h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've never been a fan of Wikipedia's tendency of deleting entries based on webcomics. I mean, sure, a comic genesis webcomic that's been around for only a month with maybe two sporadic updates in that time frame is definite for deletion. But when Checkerboard Nightmare was deleted a while back, I was a tad upset. If Checkerboard Nightmare wasn't a notable webcomic, then what was?

Recently, Evil Inc. at www.evil-comic.com was up for deletion. You can read about that drama later.

Shortly after it was spared by the fans with almost no time to spare, Ugly Hill was up for deletion. Since Ugly Hill and Evil Inc. are both part of the same webcomics collective at www.blanklabelcomics.com it seemed *suspiciously* like some Wiki folks were spiteful. Still, things went forward as planned. www.uglyhill.com has some of that drama recorded in the newsposts, but the end of the story is this: fans saved Ugly Hill.

Another Blank Label person then tried something. You can read all about it at www.halfpixel.com at the moment or at http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia/ when it becomes old news.

Go on. Read it. It's hilarious. And infuriating.

It's never been clearer to me that certain Wiki editors are prejudiced here. Straub can say what he wants, the guy's a freakin' webcomics genius. However: Starslip *was* notable. When fans go to meet you at your booth at the San Diego Comic Con while Dressed Up In Costumes As Your Character, then you're notable.

Sadly, I don't know how to wage war on Wiki. I could go through deleting stuff, but I'd be caught soon and my IP would be locked if I kept it up. Maybe www.qwantz.com is right whenever T-Rex suggests some new form of mass vandalism against wikipedia. Maybe it'll bring stuff like this to light.

I dunno. It's probably just mean and spiteful and wouldn't accomplish anything.

...Oh, and mind you, I don't think that all Wiki editors are this bad. I just think that the ones who get involved whenever webcomics are concerned are candidates for the award for "worst stewards of cultural knowledge" this year. Heck, they've got almost a good half decade, unnoposed, in my view.

...I'm gonna go hit a pillow or something.

You could just try taking part in the wiki process and rationally argue your case when articles you think are important are marked for deletion

Yes, yes, I see where you're coming from...as an editor, it'll be easier to run my rampages undetected...

I think Wiki (or perhaps the editors in question) is trying not to be too y, which is a shame because ery is one of Wiki's strengths. Although they like to compare themselves with the Britannica and other encyclopaedias as a repository of scientific and historical knowledge, by far the greatest space in Wikipedia must be taken up by pointless lists and articles about every single Simpson's character (something I pointed out when someone suggested the Baldrick article should be deleted).