Comments on: Okay, Forget The Rumble, How’s This?

By: Paul Southworth

Paul Southworth — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:45:23 +0000

In this argument, people keep citing the rules of Wikipedia, but I don’t think they realize that what I’m saying is the rules should be changed. The problem here is that Wikipedia is trying to have their cake and eat it, too; they want to be user-maintained, but they also want to be a reliable source of information. Those two states cannot be reconciled.

In a case like this, accuracy, not notability, should be the issue. And the only one who can confirm or deny accuracy is me. If Wikipedia is truly a user-maintained community, and its users not only created the article, but also overwhelmingly vote to keep it, that should be the end of it. As long as the entry is accurate, it should stay put.

You can’t have it both ways, Wikipedia!

By: Paul Southworth

Paul Southworth — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:46:01 +0000

ATTENTION: You're all officially invited to join my "Screw Wikipedia" campaign. If I'm going down, I'm going down swinging.

By: Jeff Lowrey

Jeff Lowrey — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:08:21 +0000

Jeph – I believe the proper pluralization is “wikipediots”

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 04:15:27 +0000

Humans are an unremarkable species! Do you know how many others there are?

By: Paul Southworth

Paul Southworth — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 03:43:13 +0000

As a result of the bickering over Ugly Hill’s legitimacy, the original user who recommended it be deleted has now also suggested that the entry for Viper Comics be removed as well. He claims that they are an “apparently unremarkable publisher” that publishes “only webcomics”.

I see this ending with President Bush’s entry being deleted because “I voted for Nader”. Good grief!

By: J. Jacques

J. Jacques — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:49:00 +0000

The proper pluralization is “wikipedos.”

By: T Campbell

T Campbell — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:34:01 +0000

Do a Google search for “webcomics site:wikipedia.org” and you’ll currently come up with 2,490 entries.

This may be down from peak periods, but I do not see how a four-figure search result signifies disinterest.

In fact, I haven’t read one post anywhere that argues that all webcomics are non-notable. The Wikipedians, by and large, are just trying to find some objective standard which everyone can agree is a clear indicator of notability. This is IMPOSSIBLE, but it is what they are trying to do.

Personally, I’m holding out for a mention of “webcomics”– no particular webcomic, just “webcomics”– in Brittanica.

By: Alex Jeffries

Alex Jeffries — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:40:04 +0000

I still don’t get why at Wikipedia, where each page takes up like 2kb of space, they care so much about things like this.

People that don’t know aren’t going to see it. People who like webcomics will see it.

What the hell difference does it make?!

By: Christopher B. Wright

Christopher B. Wright — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:53:28 +0000

If you take a survey of the general populace, asking which is more noteable, who do you think will win:

Simon Crowell, or Jonas Salk?

Paris and Nicky Hilton, or Watson and Crick?

Information and the relevance of said information are not tied to popular knowledge — if they were an encyclopedia would be irrelevant to begin with, since encyclopedias are supposed to be resources we use to learn things we didn’t already know anything about.

Granted, webcomics are not on the level of the inventor of the Polio vaccine or the guys who discovered DNA’s double helix… but neither is the He-Man/She-Ra Xmas Special. Or even Josie and the Pussycats.

By: Gregory King

Gregory King — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:43 +0000

I think it’s a really bad idea to use the “if Wikipedia cares about notability, why do they have X” argument. If you take a survey of the general populace, asking which is more notable, who do you think will win?

He-Man/She-Ra Xmas Special, or Ugly Hill?

Josie & the Pussycats, or Evil, Inc?

I know what we’d like the answer to be, but I wouldn’t bet on webcomics winning either of those battles.