General Discussion

Wikipedia's DrunkDuck article
Black_Kitty at 12:25PM, Dec. 5, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
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
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
ozoneocean at 4:51PM, Dec. 5, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
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.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Black_Kitty at 5:01PM, Dec. 5, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
marine at 5:19PM, Dec. 5, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
I like to troll wikipedia sometimes, I'll see what I can add to it to fix it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Black_Kitty at 10:18PM, Dec. 5, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
Yeah and I reversed it. :S
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Rich at 10:20PM, Dec. 5, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
Neilsama at 4:48AM, Dec. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 430
joined: 1-2-2006
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:10PM
Ronson at 6:08AM, Dec. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 7:14AM, Dec. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Ronson
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!)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Black_Kitty at 11:11AM, Dec. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Volte6 at 12:48PM, Dec. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 949
joined: 1-1-2006
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.
Black_Kitty
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:43PM
Black_Kitty at 3:00PM, Dec. 10, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
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.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved