Grrr.

[cnoocy]

Last night, I created a Wikipedia article (my first) for the webcomic "Six Things." This morning I find that it has three votes for deletion because it doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines for webcomics. Which are not linked to anywhere that I could have found them. So I'm suddenly sour on Wikipedia and don't feel like I have a right to contribute. I do think it is somewhat notable, and that it will soon enough meet the criteria, but I don't want to put my opinion out there to get stomped on. Oh well. Time to work instead.

Comments

[jadelennox]

:( If you feel like learning about something new, the lit theory pages are *awful* and need tons of work.

[rikchik.livejournal.com]

I'd hate for that experience to put you off of Wikipedia. There's lots of good work on it and lots that remains to be done. Webcomics are kind of a mess, sadly. (Though the inclusion guidelines _are_ at the top of the discussion page of the webcomic list.)

I don't understand why you feel you "don't have a right to contribute". You have every right to contribute. You don't have a guarantee that your contributions will continue in their current state, or at all, but no one does.

But please don't abandon Wikipedia because of this - it needs more people with more varied knowledge.

[cnoocy]

The existence of criteria which is not obvious to the newcomer, and is used to judge the newcomer's work, gives the impression that only those who are on the inside and know where to find the "secret criteria" have a right to contribute. I know this is false, but it's certainly my first impression.

[rikchik.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. There's a real tension between presenting a good interface to the reader (which would not include things like inclusion guidelines) and presenting a good interface to the first time contributor (which would). Usually a lot of that goes on the discussion page, but HTML comments are sometimes used as well. Perhaps I'll go add "please read the inclusion guidelines" comments in the webcomic list sections.

[cnoocy]

I apologize for my grumpy tone. It's just that this has blown my mood for the morning. And I have trouble finding things that I know enough about that aren't well fleshed out already.

[jdm314.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you commented about this in the deletion page. A lot of wikipedians are quick to assume malice where greenness would suffice: they clearly thought you were an insider cynically promouting the comic.

In any case, don't get disheartened: you would make a great contributor. And there's always the Latin wikipedia--if you can write in good Latin, we're not nearly so picky (we CAN'T be ;) ).

Wiki column in today's Boston Globe

[toonhead-npl.livejournal.com]

kinda related item in a column by Alex Beam in today's Boston Globe

Bite me

[prog.livejournal.com]

Wow, I like how he offhandedly calls Wikipedia "notoriously unreliable" as if this is something everyone knows. WTF.

Re: Bite me

[cnoocy]

Gotta love modern news. But mail to him might actually get through. Worth a try.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I appreciated the thought of your creating the Wiki entry, anyway. Although the ensuing deletion discussion soured my mood as well. Nothing like having a few people call your work "non-notable" to start the day with a dose of grump.

-- Francis

[cnoocy]

I'm sorry that I, in my ignorance of Wikipedia, exposed you to that.