Ghastly being removed from wikipedia...

Fnyunj · Post by **Fnyunj** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:45 pm

Won't someone please think of the disk space?

(sorry. someone had to say it).

Katjapurrs · Post by **Katjapurrs** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:59 am

A Link to the Past wrote: 2. I have a problem with people trying to "game the system" by alerting all fans of the subject on the slate and encouraging them to vote to keep it (even though AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion).

What you call "gaming the system" is actually a big part of what makes democracy work. it's called activism. since simply posting links to wiki articles is lame, i'll phrase what activism means to me in my own words...

When you see something stupid, unethical, or just plain wrong going on you try to tell as many people as possible (and especially people who are more likely to care, as they're more likely to help multiply your efforts to help uncover a shameful or stupid thing.

Now.. while Ghastly's Ghastly Comic may not be as popular as theporn star category, nor may have it had the cultural importance as Geoffrey Griffin (a South African crikiter that played two games back in 1960's) to you, to us it does. Ghastly gives us something to smile about all the time, and he does it for mere peanuts too. His work, or at least the appreciation or knowledge of his work is pandemic in several different subcultures.

So here it is.. by what values or standards or cultural works measured by? By my knowledge, ghastly has been a guest at several comic conventions, his works have been mentioned by quite a few of his peers, and his works have spawned their own parodies. His works are published (to say that because something is distributed electronically instead of in paper form it is any less "published" is fallacious). the fact that this forum continues to function with users from around the globe, even when the comic has been put on indefinite hiatus only goes to show the reasons why the article should not be deleted.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:46 am

1. ....Please read the entire discussion.

2. The AfD is NOT a vote. It is a discussion. The people who post the AfD and call for reinforcements are doing it for all the wrong reasons. Not everyone is taken with equal consideration. If someone comes to Wikipedia just to say "Keep, it's notable", that isn't good enough. The fact that they are not active Wikipedians is an indication that they do not understand the policies of Wikipedia. When someone spams an AfD on the subject's respective web site, it's rarely ever to get people to come to the AfD and verify that the subject is notable - it's almost always about getting as many people as you can to come and "vote" keep just because you want the article to be on Wikipedia. That's why it's gaming the system. The people who do this have a weak understanding of the system and are making an attempt to force it their way.

Not everyone can vote in a democracy, and not everyone's opinions can matter in an AfD unless there is strong evidence to show that it should stay. This kind of activism is stupid. Putting the fact that it is verifiable aside, can you tell me with a straight face that the majority of the people who came here to "vote" on the AfD had any evidence to show notability? No, they were an angry mob of Ghastly's Ghastly Comic fanboys who believed that whether or not there was verifiability to Ghastly's Ghastly Comic wouldn't matter, because their sheer numbers could just overwhelm the AfD and will it to their favor. People who spam AfDs are NEVER looking for people to provide evidence to get the article kept, their top priority is to stack the votes. That is gaming the system, and let me remind you, the AfD is not a democracy. Those who understand verifiability matter more than an IP who appears to have only edited Wikipedia once (and thusly probably never read up on verifiability).

3. And will you shut the Hell up already? I don't need fans of the comic telling me about how it brightens their day. I read the comic, it's funny. I've been reading it for longer than I remember, I've known him as that artist who used to do stuff with a character called "Pikagirl". I do not need to be lectured about your feelings on the matter, alright? I merge, redirect, or push to delete things based on what my views of how verifiable they are, not how much I enjoy the subject matter. I didn't withdraw my vote because of my opinion of the article, the outcry from the fanbase, or the "Wikipedia is not paper" logic, I did it because I was shown to be mistaken when I claimed it lacked verifiability. So before you try to enter into a debate, make sure there's a debate to enter into.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:58 am

Well, I've re-lost my faith in wikipedians to be mature. Thanks for restoring the balance of my universe, kid.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:13 am

The real problem I see with Wikipedia would be the editors who constantly feel the need to delete things based on wether or not they'd merit an article in a real encyclopedia. The criteria for deletion should not be, in my opinion, "would this article merit inclusion in a real encyclopedia" but instead "how will deletion of this article benefit people coming to wikipedia searching for information on this subject".

If the goal of Wikipedia is to just include general articles that would be included in a real encyclopedia I have to ask, why would I use wikipedia when I could use a real encyclopedia, written and edited by peer reviewed experts in their fields?

To me Wikipedia's strength is that it does include many articles that would never be in a real encyclopedia. I can't think of anytime I've gone to Wikipedia to look up something I could just as easily look up in a real encyclopedia.

The problem currently plaguing Wikipedia is not one of too much information, but one of editors wanting it to contain less information. That and the "dueling contributors" who constantly edit and attack each other's entries not based on factual accuracy but on personal vendetta.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:49 pm

1. I don't need anyone treating me like any less of a fan of the webcomic, thank you. And I don't need people NOT reading the discussion and deciding to create a pointless debate where they are completely wrong (in that "advocating" to keep an article is good because the AfD is about democracy, which it's not).

2. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is less the deletionist position of many Wikipedians, but more abusive administrators. I've seen my fair share of administrators who block for 96 hours for reverting something twice and talking back to him (for instance me; ironically, he had called me a troll after he warned someone that calling people trolls is bad). That one in particular had called another user a douche, ignored other users, subtly accused many people of vandalism and trolling, and just all around thinks he is the police of Wikipedia and should be respected as an authority figure. Most things that get deleted usually don't warrant conclusion, or their inclusion is borderline. I'd rather Wikipedia be free of bad administrators before there be deletion reform.

