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

Geni wrote: 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. 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. 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". [[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