Webcomics: A United Front Against Wikipedia

Sean C's picture

Given all the recent fuss over Wikipedia’s history of blatant dismissal of the webcomics medium, I feel the need to express the following, and I think all webcomic creators, both superstar and little guys, should take this to heart.

"Why do we even care about this?"

We do not need Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an occasionally useful source of information; it’s not always reliable due to the fact that anyone can alter the entries. However, you need to justify an article if it is nominated for deletion, and this is where the overzealous editors have been nailing webcomics. They won’t take the word of the creator of the comic, and when one of the bigger names in webcomics – those largely considered to be authorities in webcomics by the editors themselves, makes a stand in favor of leaving the article, the editors simply reject the argument by giving some half-hearted excuse. This has happened before. Eric Burns has been cited by the editors as an authority, and when he made a stand in favor of saving the Checkerboard Nightmare entry, his voice was ignored – the excuse given that he did not have enough Wiki posts. I’m sorry but that is bullshit, plain and simple.

The Wikipedia vendetta against webcomics is nothing new. Keenspot, Girly, Checkerboard Nightmare have all been among the most publicized cases, and now The Noob has just survived a challenge. Countless other smaller comics have been deleted without justification, and some other larger strips have had their entries eliminated. Comixpedia is yet another victim, despite being one of the major digital gathering points for creators and perhaps the most viewed website for webcomics news. All of the aforementioned strips and sites have met Wikipedia’s requirements for an entry, yet they are continually targeted for deletion, and more often than not, there is no room for debate. We fight back, we argue, we seek to justify our very existence to a select few Wikipedia editors. We lose more than we win. Why do we need to do this? How could a little entry in some “encyclopedia” possibly mean so much? Yet we play the game with the editors, again and again, jumping through their hoops when they refuse to play by their own rules.

It’s time to end it.

We do not need Wikipedia.

There are a number of reasons for this. First off, an entry will only be seen if a user actually goes looking for it specifically. They won’t just stumble across it on some other random search. Given the sheer number of people able to change that article, it likely won’t be truly accurate. For research purposes, a short history page on the comic/site itself is likely the best route to go for any creator. It’s straight from the horse’s mouth. Sure, the creator may lie, but so could anyone on Wikipedia as well. What good does that do anyone? We sure can’t trust the editors to correct those mistakes, now can we? If the editors will allow every little detail from every reality show ever aired to be covered in detail, and consider that both significant and relevant, doesn’t that alone speak volumes about their abilities and qualifications as editors?

Second, we do not need the fight. We have enough drama in webcomics as it is. The people responsible for the deletion of the webcomic articles are few in number, and have proven that they will not be swayed by things like facts, numbers, and the opinions of the experts they themselves cite. Why would they ever change their minds? What could we possibly do? We can’t get through to them, plain and simple. It will not change today, tomorrow, or in the future. They choose to remain ignorant of webcomics, despite our best efforts to inform and educate. They are prejudiced, and they will continue their vendetta.

Third, and this is the absolute most important part, is that the world of webcomics has been scratching and clawing for validation from the public for years, and we have been consistently gaining ground and slowly winning that battle. More webcomic creators are going professional, webcomic merchandise is being featured on television programs, the print companies are taking notice, and webcomic artists are no longer just isolated writers and artists going out for page hits. We are a community, one that is uniting more and more each day. The number of collectives is rising. The online syndicates are doing well. Creators are forming social circles and sharing their knowledge with both their peers and fans. When people new to webcomics enter the fold, there’s a wealth of knowledge already available to them – all they have to do is ask. We are a strong community that takes care of our own, that welcomes people to the club, that will not simply call something irrelevant and dismiss it. If someone does try that, you can be damn sure that the community will call them on it. There is room for debate in our world. Given all this, given all the information out there in the community, given sites like Comixpedia and Comixpedia.org, do we really need to prove to a select few elitist individuals that we are relevant, that we deserve a spot in their “encyclopedia”? No – we most certainly DO NOT.

Fourth, Wikipedia is dealing with the many of the same struggle for relevance. Wikipedia is not recognized by the academic and intellectual world; in other words, they feel Wikipedia is not relevant, reliable, or significant. Most colleges, and a growing number of high schools, will not allow students to get information from Wikipedia. This is due to the fact that entries can be altered and untrue. Many studies have actually set out to intentionally alter entries to test the editors, and many, many such studies have been done. Who knows how much damage has been done – how many facts were left incorrect due to a few intellectuals sabotaging Wikipedia? There are also many individuals who alter entries for kicks, with no reason behind it other than that it’s “fun”. Such a flawed system cannot be trusted for accurate information. Wikipedia is in the middle of a struggle for relevance – does that sound just a tad familiar? Does the webcomics world really want to be involved in a mess filled with elitists and abrasive, pompous know-it-alls? I say we don’t.

