Fun Stuff > MAKE

the Great Wiki Debate

<< < (2/2)

themacnut:
IMO, the best antidote to Wikipedia's issues with webcomics is the Webcomics Encyclopedia. Xavier Xerexes' little online database specializes in and welcomes webcomics, and has a couple thousand of them up there now, so I say who needs Wikipedia. If you've got a webcomic and feel like having a wiki on it, get thee to the Webcomics Encyclopedia.

EDIT: I find it amusing that one of Wikipedia's criteria for notability seems to be printed references and/or books-and yet QC still has an entry there despite not even having put out a single print edition.

Johnny C:
Look at this brief discussion I had when I cleaned up Buck 65's article slightly:


--- Quote ---Lack of references

There are a lot of claims in this article about the artist's fame, but little in the way of references proving this. There need to be links to reviews or other third-party articles about the artist to prove his notability, otherwise the article should probably be nominated for deletion. --Elonka 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how many reviews do you need? All Music Guide should have you covered. --JohnCameron 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
--- End quote ---

Nobody in the world at large can help that the people who edit Wikipedia are idiots.

zier:
You don't have to have a printed comic, but there has to be some reference which is in print.  I'm sure that QC has been around long enough and gained enough popularity to have some sort of "hard" copy material out there somewhere.  Which could give it credibility in the incredible wikiworld.

jeph:
I have nothing useful to say about the Wikipedia vs. webcomics thing.

I don't agree with their standards of "notability" or the way they're handling most lesser-known comics, but it's also not my website and not a website I care to become really involved with.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page