not a perfect system, but I think wiki admits that. It's an honor system so of course someone can come in and gum up the works. Be that a vandal or a power-hungry editor, etc.

Wikipedia is kinda like communism. It's supposed to work in theory but in execution it's flawed in several areas. But I don't think that anything has been proven here that webcomics are getting an unfair shake.

2) I disagree. I feel it's NOT a legitimate concern. If you go to wikipedia and search on webcomics there is a plethora of information (none of which is in threat of deletion). I don't see any reason for concern at all. It seems that webcomics are well represented there. If someone is researching webcomics there is a ton of information. There just isn't a google-like directory of individual sites.

Erg:

I would really like to see numbers on those. If you're relying on wikipedia for traffic, you're probably looking in the wrong place. That's not what Wikipedia is about or for.

Pclips:

I'm discussing the issues. YOU'RE trying to turn the discource to being about me. So please save it. Everyone's heard that kind of kurtz-bashing BS.

Discussing the issues

[quote=Scott Kurtz]

Pclips:

I'm discussing the issues. YOU'RE trying to turn the discource to being about me. So please save it. Everyone's heard that kind of kurtz-bashing BS.

[/quote]

Exactly, Scott.
You were civil and professional.
Your tone did not at all resemble that of a petulant five-year-old who's upset that nobody is paying him any attention.

He must just be a retarded stupid asshole who bears a personal grudge against you. Since you're just discussing the issues and all.

Enough with the bickering

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Okay that's enough about who's being uncivil or whatnot. The discussion at hand is about the post - not Scott or Rob. If you don't want to talk about the subject of the post then don't post a comment.

Capiche?

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

It may take me a bit....

Erg's picture

I am going to have to hunt through the massive amount of comments here, but I think the number was in the high hundreds to low thousands range. Not a big deal for PVP, but if only a thousand people read your comic it makes a difference.

More...

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

It just seemed like you were trying to lump a lot of different views on this thread into one thing and then you sort of whacked at that thing. Mostly I was annoyed that you made me imagine Harry Potter fan-fic :P

Okay I think we just disagree - anyone can create and edit an entry on Wikipedia but it takes only a few to delete an entry. I don't think that deletion process actually lives up to the "community, anyone can edit" standard of Wikipedia. I think a process that required more time to "fix" articles and more time for more people to weigh in on deletions would be much more in the spirit of wikipedia standards.

On your second point it's entirely possible that at the end of the day you're right. I mean objectively you could measure the number and types of entries to see if there's a plethora of information or not. But it also depends on how important a certain level of completeness is. But regardless of that, I am concerned about the deletion process (see my point above) and I don't think from what I've seen that even Wikipedia's stated notability standards have been fairly applied to webcomics so I think it's legit to raise it.

On Erg's point - I agree with the point that traffic is not the point but for smaller than PvP sites it may be a decent source of traffic. I know for Comixpedia that there are many entries for webcomics that link to Comixpedia articles and that traffic cumulatively shows up (sometimes in the top 10) in my referrers lists.

And last - yes, let's skip bashing of anyone. There are other places besides Comixpedia for that sort of thing.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

Quick impression.

pclips's picture

Quick impression. See if you can guess who I am now.

*ahem*

"OMG there's a webcomics discussion and nobody's said my name yet. I better wander in and call everyone in the thread stupid. That'll make it about me, as all webcomics discussions rightfully should be."

And look, it even worked. :P

That's not fair.

Erg's picture

Thinking this is not an important debate is a legitimate position. Kurtz is not alone in his analysis here. If you really want to be offended, check out the william g's blog. Compared to that Scott has been a model of politeness. Tongue out

Wow. Why do you all give a shit?

Scott Kurtz's picture

Come on guys? Do you still really not get this? It's so retarded on both ends.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a depository for knowledge, not a form of validation for cartoonists or some form of personal promotion.

Someone please explain to me how a wikipedia enty on Ugly Hill or Evil Inc serves the general knowledge of humanity. To me it seems more to function as a service for the creator and fans of Ugly Hill or Evil Inc.

There is a rather detailed entry for PvP. Although it is certainly flattering that Wikipedia finds it to be "notable," its inclusion serves no purpose other than as a convenient resource of PvP history and minutia for me to link to for my readers.

Nobody is finding PvP because of this entry. It's not bringing me new readers or serving as some form of validation among people who are unsure that PvP is a good comic. If PvP recieved an Afd and got taken down, I would transfer that information over to a locally hosted wiki and not lose anything.

If we force them to list everyone who feels they've contributed something notable to any particular field, Wikipedia becomes google.

Dragonfield sounds like she has issues. FIrst of all, she's named herself DRAGONFIEND. If that doesn't not so secretly reveal that she considers herself some mythical keeper of knowledge, I don't KNOW what its says. Wikipedia is supposed to rely on the group hive mind of knowledge keeping the facts in check. It's not supposed to rely on some upper pantheon of oracles who lord over wiki entries with mythical names. She needs to get a life. If people like Dragonfiend are required to keep Wikipedia legit, then they need to start a round of hiring and find competent editors.

Do you really care of someone who goes aroudn calling herself DRAGONFIEND, on purpose, thinks your webcomic is notable?

Webcomics, its heavy hitters and its general history appear to be accurately represented on the wikipedia entry for "webcomics" Beyond that, I'm not sure what anyone from this "community" expects of the site.

