Sun 23 Nov 2008

RSS Feed

Edited by Paul Hales

Published by Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Terms and Conditions of use.

To advertise in Europe e-mail here

To advertise in Asia email here.

To advertise in North America email here.

Join the INQbot Mail List for a weekly guide to our news stories:

Subscribe

Wikipedia falls foul of the comic book crowd

Losing its target market

ONLINE encyclopedia, Wackypedia's controversial policy of letting self-appointed experts decide who is notable seems to have backfired on the site's target market.

The so-called experts from Wackypedia have claimed the fair scalp of the Everywhere Girl and had a go at denying Mike Mageek's infamy. They are now having a go at purging web comic book writers.

Wackypedia first noticed that comic book readers were starting to hate the site when Wikinews reporter Brian McNeil asked Howard Tayler, creator of the Schlock Mercenary webcomic if he could borrow a few images for a Wikipedia fundraiser.

Tayler told him to go forth and multiply because members of the webcomic community were miffed because more than 50 articles on webcomics had been purged by Wikipedia admins in the last couple of months.

The editor who had been doing most of the purging was 'Dragonfiend' who defined notability as "whether a topic has been noted by independent reputable sources".

She has said Wikipedia should only have articles on web comics like Penny Arcade, Get Your War On, Fetus-X, and Achewood.

Web comics might be popular but might never be identified by external media and therefore never make Wackypedia. If you think about it, when did you ever see a review of a cartoon in another news source.

Modern Tales editor a Eric Burns told Wikinews that Dragonfiend was one of many purgers going through Wikipedia looking for articles in fields in which they have no interest, experience or knowledge and deleting them.

In his own bog here Howard Tayler says that people who read web comics should not send any cash to Wikipedia until it reviews its notability rules.

In our experience, Wikipedia's clique of admins has the same level of success at making people disappear as Stalin did . µ

Comments

Not quite 15 minutes...

Everyone thinks they're a celebrity these days. Big deal - tell him to get over it.
posted by : Mike, 31 October 2007

wiki is great for..

any sort of academic related research. but the admins are so blinking anal about anything thats somewhat obscure. really, the admins for anything contemporary generally suck.
posted by : fartman, 31 October 2007

idiots

WHY??? dumba$$es. i go to wikipedia often to find out about things I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT!!! geee, imagine that! a user uses an encyclopedia to look up information about something he is ignorant of. i never would have thought that's what encyclopedias are for... seriously though, why would they do that? why does something have to be "notable" for it to be mentioned on wiki? just because some douchebag "admin" doesn't think s/he's heard of it before, doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. i'm not saying wiki should be like myspace, but if some basic description is in order of something not well known, then go for it! don't delete it, ya jacka$$es.
posted by : joe shmoe, 31 October 2007

Money Talks

It would be interesting to set up an endowment for Wikipedia whose payments would be wilthheld until the community processes that govern the site are overhauled. You could call it the "Questionably Notable Subject Support Fund."

That would eliminate at least one of objections to including lots of articles on niche subjects. Ironically, those are the subjects that are most in need of documentation.
posted by : Ethan Soutar-Rau, 31 October 2007

lol

"people who read web comics should not send any cash to Wikipedia"

I think most of them don't even have a job.
posted by : aa, 31 October 2007

This doesn't help...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
... but it sure is funny
posted by : Dean Pullen, 31 October 2007

Why don't they get it

Deleting things because people think it is uniportant is dictatorship of the masses against the minoreties.
And everybody is some kind of minorety, so everybody will get opressed at some point in time.
How can ever possibly decide what is important or not? It's about knowledge every bit counts.
Chaos and free groth is the thing that made Wikipedia big, now denying this will ultimatly result in it's death.
posted by : Mark Schira, 01 November 2007

Just like politics

The world is full of people like this. Take for example the Register of Copyright of the US, Marybeth Peters, who admitted she was a:

'…self-proclaimed “Luddite,” who confessed she doesn’t even have a computer at home. “In hindsight, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.”'

The person responsible for administering Copyright law in the US doesn’t own a computer.
posted by : Craig, 01 November 2007

Now now

It's all very dramatic when the inq goes drama queen over their personal little vendetta between them and wikipedia, but seriously, almost ANYTHING is covered on wikipedia, so to paint a picture where only a few things are is a bit over the top, right now at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama_queen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendetta
posted by : W.-, 02 November 2007

Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia

The Wiki has its uses, but let no one forget one thing : on Wikipedia, there is no such thing as the Truth - only the Consensus.
Therefor, if the Wiki High Command agrees within itself that the Earth is flat, then that's how Wikipedia will document the Earth.
Scientific truths are not deciding points on Wikipedia - which is quite understandable since the zealots going through articles and deleting them left and right have absolutely zero grasp of science.
They do, however, consider that anything THEY don't know is not worthy of being quoted.
Funny that, I always though an Encyclopedia was supposed to encompass ALL knowledge.
Thank goodness we do have REAL encyclopedias - like Universalis.
posted by : Pascal Monett, 03 November 2007
IThound
Search for solutions, reports & analysis

Newsletter signup



 

Top INQ Stories