Skip to main content

Wikipedia Wikistyles

One of the biggest thing we visually inherit from wikipedia was the writing style.

For a few editors, it is extremely boring. They are very few in number.

However for me, I don't care as long it informative. I want them to not contain bullish writing with little contents. Our article is not meant to entertain in any way, but merely inform people about the subject.

I like wikipedia's writing style even though the article is usually look like this:

"Megatokyo is a webcomic by Fred Gallagher."

To me, it inform me that this webcomic is written and drawn by Fred Gallagher.
However this won't be helpful to me if it was stated like this..

Megatokyo is about the adventure of Piro and Largo.

Ok, so it is an adventure by some dude about Piro and Largo. Is it a game? Who wrote it? A comic? They expect us to know the basic of the topic?

People might counter that everyone know Megatokyo is a webcomic and the infobox contain all the information that Megatokyo is a webcomic. But I felt it improtant to have all those information in the lead for those who are dense. An infobox is no replacement for real contents.

We are dealing with webcomic readers who know a lot of things but we are assuming they are noob when it come to those entry. Basically, they know nothing.
Who is our target audience?

One of the best things about the Wiki writing style, I think, is that it is the far removed from blatant fanboyism as possible. I do think the organization of information is essential, and Wikipedia's writing style is very compatable with that.

Another thing I think is essential is that the main articles (particularly the intros) are written for people who have never encountered the subject before, or don't know the strip very well (See: every time a recurring secondary character shows up in Sluggy Freelance or Megatokyo). The folks who know the strip *very* well ought to *contribute*, but they don't really need the encyclopedia except for minute fact checking.

edit: For example, this is a very bad Schlock Mercenary article, I feel. I'd say some 80% of it is directly copied from the footnotes, and it's impossible to tell the technobabble apart from the tech that actually *matters*.

Wow, our article on the same topic is as exhaustive as Wikipedia's if not better.

Not to mentions, that our Schlock Mercenary information is well sourced although the main article seem to lack references.

This is one of the few topic where we actually beat Wikipedia in term of crediability and source.

I pretty much support Wikipedia's writing styles despite futile protest that it is extremely boring.

Well, sort of. What I linked to is what the Schlock Mercenary article looked like a year ago, right before most of it got totally removed and the article rewritten. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.

On a side note, I don't think information that detailed really belongs on Wikipedia. Which, as I recall, is one of the stated reasons for Comixpedia.org's existence.

Well, we ought to draw up an offical style guide for Comixpedia. The way we write isn't that much different but we still need a writing style guide.

You see, we have a provisonal style guide.

Wikipedia's styleguide is like....super percise on how to write. We ought to have that.

For example, "recently" need to be purged from comixpedia.org and other vague term must be shot to death.

Wheather if it should be a policy I don't know. Sometime we will need a specific styleguide on a group of topics.

We can start by copying stuff directly from here and the surrounding area. Things like "write in the present tense" and "clearly distinguish fact from fiction".

RemusShepherd's picture

(Ah, here's the thread I was looking for. Just a note -- 'Wikistyles' in the title makes me think 'style sheets', not 'writing style'.)

I guess I'll just fire a shot across the bow straight away. Why not let the comic creators write in whatever style they want? Is it your sense of aesthetics?

Because if you're trying to entice people to use your wiki, constraining what they write and how they do it is a bad idea.

 

 ...

Unfortunely, that will be hard for editors like me to maintain a creator's style.

Not a lot of people are even complaining about this issue.

The style of which we write in come largely from Wikipedia.

It seem to work for wikipedia, why not for us?

Having everyone can write in any style they want will introduce chaos since everyone have their own writing style. Comixpedia.org have no concept of ownership, just expertise and informal karama/reputation system. It does not make sense to limit people contributing because they can't write in that creator's style.

I believe the writing style of comixpedia.org does not interfere our goal, but help us look professional and get the job done easier.