Do me one favor. Pause for a moment and really consider both sides of this. Right now...just close your eyes and try to sum up in your mind the most passionate and strongest opinions and points on both sides of this argument.

Now mentally replace the subject of webcomics with "Harry Potter Fan-fiction." Do you even give a shit about the argument now?

READ THE THREAD BEFORE

READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING.

Seriously. I think Rob did a perfect job explaining the problem. Like it or not, many people use Wikipedia every day, so they shouldn't be deleting decidedly adequate content without good reason. Yet they won't stop.

T's interview was just the same condescending shit. It was just a really verbose explanation of how Wikipedia works and why the editors are strict, as if the webcartoonists are retarded babies who didn't get it the first 40 times it was explained to them. We understand how Wikipedia works. the problem is, the editors are doing a rotten job, and they keep on doing a rotten job long after it's proven what a rotten job they're doing. This is NOT a problem limited to webcomics either. It's happening all over Wikipedia. Dragonfiend did a nice job trying to make it sound like that isn't the case; she was flat-out lying.

I know it's tempting to try and take the "high road" and day "WHY DO YOU ALL GIVE A SHIT?" whenever problems like this come up... because the truth is, a lot of them DON'T matter. Believe me, I think there are a lot of extraneous things webcomics spend too much time caring about in lieu of learning to write and draw better. However, while it may have been a bit much to treat this like a major catastrophe and create "WIKI WATCH" banner graphics and everything, I don't think this is something that should be completely blown off either.

If I remember correctly...

Erg's picture

Some of the deleted cartoonists were getting hits from wikipedia. So I do think they have an incentive at least to want to see change.

Why Is It About Wikipedia discussions?...

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Scott,

You're not exactly posting a calm rational response to this thread. You're kind of talking down to a "straw-man" about positions that aren't really what most people on the thread are talking about.

Yes I'm sure there are some who are solely writing about whether or not a specific entry is in or out of the Wikipedia. Maybe for those folks you have a point (although I see a good deal of traffic to Comixpedia from various Wikipedia articles that include an external link to a Comixpedia article on the subject so your assumptions about traffic may not be as universally applicable as you're assuming.)

There are two arguments that I think are legitimate, although I'm as tired of talking about them as anyone - (1) the process of deletion at Wikipedia is simply not very good and doesn't really sync up with the more successful model for creation and editing at Wikipedia (and has a disproportionate effect on areas of culture that are not tremendously popular); and (2) it's totally legitimate to be concerned about the mass deletion of many entries on webcomics from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a source used by many (an increasing number too) as their first "research" tool. I want webcomics as an art form - as a medium - to be respected by the broader public and proper treatment of webcomics by Wikipedia is a part of that. (How big a part I don't know but it is a part)

Anyhow that's my two cents...

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

This thread is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia

Gianna's picture

Not to mention that it is a glaring example of W:DEADHORSE, as Fabricari already mentioned.

Is the average Wikipedia reader affected if most of its entries about individual webcomics are deleted? Not really, because they are WEBcomics, so that anyone who knows the name of one and wanted to look it up on wikipedia can just go straight to the source.

Actually, I suspect that the only people who ever check any given wiki webcomic article are: 1) wiki editors who want to delete webcomic articles and 2) wiki editors who want to write articles about their favorite webcomics. The occasional guy who lands on the article by following the usual wiki link jumping that goes like peru > kidneys > quantum physics > stan laurel > leopard > baseball > cannabis > comics is not statistically significant.

Wikipedia is a fantastic website. When I hear about something fringe, which won't feature on traditional encyclopedias (like, say, obscure trends in punk rock or bizarre sexual practices) I can always trust Wikipedia to enlighten me.

The problem that its admins and editors face goes well beyond webcomics and probably touches every aspect of (pop) culture for which traditional notability criteria don't fit. If the choice is to keep applying strictly the current notability criteria to everything, the risk is that the end result will be a non reputable copy of any other encyclopedia, which cannot be used for research but at the same time doesn't hold all that trove of info about things that you wouldn't find on, say, the Britannica. On the other hand, I appreciate the concern of of editors who don't want to see Wikipedia turned into a comprehensive directory of every single comic, band, experimental painter, amateur sports team, etc. etc.

So, how can the wikipedia editors/admins find a balance? I'm not sure. Maybe by debating and defining specific notability rules for new or non-traditional topics, be it fringe music trends, webcomics, urban exploration, street art, etc.

Example: I was delighted to read in the discussion for deletion of an article about my webcomic an argument that it wasn't notable because it had never been mentioned in something like Forbes. Eh?!? "'Phat lewt', says Deutsche Banke CEO about Q4 profit rise, 'but Goldman Sachs ninjas like a bitch'; 'Dude! DUDE!!!111!!' replies GS, 'QQ less OMG'; glut of Chuck Norris jokes on the market precipitates further drop of the Dow Jones", etc. etc.

Seriously though, if mention in Forbes, The New York Times & similar is to be used as a notability criterion for EVERYTHING, then Wikipedia may lose its uniqueness in the process, i.e. the fact that if someone mentions offhandedly deathcrap gangsta filipino-eskimo r&b you know that you can always turn to Wiki to find out wtf he's talking about.

