I’ll keep it short because I know most of you today are here for the Wiz Rollins interview.
I have happily stayed on the sidelines when it comes to Wikipedia. I think it’s a great idea that is doomed to fail. If your like me you believe that too many cooks spoil the brew. That’s exactly what is going on right now on Wikipedia as it applies to webcomics. What we (I’m including everyone involved in webcomics) are finding is that what we believe to be notable and to have worth is being removed from the mix. It’s like being the guy who wants pineapple on a pizza and everyone else keeps picking it off.
I’m not encouraging anyone to take up the torch and run screaming into the fight. What I would like you to do is go read through the deletion article for Ugly Hill. If your not familiar with Ugly Hill you need to add it to your daily reads. It’s everything a webcomic needs to be. It’s most certainly notable and it’s of a quality that everyone should reach for. It’s honestly one of the strips that I would compare others against. That’s what makes it all the more odd that there’s even the idea that it should be removed from Wikipedia.
I think this is a great example of how to go down fighting. It’s stinks of someone feeling that if their Masters Thesis isn’t good enough then damn it funny comics should be good enough either. Wikipedia is serious business people not a bunch of haha’s. Blow it out your hole wikipedia. Millions of people a day read webcomics. how is that not notable.
This Great Image that you can find on Ugly Hills page sums it all up.
Scott
I have found Wikipedia to be the proverbial, double-edged sword in regards to its identity as a valid resource for information. On the one hand, it does present an amazing breadth of information, especially in regards to obscure references that other research-oriented sources fail to include. But on the other hand, counting it as a legitimate (read – citable source) reference is almost impossible given its open source policy. Simply put, anyone can fabricate or alter the information and thus it cannot be trusted to be entirely accurate.
Wikipedia has shown a longtime prejudice against the inclusion of webcomics in their database. They – presumably – do this in order to maintain some semblance of professional integrity. Yet the concept as a whole ignores many of the underlining concerns one might have with a reference. I would surmise that Wikipedia would rather cling to its own prejudicial ideal than allow the collective to grow to suit the needs of the contributors – internet travelers, all. Webcomics being a relatively recent phenomenon, still deserves note. As much as any obscure 80’s cartoon show or lengthy and often spotty entries about Regency Period writers or Sociocultural Evolution.
Left by MisterSpook on February 12th, 2007