David Gerard wrote:
"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."
http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/
See what I mean about the dangers of reasoning from personal
ignorance? Now I eagerly await objections that don't boil down to "but
webcomics are worse for Wikipedia than Pokemon."
(Part of the webcomics debacle was an attempt to get Snowspinner
excluded from webcomics deletion discussions because as an expert he
was obviously biased on the subject. Not in any particular direction,
but *by being an expert*.)
ImageText isn't a webcomics specific journal, and isn't the only comics
journal out there, there's a lot of comics theory published in the
Journal of Popular Culture and more importantly The International
Journal of Comic Art, as well as The Comics Journal, which covers web
comics. I fail to see what your point is David, and how it relates to
the comments it purports to respond to. It seems to support them
entirley, by arguing that such sources do exist which allow articles to
be written.
--
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