[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[Phil Sandifer]

On Feb 24, 2007, at 7:48 PM, geni wrote:

>
> As a general rule attempting to prove anything from an n=1 sample is a
> really really bad idea.
>
Geni, with all due respect, stop being dense and actually listen to  
people. Your continual attitude of putting your fingers in your ears  
and reducing all opposition to pithily described straw men is  
insulting and counterproductive. I did not say that the Straub  
incident proves that our deletion is flawed. I said it's a  
demonstration of the flaws. There's a difference, and you know it.

> If we accept those I can show that people are adding webcomic articles
> to wikipedia in order to promote them.
>

I don't deny that such articles exist. Never have - it would be  
stupid to. But I've always thought that articles are better judged on  
their own merits than by speculating about the motives for their  
creation. If the article is unduly self-promoting it should be fixed  
(deletion being one means of fixing it.) But that can be evaluated  
(and is best evaluated) through means other than trying to guess the  
motives of authors.

> His problem is that wikipedia isn't what he wants it to be. Wikipedia
> is the second or third to document things not the first.
>

No. His problem is that Wikipedia is documenting things  
inconsistently, arbitrarily, and in a manner that is not meaningfully  
predictable not only to an outsider but to one of the most respected  
figures in the field. If Scott McCloud cannot figure out the rhyme or  
reason to what is and isn't a notable comic (webcomic or print) on  
Wikipedia, odds are the rhyme or reason is shit.

> Treating those outside wikipedia as a single homogeneous group is
> illogical. Different groups will have different views about whether or
> not certain guidelines make sense. can find plenty of groups that
> think including any webcomics at all make us inferior and think that
> our inclusion of such non entities as penny arcade.
>

You're misunderstanding. I'm not using sense in terms of "is a good  
idea." I mean it in terms of "is actually recognizable as an idea as  
opposed to a set of arbitrary rules." I'm not saying that McCloud's  
objection is that our notability guidelines are unreasonable. I'm  
saying that his objection is that they're nonsensical.
>

> No they are written with the objective of avoiding an extremely bad
> encyclopedia.

Strange. Because we were doing a fine job of writing a good  
encyclopedia before we had them, so I'm not exactly sure what we  
accomplished there.
>

> You would have to show that we would not have lost respect from them
> anyway and that any net change in respect levels is worse than what
> would have happened if we had not taken steps to try and ensure
> reliability.
>
No. I have to show that Wikipedia has a problem in the eyes of people  
who are disposed to be sympathetic to it. This isn't a double blind  
study to establish beyond a scientific doubt that Wikipedia has a  
problem. Such studies don't exist, and if they're a prerequisite for  
change then change is impossible. Which, admittedly, seems like the  
situation you want most of the time.
>

> systematically?
>
Yes.
>
> Various articles with fridge fanatics would be an example.

I must be remembering the two years I spent editing Wikipedia before  
[[WP:N]] and [[WP:RS]] were codified wrong, because I'm pretty sure  
we were capable of dealing with such groups before we had them.

-Phil