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

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

The problem isn't just

Terrence Marks's picture

The problem isn't just Dragonfiend. It's not even primarily Dragonfiend. A good number of the January deletions weren't anything to do with her. She just kept it up for a week or two after Nekocontari, Bogdangiusca and others appear to have slowed down, and she went after marginally higher-profile (and louder) targets. Declaring Two Minutes' Hate on one person is misguided, useless, and wrong. There've been a bunch of webcomics articles deleted by other folk, with nothing more than "CSD A7", which is short for "The article does not say why it's notable. I can't be bothered to find out anything about it, nor to explain myself in anything besides wikipedian code. It can only be improved by purging it from our system." This is a systemic problem, as has been amply demonstrated.

 

But I do have to add that cherry-picking a bad article out of Comixpedia.org is no more impressive than cherry-picking a bad article out of Wikipedia, and it worries me when an established Wikipedia editor believes that finding one bad article in a wiki is a meaningful demonstration of anything useful.

--
Terrence Marks

Spare Parts
You Say it First

--
Terrence Marks

Spare Parts
You Say it First

My problem with the whole debate....

Erg's picture

Honestly, I am sympathetic to both points of view here. On the one hand, it is pretty clear that the deletion process is broken at wikipedia, and that the notability guidlines are too fuzzy. That is inside and outside of webcomics. And it is also pretty clear this dragonfiend wikipedia editor, and several others, are not the most socially able people, even by the low standards of the internet. And there have been some power abuses, unjust sock puppet labelling, etc.

On the otherhand though, the people complaining here are not, for the most part, regular wikipedia editors. Dragonfiend and her buds, for good or ill, have invested alot of time and energy into maintaining the Comic wikiproject than most of the people on this side of the aisle. The say things, in the wikiproject discussion page, for the love of Argon Zark, like I don't have enough time but someone should.... What's that. You want the wikipedia community to change? Don't sit here, yell, call names, act petulant. Get involved in the process. Make the existing pages as top notch and as informative as possible. Gain the respect of the community. Then offer suggestions on how they run their house. Don't just waltz in there and expect them to listen to you when you've done 100 main page edits.

Comixpedia.org is our house. Wikipedia is not. And it is free and open to the public. Some respect for that is worth reflecting on, I think.

Yeah but why should I?

Black_Kitty's picture

Erg wrote:
You want the wikipedia community to change? Don't sit here, yell, call names, act petulant. Get involved in the process. Make the existing pages as top notch and as informative as possible. Gain the respect of the community. Then offer suggestions on how they run their house. Don't just waltz in there and expect them to listen to you when you've done 100 main page edits. Comixpedia.org is our house. Wikipedia is not. And it is free and open to the public. Some respect for that is worth reflecting on, I think.
On one hand, I totally agree with the sentiment of your article. I do appreciate and recognize the time and energy that people like Dragonfiend put into Wikipedia. There are good intentions within those acts and Wikipedia has its usefulness. And I do agree that for some things in life, if you don't like how it's going then you should get involved and attempt to initiate change.On the other hand, that argument doesn't apply to every aspect of life. I'm not going to offer to drive the train just because I didn't like how the subway was operated. I'm not going to start my own newspaper just because I don't like the city's newspaper. And if I don't like how the food tasted in Tim Hortons, I'm not going to jump over the counter and start helping them make sandwiches.Instead I'm going to drive a car, read another newspaper, and bring my own lunch.For me personally, I'm not terribly convinced that what I do would change anything. It's not that I wouldn't ever edit articles (I have a Wikipedia account myself.) But I'm not sold on this whole collaboration thing. Everytime I hear that arguement, I'm not hearing "let's work together and make this Wikipedia-webcomic thing work" but more of "why don't you stop complaining and start working for us...maybe then you'll see things OUR way."Or maybe that's just me. I'm writing all of this not to complain but instead I'm waiting to see if anyone can convince me otherwise. I've been reading about this whole Wikipedia-webcomic thing for so long but I never read anything that really convinced me it's worth more then working on my own comic/work/whatever. Why should I dedicate my time to help Wikipedia improve on their webcomic articles? http://www.acrylicmoon.com

hrrrm...

Erg's picture

[quote=Black_Kitty]On one hand, I totally agree with the sentiment of your article. I do appreciate and recognize the time and energy that people like Dragonfiend put into Wikipedia. There are good intentions within those acts and Wikipedia has its usefulness. And I do agree that for some things in life, if you don't like how it's going then you should get involved and attempt to initiate change.[/quote]

I am glad you agree. More people should. ;)

[quote=Black_Kitty]On the other hand, that argument doesn't apply to every aspect of life. I'm not going to offer to drive the train just because I didn't like how the subway was operated. I'm not going to start my own newspaper just because I don't like the city's newspaper. And if I don't like how the food tasted in Tim Hortons, I'm not going to jump over the counter and start helping them make sandwiches.

Instead I'm going to drive a car, read another newspaper, and bring my own lunch.[/quote]

Okay.

[quote=Black_Kitty]For me personally, I'm not terribly convinced that what I do would change anything. It's not that I wouldn't ever edit articles (I have a Wikipedia account myself.) But I'm not sold on this whole collaboration thing. Everytime I hear that arguement, I'm not hearing "let's work together and make this Wikipedia-webcomic thing work" but more of "why don't you stop complaining and start working for us...maybe then you'll see things OUR way."[/quote]

the beauty of wikipedia is that it is a largely democratic process and the culture of it varies based on time and subject. New blood would inevitably change the culture of the wecomics wikiproject. And a user written encycolopedia is the exact sort of thing you join if you want to change, like the PTA or neighborhood council. Its not like a restuarant or even city hall.

