Steve Block wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
I think they were advocates rather than experts, weren't they?
This is not the case and does them a great injustice. Though it's possible such an assumption of bad faith from outsiders was behind the dedicated attempts to drive them off.
That's not a bad faith assumption. Eric Burns is, on one level, a blogger who writes about webcomics. Are we suggesting any blogger is a reputable expert on a given field?
No, we're not, but in the field of webcomics, it's quite plausible for the reputable experts to come from the world of blogging. Perhaps after we've dealt with irrational prejudices against webcomics, we can move on to the problems caused by irrational prejudices against bloggers.
There's a real problem with deciding the reliability and reputability of online content. Eric Burns is also still an advocate on wikipedia. The history of webcomics has not yet been written, so how can he be anything but? And given his involvement in the webcomics field, how does one determine whether he is a partisan source?
If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a good reason to write it on Wikipedia. Someone who understands the field well enough to write a proper history can figure out who's a partisan source, what information they're still useful for, and how to balance their partisanship with other sources. It just requires critical thinking and editorial judgment.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original research" policy. When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document *existing* historical narratives.
To quote some verbiage from the policy page that's been there nearly forever:
"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
-Mark
On 2/27/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original research" policy. When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document *existing* historical narratives.
Isn't "novel" the key word here? There is nothing particularly novel about compiling a list of brief, sourced, synopses of every work by a major author, for example. Stating that increasingly frequent references to the devil were caused by the author's impotence might well be "novel".
A measure of "novelness" might be how likely another editor is to dispute the accuracy of your compilation. It seems quite likely to me that one can compile an undisputed history of webcomics. And should.
"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
That's consistent with my view. If you wish to contribute unpublished information about the history of any webcomic, Wikipedia is not the place. But if you just want to compile published information from various places into one complete record, then within various constraints, Wikipedia is a great place for that.
IMHO.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/27/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original research" policy. When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document *existing* historical narratives.
Isn't "novel" the key word here? There is nothing particularly novel about compiling a list of brief, sourced, synopses of every work by a major author, for example. Stating that increasingly frequent references to the devil were caused by the author's impotence might well be "novel".
A measure of "novelness" might be how likely another editor is to dispute the accuracy of your compilation. It seems quite likely to me that one can compile an undisputed history of webcomics. And should.
I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile. The problems come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include. But those are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all inclusions are built on reliable sources.
On 2/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile. The problems come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic
That's not really a problem: "The first webcomic is disputed, but most sources agree that it is one of the following three..."
is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include. But those
Sure, but deciding what to include is hardly unique to this particular problem. Nor is defining what *is* and *isn't* anything.
are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all inclusions are built on reliable sources.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile. The problems come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic
That's not really a problem: "The first webcomic is disputed, but most sources agree that it is one of the following three..."
is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include. But those
Sure, but deciding what to include is hardly unique to this particular problem. Nor is defining what *is* and *isn't* anything.
are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all inclusions are built on reliable sources.
Exactly. See my last statement above. You're not disagreeing with or arguing against anything I wrote. You're agreeing with it.
I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press, blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and unscholarly.
Fred
On Feb 27, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Delirium wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
If the history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original research" policy. When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document *existing* historical narratives.
To quote some verbiage from the policy page that's been there nearly forever:
"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press, blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and unscholarly.
Rather than having fixed standards, let's just use common sense:
Factually correct, unsourced information is better than no information. Information sourced to a blog is better than unsourced information. Information sourced to paper is better than info sourced to a blog. Information sourced to a peer-reviewed journal is even better...
If a blog on webcomics is the best we have, it's the best we have. It's not like someone was saying "That guy is wrong, there's another blog which completely contradicts him".
Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or bickering over the quality of the source?
Steve
On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or bickering over the quality of the source?
This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians, deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance, "cruft", is seen as an end in itself. The strategy being followed seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees, repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ne...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ne...
In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed the worst kind of incivility.
"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or bickering over the quality of the source?
This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians, deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance, "cruft", is seen as an end in itself. The strategy being followed seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees, repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
[snip]
In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed the worst kind of incivility.
Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow them... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%... is a fine example.
I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar one AFAICT) rather offensive also.
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow them...
The user you're referencing has only been on the site since Feb 1 and has under 50 edits, almost all of which are attempts to get the webcomics article in question deleted. If genuinely a new user, that shows the problem of newbies jumping into *FD.
I'd rather new users worked on articles.
-Matt
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or bickering over the quality of the source?
This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians, deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance, "cruft", is seen as an end in itself. The strategy being followed seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees, repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
[snip]
In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed the worst kind of incivility.
Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow them... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%... is a fine example.
I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar one AFAICT) rather offensive also.
The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
Something stinks.
On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
Something stinks.
I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.
-Matt
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
Something stinks.
I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.
