Huh, looks like The Whiteboard's Wikipedia page got axed again...

Huh, looks like The Whiteboard's Wikipedia page got axed again...

Salda007
Salda007

June 18th, 2012, 7:45 pm #1

Deletion went through on May 23rd, due to a lack of notability. Since five published books, a worldwide readership, and ten years online isn't notable. Ahh, well, their loss.
Quote
Share

WatchDragon
WatchDragon

June 18th, 2012, 7:59 pm #2

Quote
Share

Algaean
Algaean

June 18th, 2012, 8:28 pm #3

So we'll just see who's notable NOW!

Great strip, here's to 10 years!
Quote
Share

sniper1rfa
sniper1rfa

June 18th, 2012, 10:31 pm #4

Deletion went through on May 23rd, due to a lack of notability. Since five published books, a worldwide readership, and ten years online isn't notable. Ahh, well, their loss.
the crowd of people who attempt to emulate a normal encyclopedia, with all the paper-bound encyclopedia limitations, is just too large.

The whole point of wikipedia is that it has no storage space issues and has contributors from every possible walk of life with every possible interest. People who exclude based on some arbitrary set of rules are really missing the point. After all, what possible negative effect could a small article on an esoteric subject have? Nobody reads it? So what? What if somebody does. Then the world is a better place for the article being there.
Quote
Share

B
B

June 18th, 2012, 10:44 pm #5

check out kilt they suddenly think sometime in the 1600's it appeared. In fact the kilt and like forms of dress are one of the oldest forms of dress on the planet, just the style changes and a new word came about in the 1600's ( possibly )
Quote
Share

Nohbody
Nohbody

June 18th, 2012, 11:22 pm #6

Deletion went through on May 23rd, due to a lack of notability. Since five published books, a worldwide readership, and ten years online isn't notable. Ahh, well, their loss.
The notability to which they're referring is a relative lack of references elsewhere on sources they consider... erm, notable. Freefall got hit with the same thing a few years back.

That said, they do seem to have a stick up their ass about being a real encyclopedia, even when one of their founders says that they shouldn't be used as a resource for a report (y'know, like a real encyclopedia would be). Acknowledging that "anecdote" is not the singular of "data", a lot of those who I regularly talk with have given up on trying to get anything useful into Wikipedia thanks to reversions of otherwise good info that meets the requirements because of territorial pissing contests by a relatively small handful of senior editors hold undue influence on policy enforcement.
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

June 18th, 2012, 11:47 pm #7

Deletion went through on May 23rd, due to a lack of notability. Since five published books, a worldwide readership, and ten years online isn't notable. Ahh, well, their loss.
Webcomics have been a big point of contention on Wikipedia since the beginning, and this is TWB's at least third "nomination for deletion" if not the second actual deletion.

I can see both sides of the issue. On one side, you'd think that a significant archive, a provably long time online, and open, third-party traffic stats (that admittedly don't often agree and have a significant gap between them) would be pretty self-noteworthy.

On the other hand, that could also be abused- for example, somebody could put up a new blog, get a bunch of other blogs to link to it's articles, buy a bunch of advertising to temporarily pump up it's traffic levels and then post a Wiki page giving itself a measure of false authority.

It also tends to keep new comics from posting three strips and then launching a Wiki page in hopes for some traffic. There's thousands of dead comics out there- looking back through TWB's "webcomic links o' the week" over the years, at least a third have disappeared entirely, and another full third have long since ended, even if the archives are still available.

"The Webcomic List" lists over 20,000 comics- but I know from regular reading that a huge number of those are dead links, ended or abandoned comics. Go over to The Belfry and look at everything listed under either "Completed", "Inactive" or "Lost".

True, there's no limitation on space for Wiki entries, but really, do we need hundreds of entries for somebody's college webcomic that got abandoned as soon as they graduated? Some of them, sure- the classic example is MacHall, which Ian more or less continued post-graduation as Three Panel Soul. But for every MacHall, there's hundreds of others that didn't make it past a few dozen strips.

So both sides have valid points. I admit I was annoyed early on at the whole circular argument of it- you have to be notable to have an entry, but being notable isn't enough- but today, it's not worth the hassle. There are more than a few Wiki editors that outright don't like webcomics and they make no secret of it. It's not worth the fight right now.

Now, that said, it does make me wonder what can be done to make a comic notable. In the first deletion-go-'round all those years ago, TWB was saved- sort of- by the fact I'd had a strip published in a PGI special edition, and that a couple of strips were translated and published (albeit without my direct permission) in a Russian PB magazine.

Apparently those references are no longer valid, which raises a further discussion in that... what, each article needs to keep supplying regular citations of notability? A citation valid in 2003 is no longer valid in 2012 for some reason?

What sort of fresh third-party reference could be used to make a comic notable?

Doc.
Quote
Share

sniper1rfa
sniper1rfa

June 19th, 2012, 12:38 am #8

The notability to which they're referring is a relative lack of references elsewhere on sources they consider... erm, notable. Freefall got hit with the same thing a few years back.