[quote=Black_Kitty]Or maybe that's just me. I'm writing all of this not to complain but instead I'm waiting to see if anyone can convince me otherwise. I've been reading about this whole Wikipedia-webcomic thing for so long but I never read anything that really convinced me it's worth more then working on my own comic/work/whatever. Why should I dedicate my time to help Wikipedia improve on their webcomic articles? http://www.acrylicmoon.com[/quote]

That attitude is understandable, but it is part of the problem with webcomics on wikipedia. Too many serious webcomic readers are creators, and creators would sooner work on their comic than work on the wiki, and they are decidedly biased in favor of their comic. This limits the pool of wikipedians devoted to webcomics.

I hope I'm not being too long winded...0.0

Black_Kitty's picture

[quote=Erg]the beauty of wikipedia is that it is a largely democratic process and the culture of it varies based on time and subject. New blood would inevitably change the culture of the wecomics wikiproject. And a user written encyclopedia is the exact sort of thing you join if you want to change, like the PTA or neighborhood council. Its not like a restuarant or even city hall.[/quote]

To be honest, I don't think new blood would change perception. Rather, new blood would increase the probability of getting a Wikipedia admin that would be more sympathetic to the subject. Sort of like filling a bag of apples and oranges with more apples. More apples will not turn those oranges into apples.

And I know this is part of the nature of a democratic process. You can't expect everyone to agree with you since everyone holds a different opinion. But if we're trying to build a high quality encyclopedia, that just seems a bit problematic (especially when those same "everyone" are potential editors.)

Unless we're talking about waiting for something "unnotable" to become "notable" in which case...sure~
But the problem, or at least what I think is the problem, is that Wikipedia is trying to be this objective high quality encyclopedia by inviting everyone with subjective opinions to make decisions about what should or should not be in this encyclopedia.

[quote=Erg] That attitude is understandable, but it is part of the problem with webcomics on wikipedia. Too many serious webcomic readers are creators, and creators would sooner work on their comic than work on the wiki, and they are decidedly biased in favor of their comic. This limits the pool of wikipedians devoted to webcomics.[/quote]

I think too many times the picture is painted that it's to the creator's benefit to contribute to Wikipedia. But personally, I don't see it that way. A creator has only a finite amount of time to dedicate to certain project. The impression I'm getting is that contributing to Wikipedia requires a LOT of dedication. You're not just inserting or adding to an article here and there. You have to go in there, research, and build a reputation so that your voice can become more valuable.

And all that time used to build up a reputation could be used for other things...especially if you're not the type of person that likes to do things like writing encyclopedia articles. Sure people can then access information about the comic on Wikipedia but who really benefits from the article: the encyclopedia who wishes to be a source of high quality information or the webcomic?

Wouldn't it also be Wikipedia's advantage to not have serious webcomic readers as part of the pool of Wikipedians devoted to webcomics? Because if serious webcomic readers are also creators, then wouldn't that mean they would be naturally bias towards the importance of webcomics?

A *bit* shorter reply

Erg's picture

[quote=Black_Kitty]To be honest, I don't think new blood would change perception. Rather, new blood would increase the probability of getting a Wikipedia admin that would be more sympathetic to the subject. Sort of like filling a bag of apples and oranges with more apples. More apples will not turn those oranges into apples.

[/quote] I recognize that. Still, it would get something done alot more effectively than this approach. [quote]And I know this is part of the nature of a democratic process. You can't expect everyone to agree with you since everyone holds a different opinion. But if we're trying to build a high quality encyclopedia, that just seems a bit problematic (especially when those same "everyone" are potential editors.) [/quote] It may be the system isn't workable. Still, even as a clearing house for what the web finds important wikipedia serves a useful role. It seems you don't take the whole wiki idea seriously, which is fine, but its really a seperate discussion.

[quote]Unless we're talking about waiting for something "unnotable" to become "notable" in which case...sure~
But the problem, or at least what I think is the problem, is that Wikipedia is trying to be this objective high quality encyclopedia by inviting everyone with subjective opinions to make decisions about what should or should not be in this encyclopedia.[/quote] How would you get an "objective" opinion on notability? What does that mean to you?

[quote]I think too many times the picture is painted that it's to the creator's benefit to contribute to Wikipedia. But personally, I don't see it that way. A creator has only a finite amount of time to dedicate to certain project. The impression I'm getting is that contributing to Wikipedia requires a LOT of dedication.[/quote] It does. Its a serious hobby. [quote] You're not just inserting or adding to an article here and there. You have to go in there, research, and build a reputation so that your voice can become more valuable.

And all that time used to build up a reputation could be used for other things...especially if you're not the type of person that likes to do things like writing encyclopedia articles. Sure people can then access information about the comic on Wikipedia but who really benefits from the article: the encyclopedia who wishes to be a source of high quality information or the webcomic?[/quote] The webcomic. A wikipedia link could lead to thousands of hits. Missing a single webcomic has a marginal effect on the encycolopedia completeness when it has thousands of articles.