At the end of the day, the webcomics world needs to give up on the Wikipedia fight. We don’t need to justify our very existence to people who can’t see past their own prejudices to see the facts, and who won’t follow the very rules they themselves have set. We can’t win in an environment like that. If Wikipedia operates this way, then they defeat their own goals. Wikipedia is irrelevant, not us. They have proven that through their actions, their continued ignorance, and refusal to “lose” to a webcomic creator. We don’t need that when we’ve been doing fine on our own this long. It’s time to leave these ignorant boobs alone.

Stand up, be proud of who you are and what you have created; don't let these bastards put you down and tell you that you don't matter. We have proven that we do. In the end, the opinions of a few consistently hypocritical elitists is what doesn't matter.

We don’t need Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time.

0
No votes yet
Your rating: None

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
DAJB's picture

That pretty much sums up the

That pretty much sums up the way I feel about it. As I said in the previous thread, before this came up I'd never even visited Wikipedia, let alone concerned myself with whether or not I had an entry there (I don't, I now know!)

But, while not having an entry is a matter of complete indifference to me, I can see why someone who used to have an entry would be upset if it was suddenly deleted. That's different to being ignored. That's being actively dissed (or whatever word the young 'uns use these days!)

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Broken Voice Comics Because comics are not just for kids
timdemeter's picture

Dudes know about chickens anyways

Nice piece Sean.

Tim Demeter
does a buch of neato stuff.
GraphicSmash

Clickwheel
Reckless Life

Tim Demeter does a bunch of neato stuff. Clickwheel GraphicSmash Bustout Odds
Chris Jeffery's picture

Kickass

Incredibly well written, Sean. Couldn't agree more. Wikipedia means nothing. The people editing the webcomic articles are mostly a bunch of delete-happy elitists, and trying to keep an article up on such a site is apparently wasted energy.

Chris Jeffery

_______________

cartridgecomics.com

 

_______________
Chris Jeffery
Cartridge Comics

Townie's picture

Here's my take on it

Sean C wrote:
"Why do we even care about this?"

We do not need Wikipedia.

We care for the same reason we all complain about a poorly done write-up in some press story where a writer suddenly "discovers" comics online. We care because it's potentially the first exposure people outside of our little club have to webcomics.

Quote:
First off, an entry will only be seen if a user actually goes looking for it specifically. They won’t just stumble across it on some other random search.
Unless you've never used Wikipedia before you'd know this is inaccurate. Their inter-linking system for entries is part of what makes their site so appealing. I often hop from one search to another because of a link I found in another entry. If webcomics were given that same treatment there'd be plenty of increases in traffic to be had.

Quote:
The people responsible for the deletion of the webcomic articles are few in number, and have proven that they will not be swayed by things like facts, numbers, and the opinions of the experts they themselves cite. Why would they ever change their minds? What could we possibly do? We can’t get through to them, plain and simple. It will not change today, tomorrow, or in the future.
So because a few people are getting in the way you're cool with them crippling webcomics' exposure to a significantly large audience? History has presented plenty of people with antagonists, many much worse than a few web encylopedia editors, and the good fight can still prevail. Their editors are not the be all end all to what makes history just as Wikipedia itself isn't. If online comics get increased coverage, as you yourself say they will, then the opinions of the editors won't mean anything once webcomics becomes a household word.

Quote:
When people new to webcomics enter the fold, there’s a wealth of knowledge already available to them – all they have to do is ask. We are a strong community that takes care of our own, that welcomes people to the club, that will not simply call something irrelevant and dismiss it. If someone does try that, you can be damn sure that the community will call them on it.
So why are you advocating we stop giving a damn about being misrepresented outside of the community? If webcomics has truly scratched it's way up, that's even more reason to take more strides in being accepted. Let's not kid ourselves. The majority of people know nothing about online comics. If they get exposed to one or two somewhere that's still no guarantee they'll discover the community. That's why it's best for all that a few bad editors aren't excluding people from finding comics that they may like.