That said, they do seem to have a stick up their ass about being a real encyclopedia, even when one of their founders says that they shouldn't be used as a resource for a report (y'know, like a real encyclopedia would be). Acknowledging that "anecdote" is not the singular of "data", a lot of those who I regularly talk with have given up on trying to get anything useful into Wikipedia thanks to reversions of otherwise good info that meets the requirements because of territorial pissing contests by a relatively small handful of senior editors hold undue influence on policy enforcement.
No encyclopedia is considered an acceptable source for any kind of research. The encyclopedia britannica is no better than wikipedia in this regard. It's also been fairly well proven that wikipedia on the whole is just as, if not more, accurate than a typical "traditional" encyclopedia.
Quote
Share

IDN
IDN

June 19th, 2012, 1:06 am #9

Webcomics have been a big point of contention on Wikipedia since the beginning, and this is TWB's at least third "nomination for deletion" if not the second actual deletion.

I can see both sides of the issue. On one side, you'd think that a significant archive, a provably long time online, and open, third-party traffic stats (that admittedly don't often agree and have a significant gap between them) would be pretty self-noteworthy.

On the other hand, that could also be abused- for example, somebody could put up a new blog, get a bunch of other blogs to link to it's articles, buy a bunch of advertising to temporarily pump up it's traffic levels and then post a Wiki page giving itself a measure of false authority.

It also tends to keep new comics from posting three strips and then launching a Wiki page in hopes for some traffic. There's thousands of dead comics out there- looking back through TWB's "webcomic links o' the week" over the years, at least a third have disappeared entirely, and another full third have long since ended, even if the archives are still available.

"The Webcomic List" lists over 20,000 comics- but I know from regular reading that a huge number of those are dead links, ended or abandoned comics. Go over to The Belfry and look at everything listed under either "Completed", "Inactive" or "Lost".

True, there's no limitation on space for Wiki entries, but really, do we need hundreds of entries for somebody's college webcomic that got abandoned as soon as they graduated? Some of them, sure- the classic example is MacHall, which Ian more or less continued post-graduation as Three Panel Soul. But for every MacHall, there's hundreds of others that didn't make it past a few dozen strips.

So both sides have valid points. I admit I was annoyed early on at the whole circular argument of it- you have to be notable to have an entry, but being notable isn't enough- but today, it's not worth the hassle. There are more than a few Wiki editors that outright don't like webcomics and they make no secret of it. It's not worth the fight right now.

Now, that said, it does make me wonder what can be done to make a comic notable. In the first deletion-go-'round all those years ago, TWB was saved- sort of- by the fact I'd had a strip published in a PGI special edition, and that a couple of strips were translated and published (albeit without my direct permission) in a Russian PB magazine.

Apparently those references are no longer valid, which raises a further discussion in that... what, each article needs to keep supplying regular citations of notability? A citation valid in 2003 is no longer valid in 2012 for some reason?

What sort of fresh third-party reference could be used to make a comic notable?

Doc.
...//What sort of fresh third-party reference could be used to make a comic notable?

Doc.//...

Conan O' Brian holds up a TWB book and says "this is my favourite comic".
Quote
Share

Salda007
Salda007

June 19th, 2012, 4:27 am #10

Webcomics have been a big point of contention on Wikipedia since the beginning, and this is TWB's at least third "nomination for deletion" if not the second actual deletion.

I can see both sides of the issue. On one side, you'd think that a significant archive, a provably long time online, and open, third-party traffic stats (that admittedly don't often agree and have a significant gap between them) would be pretty self-noteworthy.

On the other hand, that could also be abused- for example, somebody could put up a new blog, get a bunch of other blogs to link to it's articles, buy a bunch of advertising to temporarily pump up it's traffic levels and then post a Wiki page giving itself a measure of false authority.

It also tends to keep new comics from posting three strips and then launching a Wiki page in hopes for some traffic. There's thousands of dead comics out there- looking back through TWB's "webcomic links o' the week" over the years, at least a third have disappeared entirely, and another full third have long since ended, even if the archives are still available.

"The Webcomic List" lists over 20,000 comics- but I know from regular reading that a huge number of those are dead links, ended or abandoned comics. Go over to The Belfry and look at everything listed under either "Completed", "Inactive" or "Lost".

True, there's no limitation on space for Wiki entries, but really, do we need hundreds of entries for somebody's college webcomic that got abandoned as soon as they graduated? Some of them, sure- the classic example is MacHall, which Ian more or less continued post-graduation as Three Panel Soul. But for every MacHall, there's hundreds of others that didn't make it past a few dozen strips.

So both sides have valid points. I admit I was annoyed early on at the whole circular argument of it- you have to be notable to have an entry, but being notable isn't enough- but today, it's not worth the hassle. There are more than a few Wiki editors that outright don't like webcomics and they make no secret of it. It's not worth the fight right now.

Now, that said, it does make me wonder what can be done to make a comic notable. In the first deletion-go-'round all those years ago, TWB was saved- sort of- by the fact I'd had a strip published in a PGI special edition, and that a couple of strips were translated and published (albeit without my direct permission) in a Russian PB magazine.

Apparently those references are no longer valid, which raises a further discussion in that... what, each article needs to keep supplying regular citations of notability? A citation valid in 2003 is no longer valid in 2012 for some reason?

What sort of fresh third-party reference could be used to make a comic notable?

Doc.
I'm sure there are people on this site with contacts at various relevant magazines and (news-type) blogs. Maybe we can drum up a little press for The Whiteboard hitting the 10-year mark? It'd be nice to put the page back up with a few reviews and articles bolstering it.
Quote
Share