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.
Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established academic roots.
This is not the case either. Try a websearch on "webcomics academic".
You should read up on the arbitration case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics
- d.
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? 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?
Webcomics haven't really been around long enough to have established academic roots.
This is not the case either. Try a websearch on "webcomics academic".
I get two hits. http://www.google.com/search?hs=5Z1&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&a...
You should read up on the arbitration case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics
I have. I agree with the result. Things were handled badly, but there's no ruling on the notability of anything. Part of the rationale behind the rewrite of WP:WEB on my part was to move it away from the problems that caused that situation. The arguments should be about the reliability of sources, not the people writing the articles. If Eric Burns believes something is worth keeping, he should be able to source that belief, otherwise explain to me why it isn't original research?
Steve block
"Steve Block" steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote in message news:4402F3B8.8090100@myrealbox.com...
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?
Not necessarily, but we are in danger of declaring that an Expert with a Blog is no longer to be considered an Expert.
Which croggles the mind...
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Steve Block" steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote in message news:4402F3B8.8090100@myrealbox.com...
Are we suggesting any blogger is a reputable expert on a given field?
Not necessarily, but we are in danger of declaring that an Expert with a Blog is no longer to be considered an Expert.
Which croggles the mind...
HTH HAND
I don't intend any such thing. But given Burns' writing on webcomics is online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted claim to expertness. I have no problem with established experts having blogs, as long as guidance at [[WP:RS]] is noted. I have a problem with someone who is cited as an expert because they have a blog on a topic. Burns falls between the two stools, having also written for Comixpedia, an online magazine which whilst I am happy to entertain as a source others have indicated a refusal to do so. I would not describe Burns as an expert in the field anymore than I would describe Andrew Johnson of ninth art an expert in the comics field. I would describe them as advocates. Their position is in advocating their particular field of interest to respectability.
Steve block
On 2/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
But given Burns' writing on webcomics is online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted claim to expertness.
This is what the arbitration committee had to say about Eric Burns in a finding of fact in the Webcomics case:
"Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games, magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in English Literature. He worked on games and publications for Steve Jackson Games. So he has a lot more qualifications to write about writing than just being a blogger.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
But given Burns' writing on webcomics is online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted claim to expertness.
This is what the arbitration committee had to say about Eric Burns in a finding of fact in the Webcomics case:
"Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games, magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in English Literature. He worked on games and publications for Steve Jackson Games. So he has a lot more qualifications to write about writing than just being a blogger.
Tony, you're arguing across me. As per my comments above, they make no claim as to his degree of expertness. Actually, nothing there contradicts what I said above, since Comixpedia and the Webcomics Examiner are online magazines. As webcomics is a form of comics, which is a separate art-form from writing, where-in it has been argued the writing is subservient to the art; to quote Samuel R. Delaney for example, "the writer works for the artist, in the same that the writer in a movie works for the director." Delaney also notes that comics shouldn't be read, they should be looked at, again making the point that the art is primary. Now like I say, it's hard to quantify Burns' qualifications; he majored in English Lit, not comics. He's also an advocate. I have no problem sourcing Burns' opinion from his blog; I have a problem sourcing it as fact, or in accepting Burns' statements as an arbitrary ruling.
That's not to say that I disagree with the arbcom ruling. That said, I have to ask, am I not afforded the same opportunity as Snowspinner to stand up and claim myself as an expert in the field?
Steve block