Quote:
Does the webcomics world really want to be involved in a mess filled with elitists and abrasive, pompous know-it-alls? I say we don’t.
This just makes me laugh. Join any forum where the subject of webcomics history comes up. The number of elitists and abrasive, pompous know-it-alls in the webomics community is actually quite high given the perpetual drama you yourself have mentioned. Wikipedia and webcomics are emerging at the same point in history. It's foolhardy and dangerous to not pay attention to what else is going on. History doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Quote:
At the end of the day, the webcomics world needs to give up on the Wikipedia fight. We don’t need to justify our very existence to people who can’t see past their own prejudices to see the facts, and who won’t follow the very rules they themselves have set. We can’t win in an environment like that.
If our community isn't strong enough to stand up against a few punks online deleting our entries in an online encyclopedia, really, how strong is it? I'm all for public chest beating and yelling, "We don't need yer stinkin' Wikipedia!" But call it what it is. If we're truly going to overcome the censorship we can't be defeatists. We have to proclaim that we're right, continue to show that we're right, and in the end we'll be vindicated.

- Ben

- Ben

TCampbell's picture

Some Numbers

Britannica search results for "comic strip:" 115

For "comic book:" 295

For "webcomics:" none

Googled en.wikipedia.org results for the same, respectively: 7370, 18500, 2530

GiantPanda's picture

While I am of the opinion

While I am of the opinion that the greatest thing to have come out of the wikiproject is the software it runs on, I cant help but think that making a "we versus them" out of this is inherrently flawed. There is no "we" and I'm pretty sure there is no "them".

Vir Bonus

Vir Bonus
The William G's picture

HAR!

Does the webcomics world really want to be involved in a mess filled with elitists and abrasive, pompous know-it-alls? I say we don’t.

Chum, that describes every geek on the planet since the invention of geeks.


joshl.'s picture

Believe me, I know what you

Believe me, I know what you mean, and I really would like to brush off every setback like this. But the fact remains that Wikipedia is a big site, and people use it, you know? Hell, I use it almost every day!

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with putting up a fight for these things, and we don't stand to lose anything from it, so long as we don't get so obsessed that it interferes with our work.

Chris Jeffery's picture

The fact is, Wikipedia has

The fact is, Wikipedia has set rules for what can and cannot be the subject of an article, and those rules are extremely strict when it comes to websites. And since there are many elitists pricks running the site, most people without a large fanbase can forget getting anywhere on it.


Webcomics will eventually become a large enough force that it will demand respect, but as of right now, the people willing to defend such articles are outnumbered by people willing to delete them. Since we cannot really affect this, as our status as webcomic authors makes our opinion meaningless in their eyes, all we can really do is wait for more people to take an interest in the medium, and wait for them to drive those webcomic haters into the minority.

Chris Jeffery
_____________

cartridgecomics.com

 

_______________
Chris Jeffery
Cartridge Comics

jdalton's picture

If you can't beat 'em

Who are these Wikipedia editors and how does a person become one? It seems to me the best way to change the club's rules is if you are in the club.

Jonathon Dalton
Lords of Death and Life
Jonathon Dalton
A Mad Tea-Party
Chris Jeffery's picture

here's how...

Sign up to the site, volunteer to the appropriate groups, and spend an ungodly amount of time doing research/arguing with other editors.

I had the same attitude when the deletion of my comic's article introduced me to the situation, (even though I now see the article didn't come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia) and I tried for a good two months or so before I became frustrated with the amount of time it was eating up. When Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal's article was deleted simply because I didn't have enough time to provide links to "proof of notability," I finally gave up and decided to let those jerks have their idiocy orgy together.

Chris Jeffery
_______________
cartridgecomics.com

 

_______________
Chris Jeffery
Cartridge Comics

WizToast's picture

Damn

That was a bit pleonastic. Woops, sorry, I'm acting like a know-it-all elitist. In an effort to avoid this, I will explain my perspective in caveman speak.

Wikipedia great big!

Webcomics little tiny.

Webcomics like be great big!

Webcomics wikimods mostly webcomic nerds anyway!

We webcomic nerds!

We can determine standards!

Help webcomics get great big!

 

mimo's picture

Get sneaky

You need to bribe that dragon person or take her on a romantic date or something. You catch more flies with honey then you do with vinegar.
DAJB's picture

Sure, but who wants a big

Sure, but who wants a big fly collection?