[quote]Wouldn't it also be Wikipedia's advantage to not have serious webcomic readers as part of the pool of Wikipedians devoted to webcomics? Because if serious webcomic readers are also creators, then wouldn't that mean they would be naturally bias towards the importance of webcomics?

[/quote] I get what you are saying. What I am saying is to change a community you have to be part of it, or use power. We don't have power over wikipedia, so....

Oh I do take it seriously...at least I think I do...

Black_Kitty's picture

[quote=Erg] It may be the system isn't workable. Still, even as a clearing house for what the web finds important wikipedia serves a useful role. It seems you don't take the whole wiki idea seriously, which is fine, but its really a seperate discussion.[/quote]

On the contrary, I take the whole wiki idea seriously. Or at the very least, the ideals that Wikipedia is supposedly striving for. Just because I'm not either ranting and raving about its injustice or writing up well-researched articles doesn't mean I'm not serious. But I don't think it's working out for them and so I'm not going to stress out when things don't work out the way I personally see it.

[quote=Erg] How would you get an "objective" opinion on notability? What does that mean to you?[/quote]

You can't. Especially when everyone's an editor. At least if it was just one person, he/she can pretend they're being objective. :P

What I consider to be notable is just another subjective view. I personally think if enough people are interested in a topic or it can be argued that it has a significant impact in its field, then it should be notable. But that in itself is a problematic arguement.

Personally I think rather then trying to be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is better off being a "sum of all human knowledge" kind of thing. That doesn't mean it should be "sum of all human memory" either. Nobody cares that I remember what I had for breakfast (and neither do I.)

[quote=Erg]The webcomic. A wikipedia link could lead to thousands of hits. Missing a single webcomic has a marginal effect on the encycolopedia completeness when it has thousands of articles.[/quote]

Wouldn't you have to know of the webcomic first in order to look it up?

[quote] I get what you are saying. What I am saying is to change a community you have to be part of it, or use power. We don't have power over wikipedia, so....[/quote]

Yeah I know what you're saying. If I do sound a bit abrasive, I do apologize for that as that's not my intention (rather the conversation is interesting and I figure it's my chance to say it all before I lose my nerve.) I'm not trying to discourage you from participating in Wikipedia either.

I'm just not that interested in proving myself to a group of people that I'm worthy attention. Especially if it depends on who in that group you bump into. And I don't think the webcomic community has to either.

I totally agree with you.

Chris Jeffery's picture

I totally agree with you. When I discovered Wikipedia's vendetta against webcomics, I got involved, started editing articles, and voted in AfDs. If people would actually attempt to work together and change Wikipedia, we'd see a lot more progress. As it is, people would just rather complain on other websites about the problem, and when people like myself attempt to argue with deletionists such as Dragonfiend, we're pretty much alone.

Chris Jeffery
_______________
cartridgecomics.com

 _______________
Chris Jeffery
Cartridge

The problem with Wikipedia

Black_Kitty's picture

The problem with Wikipedia goes beyond webcomics or even notability. I like Wikipedia as much as anybody. I like reading about odd facts and I like the idea behind it. And I've always found it useful to start off any research with Wikipedia. (Hold the torches and pointy sticks citizens of academia! More on this later.)

But Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia of high quality knowledge. And they want to go about this by giving everyone access to the articles and letting them edit it as they see fit. As well intentioned as they and their efforts are, their attempts at some form of quality control is not working because there are too many editors and none of them are on the same page. This isn't even an issue of one hand not knowing the other. This is every finger not knowing the other.

This isn't meant for it to be a slam on Wikipedia. It's a noble goal that they have but it's going to be a very, very long road with a very tricky destination. Their goal is one thing, their formula for it is another.

As much as I like to read Wikipedia articles and start my research at Wikipedia, I would never seriously consider Wikipedia as a valid, academic source. It's simply not reliable. How do I know what's being written on that page is actually true? How do I know those editors know anything about the topic I'm reading about? What are their credentials? Where are they getting that information from?

Which is why I don't care too much about this whole Wikipedia-webcomic thing. I'm not angry, upset, or even surprised. If anything it reassures me that when I tell my students to never use Wikipedia as a source for their work, I'm giving out a good piece of advice.

 

http://www.acrylicmoon.com

Down with the Wikinazis

Malach's picture

Here the problem, while Wiki wages a war on webcomics, there are thousands of other articles there that have no notability, are ads, or political rants, that no one seems to care about.

Wikipedia has become a joke, and user have their own personal biases, that become the norm for editing.

I tend to lurk more often

blinky's picture

I tend to lurk more often than I comment, but I have to agree with Fabricari. This whole topic is going nowhere, fast- and all it ever seems to do is incite arguments between people. Clearly, Wikipedia's stance on webcomics is not changing any time soon. Also, anyone who has bothered to follow stories concerning Wikipedia and the issue of 'notability' knows that it goes beyond the scope of webcomics. Do Wikipedia's actions look a little crooked? Yes. However we have Comixpedia.org- a place where we don't have to worry about overzealous people putting things up for deletion for half-baked reasons that make no sense. I'd rather see more about webcomics themselves, than Wikipedia on Comixpedia because that's what interests me.This is of course my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to share it or agree with it.

<a href="http://www.nekkoandjoruba.com"><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~yocchi/njmar07.gif"></a>

Just my opinion and no one else's.

