Some free help for all the anti-Wikipedia critics out there... yes, you... I know you're reading this... you might want to copy-and-paste from here to help in your next rant against Wikipedia. No matter what they do, or fail to do, you can find something to use against them if you do it properly. To instruct, I'm setting up a hypothetical situation, itemizing every possible reaction Wikipedia could make to it, and proposing a critical response. SITUATION #1: A webcomic named FooBarBaz exists, and has a small but fervent fan community, but is little known outside it. a) Wikipedia doesn't have an article about FooBarBaz. RESPONSE: There's a groundbreaking, innovative, clearly notable webcomic called FooBarBaz, and not a single one of the idiots who write and edit Wikipedia has even deigned to acknowledge it. This proves that, even in the realm of pop-cultural trivia that Wikipedia is reputed to be strong in (as distinguished from things that are actually *relevant* in the real world, where everybody agrees they're horrendously weak), Wikipedia is full of glaring gaps. Wikipedia sucks! b) Wikipedia has an article about FooBarBaz, but it's just a stub. RESPONSE: Look at [[FooBarBaz]]... it's yet another example (as if I needed to find another) of how Wikipedia is absolutely full of completely useless stub articles that fail to give any information that any rational person might actually have use for. They love to tout how they have over 1 and a half million English-language articles, and a bunch more in Bantu or whatever, but if they're all like this one, it's a pretty hollow distinction. Wikipedia sucks! c) The article on FooBarBaz has been expanded into a lengthy, comprehensive, well-sourced article with a wealth of information about the webcomic, its history, its contributions to the medium, and so on. RESPONSE: The article on [[FooBarBaz]] is yet another example (as if I needed to find another) of how Wikipedia is dominated by obsessive- compulsive fanboys, determined to go on at great length on topics nobody else cares about. A psychiatrist would have a field day analyzing the author of the article. It's quite meticulous, and clearly took hours of work... hours which would have been better spent on more useful labor, such as digging ditches. Wikipedia sucks! d) The article on FooBarBaz was brought up for deletion, and an AfD debate resulted. [i] After a fairly small amount of participation on the AfD, the article was deleted by consensus. RESPONSE: Once again, you see the horrible deletionist vendetta against webcomics that continually rears its ugly head. Various AfD regulars, who wouldn't know a good webcomic if it bit them in the ass, show their ignorance by voting to delete a clearly notable comic, and they get away with it because people who know better have more important things to do with their lives than monitor the silly internal squabbles of Wikipedia. Clearly, one can't expect Wikipedia ever to show proper respect for that medium, so it should be abandoned and boycotted by all webcomics fans. Wikipedia sucks! [ii] After a fairly small amount of participation in the AfD, the article was kept by consensus. RESPONSE [take your pick]: A: That such a clearly notable webcomic was even considered for deletion shows the anti-webcomics bias of Wikipedia "regulars" once again. Although their vendetta didn't happen to succeed this time, perhaps because a couple of people with an actual clue managed to wander by at the right time, it's still pretty much a lost cause getting any kind of ongoing respect for the medium of webcomics there. Wikipedia sucks! B: Once again, the fanboys have let Wikipedia continue to be encrusted with fancruft about silly things such as non-notable webcomics, by getting a handful of fans to show up and get their way unopposed. No wonder no reputable people take Wikipedia seriously. Wikipedia sucks! [iii] There was a long, contentious AfD debate, with lots of heated flaming on both sides. (The ultimate outcome is unimportant.) RESPONSE: Once again, Wikipedia is shown to be just another incarnation of Usenet, where people go on in endless debate about the most unimportant things. While this is, on the societal level, a deplorable waste of human energy and computing resources, I suppose it could be thought of as no worse than Usenet itself, or online role playing games, or social networking sites like Myspace, all of which it resembles. However, because it claims to be an "encyclopedia", one should expose this seamy underbelly in order to show its true nature. Wikipedia sucks! -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/