On 2/27/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: 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. 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 If you wish to contribute unpublished information about the history of any webcomic, Wikipedia is not the place.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

On 2/27/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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/N… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N… In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed the worst kind of incivility.

"Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa(a)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. -- Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]

Fred Bauder wrote: 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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06

On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)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.

On 2/28/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)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?"

Fred Bauder wrote: 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(a)telus.net> wrote: 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: 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

Tony Sidaway wrote: 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