ZOMBIE FORUMS

They're looking for what they want to see.

I disagree here, if you don't mind. At least some of the admins are elitist and what they are really looking for is ego gratifacation.

and Actor:

While Pompous asses includes many admins
Not all admins are pompous asses

But all snoops are flargles.
Some flargles are jooders.
Therefore, some snoops are jooders.

Dr. Seuss to the rescue

Not necessarily. What if jooders are merely those flargles that aren't snoops?

Don't take it as an attack Impy, I'm saying webcomics in general almost always do not deserve their own entry. ES wouldn't be any more relevant if it were rated 40 or 20 thousand; that's where CAD is and I sure as fuck don't think CAD would deserve an entry in a normal encyclopaedia.



Um, I dunno about that. I have a copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica upstairs and it takes up it's own bookcase; 33 volumes each clocking it at a thousand pages. I don't think they were really worried about how much bookspace articles took up, and were rather enforcing their own notability guidelines.



The webcomic movement certainly does deserve an entry, for the reasons you listed. However, to enumerate each example seems unnecessary. At most, ES should be a footnote to a more in depth article on webcomics in general, maybe as an example of American manga style works.

Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's quite easy for me to see it from their point of view.

Have you actually looked at the obscure topics that get their own articles on Wikipedia?

If Squirrel Girl is noteworthy enough to make the cut, complete with half a dozen pictures, then they aren't really that picky about their comic book content.

Hell, obscure Eastern European pornstars that even I haven't heard of get their own pages. Yet a popular web comic like Errant Story isn't culturally important enough...

I don't really support the incredible number of comic related pages either, but what can you do.

When it comes to Wikipedia I have only a few things to say.

1. Wikipedia is a fun place to find information, if you don't care at all about the relative truthiness of the information you find.

2. Wikipedia is full of lies and false information, often posted by those who have no idea about the subject, whatever it may be, and therefore is to be considered no more than a tertiary source of information for any formal research.

3. Citing Wikipedia in my classroom will get you an instant F, for the reasons stated above.

4. Whether or not the Errant Story Wikipedia exists, I will still like to read the comic, and continue to introduce others to it.

5. "notability" is like "popularity" in that it is a fleeting, artificial construct created by the masses of stupid dickweeds who do nothing but sit around and consume and criticize other's work while doing nothing to enlighten or enrich the world. Therefore "Notability" can take it up the ass for all I care.
(Hell, it'd probably like it!)

I read what I find interesting, enlightening, and funny, regardless of other issues.

To wit, I find Errant Story to be Interesting, Enlightening, and Funny.

I am pretty certain that someone here will archive all the information on the Wikipedia page and put it on another page for future reference and hopefully, future publication as a "Webcrawler's Guide to the Poeverse".

Basically, I agreed. One twit was getting almost hysterical when the absolute truth was stated the there was no perscriptive definition of "notability". Almost frothing at the mouth, he was. Completely indignant. I told him to get over it.



And here I always thought that it was spelled "To whit"



Now, that's a thought and we do have our own Wiki. .....

Squirrel Girl is cool.
And whilst I think some Wikipedia pages are a little pointless(use the Random feature once in a while or search for the Trainstations of Brisbane, they each have a page) I'd think that having a Wiki-page wouldn't bring too many people into Errant story(although it would provide some degree of background for anyone who wants to start reading it).

Actor.

Errant Story was not self-published. Volume One was published by Keenspot, not Michael Poe, and was distributed by Perseus Distribution (cdsbooks.com) as well as Diamond. Volume Two was self-published by choice, not necessity. It was never offered to bookstores.

I have no doubt that a couple million people know about the WCCA awards or have at least heard of them in passing. I sincerely doubt that more than a few thousand of them cared, though.

Someone please either correct or remove my statement as depicted in the Wikipedia discussion. If I'd wanted to comment there, I'd have done so myself.

^-^'

I think Squirrel Girl would be easily defeated by the Rat Poisoner and Redneck Barbaque.

I need to know which statement you are refering to. I can't find it.

The difference between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia is that Wiki doesn't take up paper or space. It doesn't have a limit of fitting on one bookcase or costing under a certain amount.

Cutting out references to web comics while leaving in some of what they don't seem to have issues with is just skewed elitism on their part.

That's horribly dirty.

No, dirty would be:
All wangs are privates.
Some privates are cooches.
Therefore, some wangs are cooches.

Bad logic is fun. But the so is good logic sometimes. An example I gave in an English class once of a valid but unsound syllogism, that drew some funny looks from fellow students and a laugh from the professor:

All asteroids are yellow.
My pencil is an asteroid.
Therefore, my pencil is yellow.

As my pencil was in fact yellow, and the professor confirmed for the class that yes that was valid, some of the less bright students confusedly thought the professor was confirming my "proof" that all asteroids were yellow or that my pencil was an asteroid.

See kids, this is why abductive reasoning is bad, m'kay.

It's the last post by Qwern, evidentally this person came and read this thread. I think he mistook some things.




I would have made a comment about how even on the wikipedia article about notability for articles it says that "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)" but it seems my account was deleted.