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.

Uncategorized

Xaviar Xerexes

Wandering webcomic ronin. Created Comixpedia (2002-2005) and ComixTalk (2006-2012; 2016-?). Made a lot of unfinished comics and novels.

55 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. [quote=Erg]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.[/quote]

    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

  3. [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.

  4. 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

  5. [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?

  6. 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

  7. [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….

  8. [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. 😛

    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.

  9. 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

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. 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. 😛

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 😛

    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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. [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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

Comments are closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *