Thread "Wikipedia's DrunkDuck article" in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 12:12PM, Dec. 5, 2006

I've been meaning to clean up and update Wikipedia's article on DrunkDuck for a long while now but I never had the time to really sit down and do it. Comixpedia recently talked about Wikipedia's increasing habit of deleting webcomic entries (the Comixpedia article was deleted and at one point, Girly was up for deletion too.) That got me thinking back to the DD article.

Unfortunately, the situation still hasn't changed for me and I don't have enough time to sit down and clean up the whole thing. What I did do though was leave a series of sources with links on the talk page in hopes of someone else coming in and doing it instead.

So if anyone wants to be that someone or they have sources they want to share, come on down! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DrunkDuck

Just don't use the place to plug your comic okay? :S

Posted at 4:12PM, Dec. 5, 2006

I occasionally do Wikipedia things…
I may have another stab at the DD entry, it's damn complicated though. I'm glad they removed the notable comics list, that was a tricky thing to have.

Posted at 5:12PM, Dec. 5, 2006

Yeah and there were people who were using it to spam. :S

I think the article itself needs some serious cleaning up. There's a combination of old information, stabs at new information, and things that just don't seem to apply anymore.

The Comixpedia.org article is even worse though. It was taken from Wikipedia before certain additions and changes were made.

Posted at 5:12PM, Dec. 5, 2006

I like to troll wikipedia sometimes, I'll see what I can add to it to fix it.

Posted at 10:12PM, Dec. 5, 2006

Yeah and I reversed it. :S

Posted at 10:12PM, Dec. 5, 2006

Good. I am not exactly fond of wikipedia vandalism. It's neither effective or very entertaining. Now if they'd have put something like NEDM on the page, THAT would have been funny.

Posted at 4:12AM, Dec. 6, 2006

I edited the Drunk Duck entry when it got bought by Platinum. I was kind of surprised that no one had done it already.

I must say, though, that I really don't understand Wiki's policy on what deserves an entry. I remember one time I was editing an article for a particular TV show (I think it might have been the Bozo Show), and then the next day it was gone; merged into a single generic entry.

On the other hand, Wiki is one of the most overbloated resources for articles dedicated to obcure video game characters. Just the other day, I came across the entry for Swanky Kong, a very obscure NPC from the Donkey Kong Country series. Why is it that Swanky Kong gets his own brief Wiki entry, but we're putting Girly up for deletion? It's just dumb.

Posted at 6:12AM, Dec. 6, 2006

I assume that there aren't that many people that run it, and it is suceptible to they're own opinion and boisterous reader feedback.

I imagine someone went on an anti-webcomic rant and since they don't care about webcomics one way or the other they're responding to it. I would imagine if someone went on an anti-gaming character rant they'd respond to that as well - unless they personally wanted to keept the articles.

Posted at 7:12AM, Dec. 6, 2006

I assume that there aren't that many people that run it, and it is suceptible to they're own opinion and boisterous reader feedback.

That's probably true, but seeing how things go there, what I think would be mostly behind it is Vanity entries: people doing writeups about themselves…
Perhaps they had a rash of self promotion and now everyone's feeling the backlash? They really hate that sort of thing there… Especially after those polititions made themselves look big. Not to mention all the minor bands and things.

Still, I think they're better off being inclusive than not. Wikipedia is great when it's a nonstop venue for knowledge of all kinds, less so when have have to add stuff yourself, and baffling when it's not there at all. :(

But yeah, self promotion by individuals on WIki is anoying. I don't even promote myself on my own userpage there. (maybe that's going too far? Naaah!)

Posted at 11:12AM, Dec. 6, 2006

The situation from what I've gleamed seems to be that you have a bunch of editors who are simply bias. They would apply the rules for some articles but on other articles they may be more flexible with. It could also simply be due to lack of knowledge.

Regardless, it was weird seeing Comixpedia deleted from Wikipedia with the reason being that it's not notable. How is Comixpedia not notable?

Anyway, at the very least I hope that the sources covers DrunkDuck's butt on this. DD was actually up for deletion at one point but it got a keep but clean up verdict instead.

Posted at 12:12PM, Dec. 6, 2006

I get the impression Comixpedia isn't as big as one would think… Call it a hunch… it's a feeling I get according to the level of community activity… but although they get a lot of promotion from various high profile places, they just don't seem to be as big as they should be…. again, all speculation.

The situation from what I've gleamed seems to be that you have a bunch of editors who are simply bias. They would apply the rules for some articles but on other articles they may be more flexible with. It could also simply be due to lack of knowledge.

Regardless, it was weird seeing Comixpedia deleted from Wikipedia with the reason being that it's not notable. How is Comixpedia not notable?

Anyway, at the very least I hope that the sources covers DrunkDuck's butt on this. DD was actually up for deletion at one point but it got a keep but clean up verdict instead.

Posted at 3:12PM, Dec. 10, 2006

The level of community activity is true…their forum isn't very active. There are threads there that are months old.

On a slightly different note, the article was vandalised again. All I'm going to say for now is that it's not too hard for me to figure out who the vandals are. I know who the last two have been.