mzmadmike (mzmadmike) wrote,

Wikipedia: The Preschool Playground Of References

"professionalism of Wikipedia"

Sorry. I had to replace my keyboard after I choked and spit. Are there any "professionals" working for Wikipedia? Paid staff? If not, by definition it is not professional.

"During a time when Wikipedia is struggling for acceptance as a solid and reliable reference"

When has it NOT been struggling for that which it, by definition, can never be?

"Why should a webcomic, produced as a hobby, and having a limited readership in the thousands of tens of thousands..."(TBC)

If you knew anything about the literary industry, that is virtually every book not written by "King," "Rowling," "Jordan" or "Clancy." Most books sell less than 5000 copies.

(continuing)"...contain plot summaries and character descriptions with far more clarity than is present in the articles of most major motion pictures and nationally syndicated television programs?"

What major TV programs have notability? Name one from 1993.

Multiple insults against "meatpuppets" and "sockpuppets"...but apparently, it's acceptable to be a "masturpuppet" for the Webcomic Deletion Mafia.

"If Wikipedia does not want to be overwhelmed by internet ephemera" Wikipedia itself?


When it comes down to it, no "reliable source" has ever covered Wikipedia, except to note it's managed by geeks and obsessive lusers. Being "noted" by the same media that hosts reality shows is hardly a point in favor of credibility. Being "noted" in pop media that endorses a new icon every day (Remember "The Knack" who were to be "The new Beatles"?) is nothing to brag about.

And posting a warning on a Deletion Review that "this is not a majority vote" seems to substantiate that there is sufficient reader interest to make it notable by sheer numbers.

I AM a professional in the literary media, and I find most Wiki editors (and Wikipedia) to fall under the category of "Online fanfic stroke publishing." Have any of you, or Wikipedia, published in a professionally edited print format? Then you are by definition not notable. I apparently are by definition notable, yet some of these webcomics have a greater readership than I do, and I have 8 professional novels and a hundred shorter there's clearly a disconnect. debate here and catch this fast

My comment on the former:

I'm not involved with [[webcomic]]s professionally. I am a well-established writer in [[fiction]] and [[nonfiction]]. It's blatantly obvious that [[User:NetOracle|NetOracle]], his amusing nom de net aside, knows absolutely nothing about [[publication]] or [[media]]. Therefore, it might be best if he simply shuts up and sticks to subjects he might know. (I can't imagine what those are. His user page lists nothing substantive, and his history seems to indicate he's merely a [[deletion troll]], but giving the benefit of the doubt, there may be subjects on which he's knowledgeable enough to comment.) The fact that Wikipedia CAN be edited by anyone, doesn't mean what amounts to [[vandalism]] should be tolerated or encouraged by any [[luser]] who wanders in off the [[web]]. I'm sure, with reflection, [[User:NetOracle|NetOracle]]will concur.

I don't comment on early [[Peruvian]] history, because I know nothing about it. By admitting to knowing little to nothing about [[webcomic]]s in general or specific, [[User:NetOracle|NetOracle]]is admitting his lack of credentials to give a "professional" (his term from here:
opinion. To regain some small measure of credibility, he should stick to what he knows, whatever that might be.

It's pretty clear Wikipedia should change its tag to "The online AMATEUR encyclopedia anyone WITH KNOWLEDGE OF A SUBJECT can edit."

That said, I need someone familiar with Wikipedia's boggy code to assist me in making a point. Morals required. Concern for manners is not.
Tags: wikipedia
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded