[WikiEN-l] Re: How did this happen (comixpedia??)

[Brown, Darin]

Geni wrote:

>Can you verify all the claims in them.

Here we do run into an issue which esp. tricky in this particular case. By
its very nature, webcomics and the webcomics community are going to eschew
the more traditional verification mechanisms, most esp. those found in
print. Of course -- the entire phenomenon itself is based around the
internet. The entire *community* itself, its own internal verification
procedures, its own internal conditions upon which it deems verification
necessary, are non-traditional. It is disingenuous to hold it accountable to
similar verification procedures as say, mathematics or physics. You are not
going to find thousands of references to webcomix in the academic
literature. And it will be very difficult to find many in print. The fact
is, the phenomenon of webcomix itself is highly radical and raises serious
issues about the nature of verification itself.

For example, simply applying the "website notability" requirements to
webcomix is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between websites which
serve as fronts to organisations, or which provide specific services to
users and contributors, and to websites where the internet itself is the
medium of being. Webcomix websites are not "reflectors" of external
interest. They are the substance itself. You would never consider
discounting a book as being unencyclopedic simply because it had low sales.
There are numerous examples of books with low sales that had enormous
influence. There are too many other important factors to consider.
Similarly, a webcomix website cannot be assessed solely on "sales".

To be upfront, I don't understand how forks should be necessary at all.
Exposition is either encyclopedic or it is not. If it is encyclopedic, it
belongs in wikipedia under a suitable wikiproject. If it is not, then it is
something else, which should go on elsewhere. Now, it's true, people may
legitimately disagree on whether a *particular* webcomic is notable enough
to merit an article, but this is not the issue. If comixpedia.org wants to
delete notability from their requirements, that is their right, but it is
inaccurate IMO to then claim that they are a *fork* of wikipedia. It is
inaccurate to claim their exposition is encyclopedic. What they will be
doing then is great and wonderful, but not encyclopedic. By dropping one of
the major tenets of article inclusion, they are by definition creating
something new.

Another thing that bothers me is that the "fork" was clearly hostile and not
a mutually satisfying event. I am not so much disturbed that people felt a
need to create something new, where notability was not a criteria. Rather, I
am disturbed that such a creation came about amidst a tangible amount of
rancor, ill will, bad faith, lack of communication and compromise. It is
clear by looking at the histories of several AfD's for just a few hours that
many people who were not experts on the topic, and hardly cared or were even
interested in the topic, expended so much time and energy in telling people
who *were* experts and interested people how they should police themselves.
Alexa and Google rankings are useful criteria *when used in combination with
expert judgment and informed community knowledge*, but when they are used by
people who obviously don't give a damn about the topic they're policing,
it's a disaster.

>No some comics. We have fairly well worked out inclusion standards for
comics

And who is carrying out these standards? Those who are knowledgeable? Or
those with a bone to pick? I have seen a lot of evidence that the latter
have had disproportionate sway.

>It [1000 forks] will happen. I hope it does.

You missed my point, which obviously went way over your head. I was being
*ironic*. We already have a thousand forks! They're called wikiprojects. If
non-notability is dropped, and a new wiki started, that is something new,
but it is not encyclopedic. It is not a "fork".

>I think things were largely worked out at
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics]] which would logicaly be the place
where people who really care about this topic end up.

My ironic observation would be that at AfD, lots of people work on deletions
who obviously don't give a damn about a particular subject. While I realise
AfD plays an important role in regulating content and enforcing standards,
and the the wiki would fall apart without it, I am a bit, let's say,
skeptical about the motives of people who seem to do almost nothing but work
at AfD.

What's to stop people who don't give a damn about baseball from deciding
what players are "notable"? What's to stop people who don't give a damn
about chess from deciding what famous games are "notable"? What's to stop
people who don't give a damn about music from deciding which individual
piano concertos are "notable"? What's to stop people who don't give a damn
about math from deciding what theorems are "notable"? None of these things
can be determined solely by google rankings or alexa rankings. For example,
the fact a pitcher has only been in the majors 2 years and has a career ERA
of 5.90 is far more compelling argument for deletion based on NN than google
ranks. Barring some specific incident (newsstory, etc.)

Here's a prefect example of what I'm talking about: "'notable within the
webcomic community' and 'notable in the context of wikipedia' are two
different things." (from User:SCZen/Webcomics) What baloney! Of course, no
single individual should be able to decide notability, but certainly on any
subject, the decision of notability should come from the community involved
in that subject itself, no matter how small the community. Who else is
better to decide? Those who don't give a damn? The Lindemann-Weierstrass
theorem is not "notable in the context of wikipedia", in the sense that
hardly anyone outside of specialists takes note of it, but within number
theory circles, it is highly notable. You will get a very low google rank
(224 unique hits) for it, and anyone outside of math, and even possibly
outside of number theory, will have great difficulty verifying its
notability, without directly consulting experts, as it would be almost
impossible for someone else to attempt to consult the literature to
determine this notability. (It would appear indistinguishable to the
untrained eye from thousands upon thousands of other results in the
literature or even textbooks.) By the usual "arguments" used at AfD, where
people ignorant of a subject rely uncritically on google hits, it would get
speedy deleted. But of course, no one dares do that, as they are petrified
to comment on mathematical topics.

darin