Comments on: Wikipediation.

By: william G

william G — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:31:49 +0000

Xerexes explained it as something like being unable to match up the GNU lisence with the use of copyrighted material. He’d probably explain it better, but basicaly, they can’t do it right now and keep things as they are.

By: lucastds

lucastds — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:24:12 +0000

the only thing wrong with Comixpedia.org so far: no pictures!

By: Megs

Megs — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:07:57 +0000

I like the idea of wikis just because it’s really useful (well, not yet) for some comics. If I read Megatokyo, I might find it helpful to keep up with the cast, who all look alike, and remember that unimportant detail that now is important or something. Also, if a comic suddenly changes format, if you’re catchig up in the archives, you may think ‘huh?’, but a wiki entry may tell you that the artist lost her right hand in a tragic kitten accident in 2003 and now draws the comic entirely by brainwaves in flash.

Also – Encyclocomica! It sounds vaguely like a disease and nothing at all like comixpedia! It’s PERFECT.

By: Peter Venables

Peter Venables — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:09:43 +0000

With regards to how to get the word out about the webcomics wiki (Comixpedia.org or whatever you want to call it), seems to me the way to get people to know about it is to *make* it a big deal.

How do we tell our readers about things we want them to know about? We link them from our sites. We mention them in public fora. Word of mouth is kind of the only tool we have but when you think about it, how many comics and comic-related sites did you find in the beginning due to linkage from reading your favourite webcomic?

What we really need is a nice attractive “wiki button” to get people to include on their sites. Course then we need to inspire hundreds upon hundreds of creators to include such a link on their site. The wiki is young, though, and I think in time people will come to rely on it.

By: william G

william G — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:11:06 +0000

hey you read our crap regularly. That’s smarts.

…

Or maybe insanity. There’s such a thin line between the two.

By: lucastds

lucastds — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:27:47 +0000

good points all around.

also, i enjoyed being called “intelligent” (i’m a comixpedia admin)

By: zach

zach — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:21:13 +0000

Agreed. Someone did a wiki on smbc a few months ago and in my relatively obsessive sitemeter checks I have seen fewer than ten hits from it since. So, in terms of traffic, Wikipedia isn’t a great source.

I find it interesting that a huge comic like CN is under such duress while a smaller Johnny-come-lately like mine has managed to stay under the radar. If CN is not meant to be wikied, then SMBC certainly isn’t either. Yet, there’s no discussion about the wikifuture of my strip.

WikiPersonally, I don’t WkiFeel that comics need WikiPedia to gain WikiRelevance. If you open the latest Britannica, I’m sure you won’t find much information on many comic strips aside from the huge-uns (Dilbert, Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes, and the like). This doesn’t mean they aren’t important. They’re just not really encyclopedia material.

I echo your two terse words. This is irritating, but ultimately a non-issue. Other than the fact that my webcomics cock is now two inches longer, I gain absolutely nothing from my wikiness.

By: william G

william G — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 04:11:34 +0000

I clarified things a bit more over on my blog is response to Straub’s comments.

By: william G

william G — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:03:57 +0000

The internet still pretty much runs on word of mouth and search engines.

And even in the world of geeks, comic fans are bottom-feeders, so there’s little to be gained from wikipedia regardless because it requires someone to have heard of Checkerboard Nightmare, and if they had, they wouldn’t be going to wikipedia for it anyway.