Jamie Robertson's picture

 

I know a lot of people who love Wikipedia. I’m one of them. Where else can you find great geeky information in such mass quantity? So where is the problem? Is it webcomics? Is it Wiki’s notability standards or is it the editors? I think Wikipedia means well and perhaps even Dragonfiend may have the best of intentions, but we all know where that can lead.

Case in point. “Keenspot is barely notable” - Dragonfiend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keenspot

"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. That is, something that is notable will be noted. Being hosted by a particular site alone does not make something notable. As we don't do original research and we don't write from our own point of view, we do not decide that something that hasn't been noted by others really is noteworthy. So, no, from what I can tell very few Keenspot comics are notable, and Keenspot itself is barely notable, in a general encyclopedic sense. -- Dragonfiend 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

Say what you want about Keenspot, love it or hate it, it was the first successful Webcomic hosting/publication/collective site on the Internet. If webcomics themselves are notable, then Keenspot is notable. That said, the article is pretty badly written and resourced and needs major cleaning up.

Still the question remains, is Keenspot notable by Wikipedia’s notability standards? It’s certainly been mentioned in publications such as Variety, Chicago Tribune, Editor and Publisher, Hogan’s Alley and the Comic Buyer’s Guide. According to the Hogan’s Alley article of April 16th, 2003. “Keenspot Entertainment was not the first (Webcomic Consolidation website or collective), but after the dotcom bust is one of the few remaining.” I’m trying to rack my brain to think of an earlier webcomic collective than Big Panda, but I can’t. According to the Webcomic Examiner, “(Big Panda was) an early predecessor of Keenspot. Big Panda offered a free webcomics hosting service, paired with an ad-based revenue-share system, but was unable to attain profitability. The collapse of Big Panda led directly to the formation of Keenspot.” Unfortunately I can’t verify that Big Panda was the first webcomic collective except through my own spotty memory, (COTC was one of the first BP comics), and in a statement in a recent Comixpedia article.

Btw, most of this research was done through Keenspot’s press page, http://www.keenspot.com/pressbox/. With a bit of digging I’m certain any competent researcher could find the original third party source material. So is Keenspot notable? Yes. To say otherwise would be like saying Henry Ford was “barely notable” to the automobile industry. Is Keenspot notable by Wikipedia’s notability standards? I don’t know, but here’s the big question. Does it really matter?

After reading the interview with her, I believe that Dragonfiend actually does mean well, but with good intentions comes a zeal that will ultimately do more harm than good. Desperately trying to fix the cracks in Wikipedia’s credibility is a constant job that will ultimately never fully succeed. By its very nature, in that anyone can edit an article, any Wikipedia article must be read with a grain of salt. The same of course can be said for webcomics. If anyone can create one, then most of them aren’t notable, and I include my own in that statement. So ultimately it comes down to a community desperately seeking notability up against a community desperately seeking credibility. The struggle will continue until someone realizes that the argument should be treated like Anna Nichole Smith, finally, after a long, silly, insufferable public battle, laid to rest.

Jamie

Clan of the Cats

Just Fix Deletion Process at Wikipedia

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

I am not trying to write more about wikipedia issues - this was more of a reaction than anything. But this you wrote a good comment Jamie and I think one of the problems I'm quite certain is a problem (not specific to webcomics at all) with the Wikipedia model is the way deletions are handled. Too few, too fast and too contrary to its otherwise community-driven approach. Many, many of the webcomics deleted could/should have been tagged as poor articles in need of work AND left on the site for a good period of time for further work. It takes many hands in the wiki model to craft a good, information article. It SHOULD take many hands to fail to fix an article before deleting it. If an article was tagged as "potentially non-notable" for a significant enough period of time (for non-obsessed wikipedians which is most of the world that's more than a couple weeks or so) - say like 6 to 9 months - than after that period and a failure to find sources to meet the notability guidelines I'd be much more convinced of the rightness of deletion.

Also the fact that Dragonfiend says Keenspot is non-notable is ridiculous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Keenspot is clearly notable - not only simply through the application of a common sense evaluation of the actual historical record, but also, even under Wikipedia's more cramped view of "notability" as well.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

2 cents from a webcomic fan...

Fabricari's picture

I'm getting tired of reading about Wiki, when I'd rather be reading about webcomics. Please stop saturating the webcomic blog-o-sphere with incessant chatter about wiki notability. Thanks!

Steve "Fabricari" Harrison

Fair Point

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Fair enough - I'm not excited about this story anymore (if I ever was) - it's more like something where things happen (or people say something as in this case) and I think I can add something for context or in this case to correct what I saw as basically unchecked spin from Dragonfiend.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

Rob:

Joey Manley's picture

Rob:

I know you, I like you, I have a lot of sympathy for your position, though I don't hold any particular opinion one way or another on the Wikipedia/Webcomic Wars. I imagine that there are lots of us reading this -- not commenting on the matter, just because it has been so ugly -- who similarly are undecided, or ambivalent, about this topic.

That's why I'm surprised that you felt it was appropriate to use a phrase like "rotten bitch" in your post. This kind of language may feel good at the moment, and many of the people who are firmly on one side in the "war" will appreciate it, but it is not going to help convince anybody who is undecided, or who just doesn't care, of the justness or rightness of your position. Quite the opposite. For example, Dirk Deppey linked over here today from Journalista, in a supportive way about Xerxes' original post. People coming from his blog to Comixpedia will read Xerxes' original post, then scroll down here to the comments and find "rotten bitch." And then they'll leave, shaking their heads over those crazy foul-mouthed webcartoonists and their little war. I imagine this is the opposite of the reaction most people in webcomics would like for them to have.