Nor I. But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days? This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about verifiable, referenced webcomic. What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first place? When did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"
On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Nor I. But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days? This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about verifiable, referenced webcomic. What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first place? When did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"
Well it is a logical extension of "We have run out of paper please take stuff out of the template namspace". -- geni
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he has made some 30 edits to the AfD.
Something stinks.
I don't see any obvious connection with another user, though, and don't think sockpuppet witch-hunts are generally productive.
Nor I. But is this the caliber of editor we're attracting these days? This is a perfectly good, encyclopedic article about verifiable, referenced webcomic. What on earth is it doing on AfD in the first place? When did Wikimedia start putting up signs saying "we've run out of paper, please delete some articles to make more room?"
As the number of registered users approaches infinity, the probability of running across an ignorant editor or troll approaches 1. (Hm, I just came up with that off the bat. Something to add to Raul's laws if it isn't there already.)
John
"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90602271712j5cb553dcrd6f035fb65683268@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Tony Sidaway" f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote in message news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c@mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow them... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%... is a fine example. I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar one AFAICT) rather offensive also.
The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he has made some 30 edits to the AfD. Something stinks.
Certainly does.
In this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=40951840&title=T...) the nominator admits that NMC, the web-comic involved, was the first "sprite comic".
Oddly enough, his nomination is based upon no proof of such an assertion being available...
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press, blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and unscholarly.
There's actually enough sources out there on webcomics that we shouldn't need to go to blogs to source statements. There's ImageText for starters, The Comics Jouanal, IJOCA, Journal of Popular Culture should have stuff in them, check the comics research bibliography, http://rpi.edu/~bulloj/comxbib.html - Sabin's written on comics on the web for example, or a quick ask on the comics scholars mailing list could probably turn you up quite a few more sources.
Steve block
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think we need to adopt standards of what is an acceptable source which is in accord with the nature of the subject. In this case, it is not going to be a book published by the Oxford University Press, blogs may have to serve, as well as comixs websites. The alternative is to drastically trim our popular culture coverage, which is one of the bright spots of Wikipedia, if sometimes considered eccentric and unscholarly.
Agreed, but I think some of our colleauges would be much happier with a one model suits all solution. Obviously we need a stricter standard when it come to information about living people. Pop culture in some respects really doesn't matter; at the same time I'm convinced that we have Wikipedians who are undocumented bona fide experts on these topic.
One cannot predict what will be authoritative, though I think that our credibility is much improved over what it was a year ago. Pop culture may be undignified for some, but we must never forget the attraction that many people have for the trivial. Many of these people will also fall for the most ridiculous urban myths, but it would be nice if "I read it in Wikipedia" could a mark of authority when people repeat thes useless fact to their friends.
I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the background. Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention. It was interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer review than the existing system. Many of these journals operate on a tight budget. They may require their authors to maintain raw experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions. Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his investment.
Ec
On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the background. Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention. It was interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer review than the existing system. Many of these journals operate on a tight budget. They may require their authors to maintain raw experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions. Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his investment.
Meanwhile, my girlfriend was recently told by the third different lecturer at university "please do not use Wikipedia as a source" :) Apparently these days a large number of students are citing Wikipedia, because it's there, and it's so easy.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I often drift in and out of attention when the radio is playing in the background. Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention. It was interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer review than the existing system. Many of these journals operate on a tight budget. They may require their authors to maintain raw experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions. Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his investment.
Meanwhile, my girlfriend was recently told by the third different lecturer at university "please do not use Wikipedia as a source" :) Apparently these days a large number of students are citing Wikipedia, because it's there, and it's so easy.
To an extent they are right for the wrong reasons. Would the lecturers have told her not to use Britannica? What students should learn right away in a short course at the beginning of a university career is how to evaluate resources. Better still such a course should reiinforce things that are better learned much earlier. How much she can push the boundary may depend on her personality, and how open-minded the lecturers are.
Ec
On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
To an extent they are right for the wrong reasons. Would the lecturers have told her not to use Britannica? What students should learn right away in a short course at the beginning of a university career is how to evaluate resources. Better still such a course should reiinforce things that are better learned much earlier. How much she can push the boundary may depend on her personality, and how open-minded the lecturers are.
I think I would have been shot if I had ever referred to Britannica. I had a whole university library available to me, and no excuse to skimp.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
To an extent they are right for the wrong reasons. Would the lecturers have told her not to use Britannica? What students should learn right away in a short course at the beginning of a university career is how to evaluate resources. Better still such a course should reiinforce things that are better learned much earlier. How much she can push the boundary may depend on her personality, and how open-minded the lecturers are.
I think I would have been shot if I had ever referred to Britannica. I had a whole university library available to me, and no excuse to skimp.
I suppose it's a comment on the sad state of education that the instructor even felt the need to tell students that encyclopedias are not appropriate sources. That was made clear to me in the first semester of high school - refer to an encyclopedia for background if you want, but never ever cite it in papers.
Stan