Broken Voice Comics
Because comics are not just for kids

Broken Voice Comics Because comics are not just for kids
Sean C's picture

I Wouldn't have a problem with Wikipedia, except...

You can say that the editors are webcomics geeks, but that doesn't mean they're going to be fair. They have deleted articles that have met Wiki's requirements; they have gone and done it because they wanted to - because they thought they just knew better - that the rules can be bent, broken, and ignored when it comes to webcomics. THAT'S what burns me; that is why I wrote this. How can you say they have standards if they arbitrarily change them on the fly over personal feelings? That's why I called them "know-it-alls" and "elitists". I think it was justifiable.

To address your first point, Townie, having a bad write-up by a writer that discovers webcomics is different from being excluded from Wiki. Seeing a bad write-up may prevent someone from ever checking out a comic. However, by word of mouth, e-mail, IM, MySpace, etc, someone can come into the webcomics world and see it for what it is, and judge for themselves. I just don't agree with the idea that bad PR is better than no PR.

I'm not suggesting that we be defeatist. Eventually, webcomics will become such a force that Wikipedia will not be able to make any more bullshit excuses to exclude deserving comics. Webcomics, as I see it, is something of a subculture right now, slowly becoming more and more mainstream. Just give it time - and avoid the nonsense of butting heads with these Wiki editors. That could PROLONG the process, if anything.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate.

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

Que?

Sean C wrote:
To address your first point, Townie, having a bad write-up by a writer that discovers webcomics is different from being excluded from Wiki. Seeing a bad write-up may prevent someone from ever checking out a comic. However, by word of mouth, e-mail, IM, MySpace, etc, someone can come into the webcomics world and see it for what it is, and judge for themselves. I just don't agree with the idea that bad PR is better than no PR.
You do realize that somebody who's taking the initiative to read webcomic entries in Wikipedia is more likely to get into the community thru the methods you just mentioned than the poorly written article, right? I mean, they're already online and internet savvy enough to stumble upon it. And the two are similar in that they act as a form of exposure to people who may have never heard of webcomics. The print article even more so because it reaches people who aren't already online to hear it. And exactly who's saying bad PR is better than no PR? I don't remember anybody saying that. If anything, you're the one supporting that position by advocating we quit voicing our concern when the PR is bad.

Quote:
I'm not suggesting that we be defeatist. Eventually, webcomics will become such a force that Wikipedia will not be able to make any more bullshit excuses to exclude deserving comics. Webcomics, as I see it, is something of a subculture right now, slowly becoming more and more mainstream. Just give it time - and avoid the nonsense of butting heads with these Wiki editors. That could PROLONG the process, if anything.
If biased editors are not being openly challenged until somebody either overrides their edits or they are removed from their positions, how do you expect it to ever change? THAT would prolong the process. Hell, anybody who takes issue with a webcomic being deleted should stand up and make themselves heard. If you really believe the editors' opinions aren't going to change then the only way to succeed is to challenge them. If we all go away and do nothing we're just passively permitting such censorship. I can't get behind that

- Ben

- Ben

Sean C's picture

Good points, but...

I never implied that you said anything about bad PR, Townie, it's just that it goes hand in hand with a bad review - in terms of a bad review alone, that is. A bad review is bad PR, that's all.

We have challenged such reviews, like the recent backlash over the Wired article on the topic of Gene Yang's American Born Chinese as a nominee in the National Book Awards. It's not that the community backs off and lets it slide; that's never been the idea. We have battled Wikipedia time and time again, and it almost seems like a waste of time. There are other avenues to get the word out - MySpace, Livejournal, and the increased exposure from the mainstream media. Wizard Magazine is going to spotlight some comics in an upcoming issue, for example. We're gained major ground in some areas, and it makes sense to really take advantage of that. MySpace reaches millions, just like Wikipedia, and we don't have to scratch and claw to get a spot there. Webcomics grew by word of mouth and through community, not by getting attention from one big website. Why not use that to our advantage?

I'm not saying we shouldn't battle Wikipedia over this, and walk away for good. We need to have pride as comickers, and I believe a way to do that is to make Wikipedia irrelevant to US. If we raise awareness of the editor's bias, it wears away the very credibility of Wikipedia, and it shows that we will not be silenced and we will not go away. We don't necessarily need to do that by fighting small skirmishes over individual entries; if webcomickers simply tell the public about these injustices through other major social arenas, such as MySpace, we can get public sympathy, and then challenge those editors in greater numbers. Then they might just have to admit their bias, and correct these wrong decisions. The end result would show that while we want recognition from Wikipedia, we don't really need it. We would already have the public's interest, and they would be on our side.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate.

