On 10/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Todd Allen wrote:
From what I saw, most of those the webcomic articles -were- crud, and
that includes many that got kept. Most of them were trivially, if at all, mentioned in any secondary reliable sources, they were full of original research (effectively unfixable, due to that lack of secondary sources), and the main arguments for keeping were ILIKEIT from fans. If some webcomic is genuinely going to be of long-lasting, truly encyclopedic value, it'll get covered by secondary sources, and we can have an article. Until then, we don't need articles about passing web fads.
Web comics are on the web, and that also means they get *covered* on the web. Our policy on sources prohibits using most of the coverage that web comics receive. That is a flaw with our policy, not with the webcomic articles.
And it was largely set up this way by people who hate web comics in general, and targeting Phil Sandifer in particular. Are the weird little twists in the webcomic guidelines trying to define experts writing about webcomics as a "conflict of interest" still in there?
- d.