The challenge is to get people thinking they can edits and have no fear if they made a mistake. After all, I am here to help them learn how to contribute and the learn the wikiway.

The writing style of Wikipedia is perfectly suited for comixpedia.org and get the job done well.

If you got any opinion and concern and compliants, counteragurement please let me know.

"Kiba" wrote: Not a lot of

RemusShepherd's picture

Kiba wrote:
Not a lot of people are even complaining about this issue. The style of which we write in come largely from Wikipedia. It seem to work for wikipedia, why not for us?
I think the main reason it will not work for you is that Wikipedia is huge. They have a large population of contributors willing to follow strict guidelines. And more importantly, they have no competition. You do have competitors, since the Comixpedia wiki is essentially just another webcomic list. Having strict guidelines will cause creators to just go elsewhere rather than deal with you. And you will be left with too small a population of contributors to maintain a healthy wiki site. All just IMHO.
Quote:
Having everyone can write in any style they want will introduce chaos since everyone have their own writing style. Comixpedia.org have no concept of ownership, just expertise and informal karama/reputation system. It does not make sense to limit people contributing because they can't write in that creator's style.
Are there really a lot of people contributing to articles about comics besides those comics' creators? I guess for the most popular comics there might be. But it seems to me you're hindering 95% of the possible entries to make the remaining 5% more orderly. I guess that's fine if your stated goal is to be an encyclopedia of just the most popular comics on the web. I'll think about writing a wiki-style entry. But it's just not a high priority for me to write an article in an uncomfortable style for a site that I'm not convinced anyone will read. Guess we'll see.

 

 ...

What?

We document not only the most popluar comics on the web, but some of the most obscure webcomics on the web.

Get your facts right.

I am also aware of a few wiki that documents comic but not sure if they are competitors. Perhaps you can list them.

Wikipedia have competitors too, and they are in the forms of traditional encyclopedia, forks of wikipedia, and whatnot.

Here the other things, creators will add their comic entry, regardless. It doesn't hinder the creations of new articles at ALL.

Also, I don't know if people are comfortable with the wiki style at all. I know I like it. So does other contributors. Some are just ok with it. Some hate it, but go along with it.

We don't have any real data to prove me and your points. Perhap I can start a poll if I ever got around to it.

"Kiba" wrote: What? We

RemusShepherd's picture

Kiba wrote:
What? We document not only the most popluar comics on the web, but some of the most obscure webcomics on the web. Get your facts right.
No, no, you misunderstand me. :) I'm saying it's a disincentive. You're making the rules to encourage articles created by committee -- a situation that will only happen with comics of wide popularity. Meanwhile it discourages the creators of the obscure comics. No facts, here, just my opinions.
Quote:
I am also aware of a few wiki that documents comic but not sure if they are competitors. Perhaps you can list them.
The wiki is essentially just a webcomic list with detailed descriptions for each comic. People can always learn about the comic by actually reading it. That puts you in competition with half a dozen comic listing sites. As far as other comic wikis go, I'm only aware of the CG Wiki, which is not really in competition with you.
Quote:
Here the other things, creators will add their comic entry, regardless. It doesn't hinder the creations of new articles at ALL.
I'm just saying it's a disincentive. If the creator decides that it's too much work and it still won't look the way they want, why would they do it? I'm ready to pull mine over this minor argument; it just isn't worth this much hassle. :)

 

 ...

Well, it is not usually the creators who do the work, it is the editors and the community that does the hard work like me. Well, sometime we neglect and procrastinate until it time for a roaring major cleanup which happen every once in a while.

Comxipedia.org does not only list webcomics, but also collective, creators, magazine, defination, books and even our competitions :)

The competitions and comixpedia.org perfrom two different jobs.

Webcomics lists and directory meant to list webcomics sites. Comixpedia.org is meant to be used a reference work that try to cover the whole sum of webcomic knowledges and pointer to other resources for researches.

So in effect, they are not the competitions since they do a completely different job.