Delete Wikipedia: A Webcomics Case Study

There’s been a little bit of a furor over Wikipedia and its inclusion policies for webcomics. It’s happened before; the most recent round of anger at Wikipedia’s confused methodologies started when Brad Guigar’s Evil Inc was put up to a vote for deletion, then spared, then re-deleted without a new vote, then re-spared by the Wikipedia gods. Next on the non-notable chopping block was Paul Southworth’s Ugly Hill. Paul took it personally and decided to link Ugly Hill’s Article for Deletion at his site, which of course resulted in upset fans supporting the strip’s inclusion.

But in Wikipedia terms this is called “meatpuppetry,” and frowned upon, as it can skew the vote in one direction. After all, if a hundred people who are fans claim a comic is notable, how will the three Wikipedia editors who know it’s not be heard?

The Webcomics Purge of ‘07 continues with the deletion of Starslip Crisis‘ article. An article for deletion was submitted to Wikipedia, to delete Starslip Crisis, and the measure carried.

The result was delete and redirect to Blank Label Comics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I started the vote to delete Starslip Crisis.

I started the vote to delete Starslip Crisis using a freshly-registered user with no other edits under his belt.

I also used faulty logic to initiate the discussion: I said www.starslip.com has no Alexa data, and isn’t notable as a result. (www.starslip.com is just a redirect: the comic’s URL is www.starslipcrisis.com and has an Alexa rank.)

Then I registered ten more fake users to stuff the original delete vote. This is called “sock puppetry” in Wikipedia terminology, and is frowned upon. The names of the fake users I used in the AfD are: Salby, Incredulous, Banalzebub, Hammerabbi, LKeith30, Repromancer, Expiwikist, Floxman, YothSog, and 66.27.212.63.

It’s so frowned upon that when someone else — a person I don’t know calling himself WizardBrad — tried to use a sock puppet to get his Keep vote to count twice, he was found to be cheating and his vote was struck from the record! Bless your heart, WizardBrad.

Here I was terrified that the Wikipedia editors-that-be would uncover my ruse to falsely delete a webcomic from their pages, and not only did they not find me out, they discounted someone cheating in Starslip’s favor!! How did they catch him and not me? Why did they bother to check up on his IP and not the IP address I used for the ten fake voters?

Oh, I will admit, I was sly. My fake voters engaged in conversation with one another, even one convincing another that the article should be deleted, not just merged under something else. Wikipedia cautions its editors that sock puppets can appear, and that the “straw man sock puppets”

are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur.

What I tried to do was take the popular point of view among Wikipedia’s editors — “delete webcomics” — and then prove that it would be accepted even under fallacious/suspicious circumstances. And it looks like I was successful.

Starslip Crisis is gone from Wikipedia for made-up reasons championed by my team of ten grudge-carrying fakes.

As it turns out, it’s not hard to get something deleted from Wikipedia, especially if it’s on some ice-blasted, barren frontier land on the internet like webcomics, where no one really knows what’s important and what isn’t, and no one really cares to make sure. That’s pretty goddamn weak.

I learned a lot this weekend working on this. Number one, to really edit Wikipedia, you have to spend your entire day in front of it. I can see how the act of editing itself is addictive — even I couldn’t resist fixing punctuation outside of quotation marks and errant apostrophes. You have to have a passion for it. You really have to love sorting, or counting.

Number two, I get it. Wikipedia is not an all-inclusive list of lists. Your Comic Genesis webcomic is probably getting deleted. Yeah, you CAN read all about the physiology of the Pokemon Nidoran. I mean, that’s important. We need that as a species.

Number three, instead of worrying about what Wikipedia thinks about our webcomics, there’s a better use of our time: making truly notable webcomics.

Starslip Crisis honestly isn’t notable. Most webcomics aren’t going to be. Especially not to some stick-up-their-ass micromanaging Wikipedians. Why are we looking to them for validation? Validation comes from making something you believe in, and having that find its way into a review in your local newspaper, or syndication with some hip website, or a reprint in a trade magazine. It’s not having your comic show up in the WCCAs, or Webcomics Review Gentleman’s Journal, or Wikipedia.

We cannot invent validity. Notability is not something you just generate. It is not something that is found in a user-created encyclopedia or a creator-created review site. It’s neat when your peers acknowledge you, and it sucks when strangers say you’re not important. But what else can you do but get back on the horse?

So saddle up, webcomics. I’m kicking the dust of Wikipedia off my spurs for good.

Of course, the Wikipedia editors have caught wind and now Starslip Crisis is under deletion review. Look, I’m the first to say this “case study” wasn’t scientific. And if put to a real vote (which, to rectify their own internal functioning they probably will), I think Starslip would fail notability and remain deleted. That’s fine. But that’s not what happened here. And it probably happens more often than anyone knows.

Criminal? No, of course not. Proof of Wikipedia’s webcomics project as a waste of your time? Yes.

A Wikipedian may argue on behalf of Wikipedia and say “well, the point is for it to be made better by more user interaction. So if you have a problem, become an editor and make a difference.” Noble-sounding, but my response to that is no. How about you do your job correctly? It’s not my responsibility to come fix things for everyone who wants to do something but isn’t capable of doing it right.

I’m sorry that came out bitchy, but it’s true. It’s also a complaint I had with the WCCAs. I don’t think they’re run very well. I think they were initiated by people with good hearts and good intentions, but they’re making bad functional decisions. The response to that can’t be “well, YOU come do it.” I can’t. I don’t have time. I can’t open a restaurant if I don’t know how to cook, then tell my dissatisfied customers to grab an apron and a whisk. My options are: learn to cook, or close the business.