TWCL

[wufangchang]

I need more opinoins about an upcoming comic strip I've done about Wikipedia's deleting webcomic articles. Here: http://www.klrtech.com/WWG/wwg3178.GIF

My regular proofreaders were quite polarized about whether or not I should upload this (my new regular artist refused to have anything to do with this). This comic is singular non-canon to the rest of my series. Seriously, have I gone too far? Will I make things worse for other webcomics? I don't really care about what Wiki thinks about me, but if it affects other webcomickers, I'll take the responsibility and change it. This should be officially uploaded by next month (it's one of my cache of unreleased strips).

http://www.klrtech.com/WWG/wwg.htm

[EvilCouch]

{{subst:afd1}}
_________________

[Phantosanucca]

The way I see it:

Your comic, your canvas, your opinions. If certain people don't like it, they can just go and make their own comic. People don't have to agree with or even like everything you say, and if they're stupid enough to never read anything else by you again over one disagreement, then they weren't worth having as readers in the first place.

But then, that's just my take on the situation. As long as you're doing the research, and you've considered all of the options, you shouldn't have to abstain from making an opinion just because not everyone will agree with it. That's a stone's throw away from ass-kissing, and the only thing more pathetic than an audience fellating an author is the opposite. Be a man(or woman, totally your choice)! Stand tall and proud! Deliver your thoughts and opinions without fear and without censorship! Unless, of course, you're making a comic for children, in which case you should probably watch the language...

[pits]

I haven't heard anything about Wiki deleting webcomic pages, but I still thought it was funny. And as was mentioned above, true fans of the comic will keep reading even if they disagree with you on this one subject.
_________________

[steamedcarrot]

I think its hilarious ..hhahaa....

Many people don't friggin understand the humour in exaggeration....blowing something totally out of proportion makes it hilarious because its so ridiculous...

Its a nice setup. SEIG WIKI!!! SEIG WIKI!!!
_________________

[vulpeslibertas]

This has been a bigger and bigger issue in the web comic community lately. I think we are headed for war. The fact that pits has never heard of this issue just points out that it probably does need to be discussed.

Just make sure you point out to your readers that this is a serious opinion piece, not part of your story, otherwise it will clash with your comic. You don't want to spoil the mood of the comic. Don't put it in your archives and do give it a special author commentary discussing the issue in more detail. Also, make sure your readers know what wikipedia is, they may not understand what it is or what the issue is.

Also, the statements "All good comics aren't free" and "All free comics aren't good" have exactly the same meaning. (a comic cannot both be good and free) You are just repeating yourelf with a BUT statement in between.

I would rephrase that, the logic of it is seriously bothering me.
_________________

[chasecorbeau]

Do you understand why Wikipedia deletes web comic "articles"? It's not to be mean or fascist, but they do have guidelines about not putting up articles which are considered self serving advertising, and they take issue with articles that have no references. I haven't submitted a wiki article about my comic because I actually did read their submission guidelines once upon a time, and figured my writing one would be against their policy and therefore removed.

Therefore, an article about [Long Standing Comic X] which is written by a third party, thoroughly researched, and highly informative (because the comic has been on the net for several years, won awards, and there is actually something to say about it, etc.) will probably left alone, but a short, poorly written article about a new web comic will be deleted.
_________________

[Aarin]

Well it's fucking wiki, not an advertising platform. I wouldn't have it contain xx number of entries about mexican viagra if I were invested in the community. They do like to keep some semblance of authority (aka respectability that you can trust the content).

The clamor over WC-wiki deletes are more about slights against pride than any true harm against humanity. I don't think random-lol-webcomic should be included without some guidelines.
_________________
Webcomic reviews

[Casual Notice]

Enh. Was it controversial? Maybe, if you're one of those people who thinks that the operators of Wiki have a responsibility to the internet niche of webcomics readers and authors (yeah, that's right, I said "niche"; welcome to the small time, baby!)

Was it funny? Not really.

Did it make its point effectively? About as effectively as badly-scrawled signs at a protest march.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[vulpeslibertas]

chasecorbeau wrote:

Therefore, an article about [Long Standing Comic X] which is written by a third party, thoroughly researched, and highly informative (because the comic has been on the net for several years, won awards, and there is actually something to say about it, etc.) will probably left alone,

I don't think that's the case, chase.