If the whole Wikipedia thing is about gaining respect for webcomics as a medium in the eyes of the world at large -- and that's what it seems to be about, surely -- then that makes your choice of language even more inappropriate.

I am only bringing this up because I famously got furious when somebody else -- somebody I am Known to Not Like -- used this kind of language here. I am Known to Like You, or at least I hope I am, and I would rather see your posts get more attention and more respect for their underlying content, rather than less. This kind of language makes it easier for your enemies to dismiss you, and makes it more difficult for those who might be persuaded by your ideas to come on board.

I don't have any authority here, though, of course, so please forgive me for scolding, and feel free to ignore if you wish.

Thanks.

Joey, would you have

pclips's picture

Joey, would you have preferred "unredeemable monster?" How about "thought criminal?" "Book burner?" "Enemy of human knowledge?" Hey I've got buckets full of apt phrases for this wacked-out webcomics wiki-weedwhacker.

The fact is, user:Dragonfiend's record as an obsessive webcomics deletionist speaks for itself, however hard she might try to hide it. She thinks she can offset it by pretending to be "improving" webcomics articles, by fleshing out articles on the comics she considers noteworthy.

Yeah, so... apparently you killed our fish and our hamsters and our bird, but you were real special nice to the cat. You must be an animal lover.

This argument apparently worked on T Campbell, though. So it must have some validity, because he's a webcomics expert.

user:Dragonfiend's record earns her any epithet in the book. Anyone who knows webcomics can see what she's done. Discussing the matter, either civilly or not, is pointless. She has gamed the system and won.

This article was a lost opportunity to take the case directly to her boss and show him the problem. But T never really even looked at her record. He takes her own, calculated characterization of her actions at face value. Then he kicks back with her and has a laugh at us silly drama-loving cartoonists.

I think that supports a few epithets, too.

I'd have preferred for you

Joey Manley's picture

I'd have preferred for you to use language that would have strengthened your argument, and helped convince others that you were right, rather than weakening it for all but the already-convinced. But if you don't wanna, that's your call. God (and almost everybody here, who has been around webcomics a while) KNOWS I've gone off all half-cocked on almost every one of the Internets before. That didn't work out for me at all. Generally, posting while angry has always backfired on me, alienating people who had been, or could have been, my friends, and hurting the very causes I was trying to help. I hope that my bad experiences will not be duplicated in your case -- though I expect that they might.

T really is a nice person. I

T really is a nice person. I can also see that he works pretty hard. But that doesn't excuse him from that fact that he basically gave himself the job of representing webcomics, and has done nothing but fail at it.

Those were not MY questions

pclips's picture

I've told T Campbell I want him to take my name off the list of people he thanks for those questions. I don't want anyone to associate my name with this softball, ass-kissing lovefest he calls an interview. He did not ask anything approaching my question.

This was billed as T Campbell taking webcomics' case to Wikipedia. In fact, it is T Campbell giving Wikipedia the chance to explain to webcomics what's wrong with us.

If there is a single person on Earth who has caused the most harm to webcomics, it is user:Dragonfiend (I would accept user:Brenneman as a possible substitute, as he is an admin and his many, many speedy deletions are not visible to the average user). T gives her a nice happy soapbox to rattle off the rationalizations which have best served her in her personal jihad against webcomics. She has attacked the notability standards themselves, then has waged war on every article on potential sources of notability (Comixpedia, Fleen, Digital Strips, Clickwheel, Webcomics Examiner, WCCAs etc.) The facts of her intentional, systematic destruction of webcomics on Wikipedia go way beyond deleting articles on individual webcomics. She is obsessively driven, covers her tracks well, and above all is clever about managing the perception that she is somehow doing good.

T presents none of the facts of the case, either to Jimbo or to the rotten bitch herself. I have never seen any indication out of T that he even gets what the problem is. When he says, "Well, you know. Cartoonists." he is toasting her with the wiki-kool-aid, and selling us all out as crybabies.

T Campbell, you have done tremendous harm to webcomics with this article. You allowed this serious problem to be trivialized, on Wikipedia's own nonsensical terms. Wikipedia is now even less of the belief that there is a problem they need to address. In short, you happily slept with the enemy.

If webcomics were a wiki, you'd be deleted for vandalism.

Rob Balder

Rob is quoting me out of

Rob is quoting me out of context. I suggest that whoever reads this sort of thread look at the actual article, particularly the part directly below "Well, you know. Cartoonists."

I'm not going to say anything else in its defense on this thread, or anywhere else online. The interview should speak for itself, for better or worse.