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

...

Sean C wrote:
If we raise awareness of the editor's bias, it wears away the very credibility of Wikipedia, and it shows that we will not be silenced and we will not go away. We don't necessarily need to do that by fighting small skirmishes over individual entries; if webcomickers simply tell the public about these injustices through other major social arenas, such as MySpace, we can get public sympathy, and then challenge those editors in greater numbers. Then they might just have to admit their bias, and correct these wrong decisions.
If we're ever going to gain ground with the rest of the online community over Wikipedia we have to at least acknowledge and keep track of the individual articles being deleted. How much more sympathy do you have for the guy on the news citing the instances where he's been mistreated vs the generalized "They're treating us badly!" guests who sound like they're making stuff up? Getting mentions in Wizard and sites on MySpace is good, but it's still alot smaller than webcomics being listed fairly in Wikipedia. MySpace pages are certainly going to get more isolated traffic from people already searching for them than Wikipedia and Wizard will most likely just bring up the Penny-Arcades and PVPs. It'll be awhile before we see a full fledged community report of any depth. My point is that the "take over the rest of the world then bother with Wikipedia" plan achieves it's goals in the broad sense but doesn't do anything about current problems. I say there's no reason not to call editors on their bias and to raise awareness of it as it happens. Problems don't go away if you just ignore them

- Ben

- Ben

Piels's picture

Webcomics deletion information

I have no idea if it's complete, but the Webcomics WikiProject over at wikipedia has a deletion list for anyone who wants to keep track (and provide updates): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics#Deletion

Also, I just created an article for Comixpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comixpedia). Was there an old article that was deleted?

xerexes's picture

Yep

Yeah there had been one for 3+ years - it was put up for deletion and deleted in 2 weeks in Nov. (I didn't know until it was all over). I suspect your new article will get immediately deleted but who knows.

When I get time I'm hoping to do some "notability" research and put a new article up.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Gnaw.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
josh l. (not signed in)'s picture

Wikiproject Webcomics

Wikiproject Webcomics technically still exists, but it's pretty darn dead, I'm afraid. =| All the lists on the page are out-of-date and they stopped bothering to update the deletion list back in September. Comixpedia, Girly, Jerkcity, The Noob, among many others were not listed. It's the thing about the harsh and discouraging nature of the editors again; it kinda killed the whole project.
Sean C's picture

Of course we can call them on it

We should most definetely call them on it; I just think that we need more public support before doing it. Something like that could easily get to be a big, ugly confrontation, (more so than it already is) and having public sympathy on our side (and the pressure it would bring) would be a boon. We will have to eventually confront the editors and expose their bias, but we should do it carefully, and intellegently. We just don't need to get into that fight now. I still stand by what I've said, though. We really don't need Wikipedia, win or lose.

Don't hesitate to procrastinate.

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

Agreed whole heartedly.

I know what you mean man, I was deleted from their site and they told me they would keep deleting me unless I could pull up a news article that my site had been mentioned on. I however don't know if I agree whole heartedly with reason 3. I was also deleted from Comixpedia as well. I just do my comic now and try my best to update twice a week and post on my myspace page and lj page and it gets me minimal hits, but it gets me hits.
xerexes's picture

Can't Get Deleted from Comixpedia

I don't think you can get deleted from Comixpedia (comixpedia.org) unless your entry was so inept that folks confused it with vandalism or spam. I'd advise trying to start one there again (and look at other well-done entries there to see how they're supposed to look).

____

Xaviar Xerexes

Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
ShinGoji's picture

Just called for deletion of Twisted Kaiju Theater

I decided to call for the deletion of my artcile before Wiki does. So I went and changed the Twisted Kaiju Theater artcicle and damn if some idiot mod doesn't get a clue and changes it right back to where it was.

Then I realized I was just cutting my nose off to spite my face and nothing good would come of my actions. Acting in the heat of passion is a dumb thing to do.

-------

Twisted Kaiju Theater

http://www.neomonsterisland.com

Anonymous's picture

Re: Just called for deletion of Twisted Kaiju Theater

You may be on to something there actually. If people within the webcomics community organise to rally round an article, then list for deletion on a specified date, we can pick our fights and simply swamp biased editors, thus making them look moronic if thy attempt to censor the vast majority of votes.