The only comics I've seen on wikipedia are comics that have sold in print. I have seen web-comic only articles before (for relatively established comics), and those no longer exist. Why? Usually it's because the articles are 'not noteable'. The question that the webcomic community is raising is why are they not noteable? Because the hundreds of readers think they're not noteable, or because the wikipedia editors think so.

Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information, not to police what information is presented. The guidelines are there to prevent a bunch of no-name kids in a garage from posting all about their wonderful never-to-be-written webcomic or never-to-be-heard rock band, or never-to-be-joined club. These kinds of articles suck up space in the database and provide information that nobody cares about (Except the kids in the garage).

Yes, there are other places that webcomic info could go to besides wikipedia. Name anything in the wikipedia database that doesn't have a more appropriate forum.

There are lots of comics out there that could stand to have a decent wikipedia article written about them. That doesn't mean that all webcomics should have articles. But "being a webcomic" shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier.
_________________

[chasecorbeau]

Do you know what "notable" comics were deleted? I admit all I know about this is what I read in the wiki guidelines.

Has someone asked the wiki staff what "notable" entails? If all non-printed comics get the axe, maybe they figure those comic don't have a large enough following to get printed, and therefore fall into a "not really important, amateur hobby" category. But maybe they have a time cutoff, as in a comic has to have been active over a year or two or five or something. A lot of comics in that category have put out a print version, making it seem that they think only print comics are worthy.

Personally, I think any entry should be fine as long as it's composed properly (spell and grammar checked, and has all the proper headings and such), but I don't make the rules. If the root of this issue is that Wiki ought to allow any article as long as it is properly written, then I would support that argument.

Anyway, I'd like to have a better understanding of the problem first than take sides based on hearsay.

As for the comic that started this post, post it or not; it don't bother me none. Just be sure you understand the true nature of a situation before making a "political" cartoon so you can debate whatever the issue is without looking like an idiot in case someone does pop up and call you on it.
_________________

[wufangchang]

Thanks for your thoughts, folks!
I wrote this comic when I was furious about the deletion of Gene Catlow (7 years running) and Badly Drawn Kitties (soon to have it's own TV show). I shouldn't write when I'm in this mood, but I did anyway. By the time I upload this (in sequence) it will be yesterday's news. I just wanted to run this by the webcomic community first to see if there was a potential for disaster (not for me but for everyone else).

PS: in Wikipedia's introduction there was a quote near the bottom that said "All toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads". I was making fun of this in my first panel. Ironically, this quote was deleted!

http://www.klrtech.com/WWG/wwg.htm

[vulpeslibertas]

chasecorbeau wrote:

Do you know what "notable" comics were deleted?

I believe I read a "Shifters" wikipedia article once. It certainly doesn't exsist now. That's the most popular/longest established comic I know anything wiki-related about.

The real trick would be to find the most famous non-published web comic and see if it has a wiki-article. If it doesn't, create one. The wiki-editor's response to the new article, or the continued existance of the article will provide the best evaluation of their open minded-ness.

chasecorbeau wrote:

Has someone asked the wiki staff what "notable" entails?

The anti-wiki crowd seems to be of the opinion that "notable" entails what does not apeal to the established wikipedia editors. If I recall, that's what the article was about that I linked up above.

I don't think I've ever seen a definition of "noteable", but I haven't been looking. Granted, every webcomic and their brother doesn't deserve a wikipedia article, and they will all want one. Does it really hurt wikipedia to add more info though? If there's enough crowd to cause a debate, I'm of the opinion that that qualifies as "notable". But, I'm also a little of a wiki-hater.[/url]
_________________

[chasecorbeau]

hmm... I found this on wiki's Reliable Sources article. Note the last line.

Quote:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: * relevant to the self-publisher's notability; * not contentious; * not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; * about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

"Reputation of the self-publisher"....

Could this be taken to mean that only web comic authors which already have a longstanding reputation in the comic/art/media industry are notable?
_________________

[GingerDead]

i can't see how that comic would alter the fate of webcomics in wiki. it's pretty funny and your making a statement through your art. just post it.
_________________