Moo Cow · Post by **Moo Cow** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:09 pm

I'm just utterly confused as to why people jump for the deletion of webcomics that do follow the rules of the site. There was another case that I sort of understood, that of Strange Candy, and the article was deleted because it was written by one of the authors of the comic and therefore "self serving" and "blowing things out of proportion" But for GGC I don't see any reason to delete the article.

~Sara

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:23 pm

Moo Cow wrote:I'm just utterly confused as to why people jump for the deletion of webcomics that do follow the rules of the site. There was another case that I sort of understood, that of Strange Candy, and the article was deleted because it was written by one of the authors of the comic and therefore "self serving" and "blowing things out of proportion" But for GGC I don't see any reason to delete the article.

~Sara

They claim Ghastly and GGC weren't notable enough. Didn't do any research into their topic before nominating it for deletion. What a dumbass, huh. ;P

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:16 pm

So, basically, you must either be retarded or hypocritical?

Thanks for that whole "making the fanbase of this webcomic look douchey" thing.

And fun fact: Read Wikipedia policy before you ever talk about Wikipedia again. It's not my job to jump through hoops to gather evidence for this article, it's the job of the fans and those who disagree with the AfD. I suggest that you stop degrading yourself, thanks.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:32 pm

Perhaps it was harsh of me to tell someone to shut the Hell up, but it is not harsh of me to call you an immature fool. This debate is finished. The evidence is gathered. See, it is not me who is initiating this debate, it is you, who seems to have a vendetta over me having put the subject up for deletion.

You Jet are not worth my time or the bandwidth wasted because of this argument. I'll give the others the benefit of the doubt that they haven't read the entire topic, but you're just being an idiot and don't know when to stop beating the dead horse.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:46 pm

My, my. I've been offensive. Oh dear. I've learned my lesson! No more jokes at the expense of a wikipedian! Obviously they are far too smart and self-important for humor.

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:07 pm

I think you are taking this too seriously.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:49 pm

Yes, because your statement is quite clever - "lol he is a dumbass".

I'm just going to assume that trolling is against the terms and conditions of this forum, so...

don't do it, kiddo.

Lulujayne · Post by **Lulujayne** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:46 am

*sigh*

I thought this argument was over.

JetSetLemming why are you shit-stirring? I think that A Link To The Past made hiself pretty clear on the previous page.

Swordsie, dearest, could you hold them down for me please?

*dons Wonderwoman outfit and molests the bickering pair into submission with tentacular goodness*

I did warn you two...

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:56 am

Nice outfit.

I'm not taking any of this seriously, btw.

Thick skin is by far the most useful attribute one can have if they are to interact with other people.

I'll quit, though. A shiny object just distracted me, so I have no time to waste, I must run after it.

Santavez · Post by **Santavez** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:24 am

A Link to the Past wrote:Well anyway, sorry for not having researched the verifiability before having submitted the article to the AfD.

Keep in mind that I didn't call YOU a troll in particular... but let's be frank... These "discussions" are full of trolls. And too many individuals make 'calls for deletion' without doing their 'homework' as you so wisely just admitted... Kudos to you sir!

People say 'well gee.. this isn't better than such and such because such and such is great and such and such has double and triple the fan base! LET'S REMOVE IT!'

I stress.... Just because you aren't informed and can't be bothered to get informed doesn't mean that something is irrelevant. Before a person makes a call for deletion, they should do their homework, get informed, be in the know... and then make the ever rare 'informed decision'.

Taiwan is a small country.. China doesn't recognize its status. Does it cease to exist? Does it become irrelevant? China has 4 bazillion people! That would constitute a majority in many places... Does it make them right?

Same concept. GGC isn't MegaPinocchio.. It isn't PA, PVP, ABC, BBD, OPP... whatever... My point is... While it may not be a lot of things... It is what it is and it is a long standing, somewhat recognized web-publication and by making uninformed decisions lacking in perspective and objectivity, you discredit the the creator, you discredit the community and you dimish the viability and respect of Wikipedia as a legitimate source in general.

Shame on you sir... Shame on you!

Santavez · Post by **Santavez** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:30 am

Anyway... as I see that this discussion is now closed... I will blame my response on a combination of a hole in the space-time continuum and a rare case of Internet-Tourette's Syndrome a/k/a ITS.

Thank you for understanding.

Putaro · Post by **Putaro** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:30 am

So, I was watching the Sopranos with my wife and she wanted to know if the actor who used to play Ralph (Joe Pantoliano) shaved his head for the last couple of episodes he was in (bear with me, this becomes relevant in a second). A couple of Google searches later got me here, Wikipedia's list of famous bald people

Sorry, but a list of famous bald people should be part of Wikipedia and an article on Ghastly's should not? Wikipedia is ridiculous.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:21 am

Some more odd wiki articles that would never be in a paper encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofellatio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocunnilingus

Those and, you know, individual articles on each and every day of the year. >_> Here's today! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_22

WangyJohn · Post by **WangyJohn** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:38 am

Well, since the whole deletion business is allready over, I'll just express my retrospective oppinion on this; GGC is a rather large part of the web-comic genre, not least thanks to its long run. Few clicks of 'random article' (or clicking alt+x, if you're überleetpro) will conjure an article or two far less deserving of the status of wikipedia article than GGC.

I do admit I have a slight bias. Since, eg. athletes interest me very little, but many very minor ones have their own articles, whilst internet phenomenons that are known to thousands of people (some times tens, even hundreds thousands) all over the world are scheduled for deletion, so I have a kind of hedgehog defense on these things.