Wikipedia and Webcomics

[Xepher]

So apparently Wikipedia has a "Jihad on Webcomics" going on.

I notice that Fesworks got his comic entry deleted, so did Nerd Boy, and I think DMFA did as well. Curiously enough, the deletion of the xepher.net article (by my own suggestion) got overruled, and it stayed.

I'm not heavily involved in the webcomics "community" as it were, but I read enough of them that I catch the trend. I've seen a lot of protests, but likewise understand that a true encyclopedia needs some "notability" requirement as well. What I'm curious about is your various opinions on this. I don't care too much if there is or isn't a xepher.net article. I'm actually more offended if there IS an article with incorrect information in it actually. On the whole, I've started to lose respect for wikipedia, as the admins seem to be trying to make it some sort of highly legitimate, scholarly source, which I don't think any user-edited thing can ever be. On the other hand, I myself am personally a dictator of taste here on xepher.net, so it's hard for me to judge without feeling hypocritical.

In all seriousness, what do ya'll feel about wikipedia and webcomic entries, as well as wikipedia itself? It doesn't just have to be an agree/disagree thing, but anything relating to the project at all.

[griever]

I also don't think Wikipedia can ever be a legitimate scholarly resource, but I like that they're trying to clean it up.  Regarding web comics, I think that if a web comic can generate criticism and analysis or syndication, then it should be featured in Wikipedia.  There are so many web comics out there that Wikipedia would be overloaded if everyone got their own Wikipedia entry for their comic.  But I think that if discussion, criticism, and analysis can be generated for the web comic, not just once but over time, then it probably deserves mention.

[Witchiebunny]

It's a bit absurd in some cases.

Brad Guigar's "Evil, Inc." which is a newspaper comic with a web presence had it's article deleted and overturned no less than three times, due to failure of "notorioty".

The webcomic Jack, as well continuously has its article deleted, despite the time and effort put into the article and despite Jack now being out in print form.

It seems a tad bit...well biased if you ask me. But then again, perhaps I'm biased being a webcomic artist myself.

[Omega0]

I guess I'll be the opposing viewpoint.  I don't really care what wikipedia does, especially not in regards to webcomics.  You can always get more reliable information from a more dedicated source.  For example Comixpedia's list (http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/List_of_Webcomics/), the various webcomic lists (like The Belfry, http://www.belfry.com/comics/) or the voting/ranking resources have more entries with more detail and due to their specialization have better upkeep along with mode effect searches & filtering.

[fesworks]

Yea, just use Comixpedia. My comic didn't really have any good references, so I didn't care... but viable notable webcomics, like DMFA, with all the notable references  (albiet online) still didn;t make it... its like they don't believe anything online... crazy

[Witchiebunny]

Especially when one considers that *they* are online.

[Aetre]

i thought the problem with wikipedia was more along the lines of pedophiles editing the pedophilia article, and neo-nazis editing the holocaust article, etc.

...which they've tried to fix with restrictions on editing, but... well.

[Databits]

Could be worse... it could be like myspace.

[Xepher]

While I agree that Comixpedia is probably a better resource specifically for comics, I worry that it sets the bar for "notability" requirements too high. By excluding anything without print/published sources, a LOT of wikipedia's "legit" content would suffer as well. I mean, even if you take quantum physics, quite often bits of those articles source online only homepages of researchers, as that's where the latest research is to be found. But in an even more generic sense, where does that leave the wiki in 10 years? in 20? More and more stuff is moving online only (including major newspapers) and pretty soon a printed-source requirement is going to look as archaic as requiring a fax number.

Of course, I don't personally know how you define the difference between the online research papers of a physics post-doc, and the online rantings of a 12 year old at myspace. I tend to believe that there's no reason for Wikipedia to not have "extra" articles, provided they don't steal namespace from more important articles. That is, if you name your comic "Area 51" the main link to "Area 51" should go to an article about the test site in nevada, and not to your comic. Short of that, I don't see a reason for removing "non-notable" stuff. Perhaps just add an article ranking system, so the better constructed and more accessed articles are rated higher than some no-name comic entry edited by one guy.

Bottom line, I just think it's a tad hypocritical for Wikipedia, who's battling uphill to be recognized as a legit and "notable" source, even though it's online only, goes around removing articles because they're not notable and online only.

[dragyn]

I think Wikipedia's going about trying to become noteworthy the wrong way.  I don't think it'll help them in the long run, since all my teachers already tell us that we can't use Wikipedia as a source when they assign research projects because it's unreliable.

It might make a few enemies for them, or it may actually help.  I doubt it, but it won't effect me any, I already disregard Wikipedia.