Civility Check

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

pclips wrote:
If there is a single person on Earth who has caused the most harm to webcomics, it is user:Dragonfiend (I would accept user:Brenneman as a possible substitute, as he is an admin and his many, many speedy deletions are not visible to the average user). T gives her a nice happy soapbox to rattle off the rationalizations which have best served her in her personal jihad against webcomics. She has attacked the notability standards themselves, then has waged war on every article on potential sources of notability (Comixpedia, Fleen, Digital Strips, Clickwheel, Webcomics Examiner, WCCAs etc.) The facts of her intentional, systematic destruction of webcomics on Wikipedia go way beyond deleting articles on individual webcomics. She is obsessively driven, covers her tracks well, and above all is clever about managing the perception that she is somehow doing good.T presents none of the facts of the case, either to Jimbo or to the rotten bitch herself. I have never seen any indication out of T that he even gets what the problem is. When he says, "Well, you know. Cartoonists." he is toasting her with the wiki-kool-aid, and selling us all out as crybabies.
Easy folks - there's no need to engage in name-calling here (there's TCJ.com for that... Just kidding!!). Civility rules apply here even to people you don't much like. I also (like Joey's comment below) don't think it helps an argument to throw in gratuitous name-calling. And also I don't want it at Comixpedia as we all wind up talking about how mean post/comment is/was as opposed to comics.  ____Xaviar Xerexes On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

But when you think about it...

Dragonfiend IS kind of a rotten bitch.

Regardless

Xaviar Xerexes's picture

Regardless of whether it's justified name-calling or not, Comixpedia just isn't the place for it.

 

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

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

Maybe I'm complacent...

... but I don't think webcomics are going to die because of insufficient Wikipedia articles. Dragonfiend's a minor nuisance at worst, not the second coming of Fred Wertham.

Wikipedia's Alexa rank is

pclips's picture

Wikipedia's Alexa rank is 12. People go there first, to learn about things, under the assumption that the Ubermind has filtered out the dreck for them (the entire philosophical basis of deletionism). Anything that isn't in there must truly not be worth knowing.

The system fails because it allows a small number of agenda-driven editors to delete large amounts of worthwhile content. The policies have been gamed by deletionists to favor the easy destruction of content, and Wikipedia includes no effective form of accountability and very little recourse.

Would you understand the stakes better if this were Google, auto-filtering out most webcomics from its search results? Can you imagine Googling "Gone With the Blastwave" and not getting information about the comic?

That's what's happening, that's why it matters. Most editors want to include these articles. A few excercise magnified power via playing Wikipedia like it's a librarian mod for WoW.

That's why I'd use Google

Can you imagine Googling "Gone With the Blastwave" and not getting information about the comic?

No, and that's why I'd go to Google rather than Wikipedia. Wikipedia just might give me a dry little summary of a named webcomic; Google will reliably give me something far more useful, a link to the comic itself.

People go there first, to learn about things, under the assumption that the Ubermind has filtered out the dreck for them (the entire philosophical basis of deletionism). Anything that isn't in there must truly not be worth knowing.

That's never going to be true of any encyclopedia, not if every person alive were writing it. The world's too big and complicated. And it's not the job of an encyclopedia to tell you what's worth knowing and what isn't. If an encyclopedia tells me nothing about a topic, I don't assume the topic is pointless: I look elsewhere, probably in a more specialized book or site that focuses on the subject area.

I was not describing what

pclips's picture

I was not describing what should be. I was describing what is. A very large portion of Wikipedia users are not sophisticated consumers of information. (I would say a majority, but I'd be guessing in the dark.)

Just like a large portion of Google users or internet users in general, they take the shortest path to the information they seek. Wikipedia matters because of how people do use it, not how they are supposed to, or how you do.

Wikipedia is declaring itself an arbiter of notability with WP:N. It is positioning itself as one. People are using it as one. Therefore it is one.

And when it allows deletionists to erase the notability that webcomics has earned as an area of human endeavor, then it matters to the entire field. By having notability standards but allowing selective enforcement by personal agenda, Wikipedia declares to the casual user, for example:

1. We set the standards for what is "human knowledge" (per Jimbo's mission statement) or "quality information" (per this recent interview).

2. Algy Gerhs, the Australian cricketer who played 6 tests between 1904 and 1911, is a notable and worthy subject for a compendium of human knowledge, and would you like to help humanity by telling us more about Algy Gerhs, please?

3. Comixpedia, pre-eminent resource for chronicling news about webcomics, with a strong Alexa rank of 86,000, is not notable. It does not matter that creators of 50 or 100 webcomics which Wikipedia does consider notable by its obtuse standards gather here to discuss all aspects of the business and community. If you tried to add information about Comixpedia, you would be wasting the whole world's time. Someone would quickly rush in to stop you before someone got hurt by that article. Again.

How then....

Erg's picture

The trouble is if wikipedia isn't allowed to decide the notability of a certain subject, it is incapable of deleting anything. I could write an article about my cat, and it'd have to say as long as I got someone else to talk about my cat. At some point, though we can disagree about the point, wikipedia has to be able to decide if a comic is notable or not, even if it hurts the artist or his fans feelings.

I'd rather there -was- an

The Gneech's picture

I'd rather there -was- an article about your cat, than that there -wasn't- an article about [pick your favorite deleted webcomic]. Articles of no interest are self-correcting -- they don't get further development!

-TG

--

www.suburbanjungle.com -- The life, loves, and career of aspiring supermodel and ferocious predator, Tiffany Tiger

www.mopsy.com -- NeverNever, the story of the faeries at war with humanity, and of the humans who just don't notice</

--

www.suburbanjungle.com -- The life, loves, and career of aspiring supermodel and ferocious predator, Tiffany Tiger

www.mopsy.com -- NeverNever, the story of the faeries at war with humanity, and of the humans who just don't notice</&