Talk:Wikimedia fundraiser highlights webcomic community's frustration with Wikipedia guidelines/Comments

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Web Comics are not being targetted simply because they are web comics. Wikipedia's articles need constant maintanance due to vandalism and misinformation. If all not-notable articles were allowed, Wikipedia would quickly be inundated with large amounts of data which current editors would have difficulties maintaining. For this reason, Most web comic's articles continue to be deleted.

210.48.82.172 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) New Zealand

As "notability" appears to mean every single railway station in the UK and a large number of the road junctions, but not web comics read by thousands of people each day, I'd have to say that yes, web comics are being targeted because they're web comics. Your argument that the editors cannot keep up is equally specious - everyone who reads wikipedia is an editor and given that there are over thirty times as many entries as the Encyclopedia Britannica and they are not overwhelmed yet . . .

213.83.99.5 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Britain

A railway station is a physical place, often a significant building, which probably has a great deal of history and is of great importance to a locality. Webcomincs being popular doesn't in itself satisfy the notability guidelines, like anything else, reliable sources are required. With a railway station, going with your example, there are likely to be these sources. Webcomics are being "targetted" because someone has identified a likely area where a number of articles do not meet the guidelines. Adambro 12:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that the pro-deletion crowd tends to look for any reason possible to delete something, when they ought to look for a reason to keep the article so it can be improved. It's a case of a destructive vs. constructive mindset. Other fandoms - such as anime and SF shows - have a positive, inclusionist mindset, hence why you don't have a lot of griping from anime fans. Why are there people who argue strenuously and go out of there way to make sure articles are deleted with webcomics when several other projects of equal relevance to pop culture don't have anywhere near the same level of conflict and purging? That's one of the reasons why complaints on Wikipedia's handling of webcomic articles are legitimate. 136.142.101.135 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the problem is also that webcomics are harder to defend because, by definition they are web based and often deletionists use this to attack articles, ive not seen it done on a web comic but i have seen it elsewhere82.45.210.78 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

couldnt agree more with these guys, wikipedia has become too narrow minded, i rember in a single session, around march i came across 3 seperate topics which were decided not notable enough. on top of this ive seen new articles go up for deletion before even having the time for improvment. the vast array of knowledge is what made wikipedia better than other enclyclopideas, but now its trying to be more like the rest, WHY? there are hunderds of encylopedias out there, many free! the same what firefox is not a better IE, linux is not a better windows, wikipedida should try to be a better encylopedia. FF is a better internet browser, linux is a better OS, wikipedia should try and be a better source of knowledge.82.45.210.78 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1) If being a physical real world object or person was an overriding criteria, you'd have to delete Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia. 2) When I said EVERY railway station in the UK, I meant EVERY railway station - including those of no building significance, no discernable historical significance and only of minor importance to their local communities. 3) A popular webcomic, or any other website, is one that a lot of people look at every day. How is being of interest to a large number of people different from being notable? The only thing lacking is that many do not have much impact off the web and few get talked about in professional magazines. I guess some Wikipedia editors believe that stuff that's online is of no importance, which brings me back to point 1. 213.83.99.5 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but there are a lot of books on the railways of the UK, which thus provide verifiable information on them. Similarly, look through the newspaper archives over the past couple of years and you'll see roughly a gajillion articles on Wikipedia. Notability, as given by the Wikipedia guidelines, is an interpretation of the verifiability policy - a statement like "a lot of people look at it every day", without a source to back it up, isn't a verifiable fact. Now I certainly agree that the notability guidelines, or at least their interpretation in AfD discussions, are strongly biased against webcomics, and I'd like to see that changed. But I read the massive thread of opinions on Howard's article, and like the other Wikinewsies I noticed that while there were many general statements about the faults of Wikipedia, no-one was able to provide an example of an article that met Wikipedia standards and got deleted anyway. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The nub of the problem

As I see it, the main problem is this: different people have different view on how Wikipedia works, or how it's supposed to work, and when a "newbie" and an "oldbie" come into conflict on their differing opinions, the one who's been there longer and thus has a better grip on the "system" tends to win.

So who's actually in the right? I'm not sure, and I suspect that actually both sides are in the wrong, for different reasons. On one side of the fence, the people who know about webcomics but not so much about Wikipedia need to realise just how much crap Wikipedia already has to deal with. Take a look at w:Special:Newpages. I'm looking at a listing of 50 new pages created in just under half an hour. Of them, about 15 are obvious crap just from looking at the summary ("X is a nice kid. His name is X, and he is nice." - actual quote with name removed). A further 15 are clear crap once I look at the article. Certainly, most of the remaining 20 or so appear to be reasonable starts, but many don't include any sources and so I have no way of verifying any of their claims. Assuming that none of them are deleted, how many are going to be in a better state this time next month? Next year? How many of them are just something someone made up, or even an elaborate hoax?

That said, we now have to look at the other side of things - established Wikipedia editors, who may or may not be familiar with webcomics. They (and by they I mean we, since I am a Wikipedian) need to recognise that Wikipedia has become an increasingly bureaucratic system, "Ignore All Rules" notwithstanding, and in particular someone writing their first article is likely to meet with what appears to them to be hostility when their article is deleted, and the processes for getting it back can be decidedly complicated.

So what's the solution? I don't know, although a good start might be the old "Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes". To the webcomic fans, go and register an account on Wikipedia. Spend an hour boning up on the major policies and guidelines, then another hour patrolling Newpages, tagging all articles for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, normal deletion, or cleanup as necessary. Then pull up a day of AFD discussions, and for each one that's still open, try to provide a reasonable argument for keeping or deleting the article, keeping in mind which arguments are valid and which aren't. Then, for every article you tagged for cleanup or argued to keep, actually do the cleanup. Wikify the article, add an infobox, find sources for notability, and copyedit the article. Now, having done that, come back here and tell us just how burnt out you are. And realise that there are people who have done exactly the same thing for months on end.

For the Wikipedians, go to the requested articles list. Even better, go to the list of requested webcomic articles. There are definitely a few listed there that have at least a possibility of getting a decent article made. Pick an item in the list - not necessarily one you know anything about beforehand - and write an article on it. Even if you don't think it's notable, do your research. Find out as much as you can about it, and gather as much evidence as possible that you can include in the article to save it from being deleted. See how long it takes before someone tags it for deletion, and see if you can save it. Now, having done that, come back here and tell us how frustrating it was to have all that hard work destroyed. And realise that this happens to people who don't even know how Wikipedia process works, and see if you can work out how to fix that.

There's too much complaining from both sides about how the other side is a bunch of morons who don't understand the first thing about webcomics/Wikipedia, so maybe it's time we all tried to understand. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuck the Wikipedofiles! Obviously lacking in their off-line lives they feel the need to stroke their virtual harbl by stomping on genuine entries.

And this is exactly what I mean. Instead of, I don't know, trying to understand the other side and working together with them to find a solution, make ad hominem attacks (three in two sentences - I'm impressed) with no constructive comments at all. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy it

Wikipedia needs high standards for various reasons. You can always create another wiki for more specific stuff. Nyarlathotep 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)